[103] in libertarians
Suit for Speaking Out?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vernon Imrich)
Tue Aug 2 10:03:15 1994
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 94 09:52:57 -0400
From: vimrich@flying-cloud.mit.edu (Vernon Imrich)
To: safe@MIT.EDU
Cc: libertarians@MIT.EDU
Forwarded message:
> The following is a news story that you may read for yourself in the NEW
> YORK TIMES, National edition, Sunday, July 31, 1994, p. 13 in the A sect.
>
> U.S. May Sue Foes of Plan for the Homeless
>
BERKELEY, Calif., July 30 -- Alexandra White did not want the Bel Air
Motel a seedy flophouse behind her house, converted into rooms for the
homeless.
So she complained, at meetings, in a newsletter and in a lawsuit she filed,
detailing her worries that more drug users and mentally ill people would be in
the neighborhood. Ms. White lost her battle and the conversion will soon
begin. But now she finds herself in yet another fight, this time with the
Federal Government.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development is investigating
whether Ms White, her husband, Joseph Deringer, and a neighbor, Richard
Graham, violated the Federal Fair Housing Act in their campaign to stop
the project. It could sue them, and conviction carries a $10,000 fine
plus restitution of money their illegality activity [sic] might cost.
Ms. White says the agency is trying to punish her for merely speaking
against the project. "Where does speech stop and violating rights
begin?" asked Ms. White, a part-time office clerk. "I'm going to be
damed if I'll give up my rights to speak."
While it is more common for the housing department to investigate landlords
and city boards, Ms. White is one of a growing number of private citizens who
have become the objects of fair-housing complaints in the last year, said
department officials in Washington. And lawyers specializing in
housing issues say HUD has become more aggressive in investigating
complaints against neighbors of proposed projects.
More recently, HUD used the Fair Housing Act against an avowed white
supremacist who taunted and threatened a black resident in Vidor, Tex. An
administrative law judge ordered the racist to ay more than $300,000 for
emotional distress as well as $10,000 for discriminatory housing practices.
Ms. White saqid she had no intention of violating the law, which also
prohibits housing discrimination against people with disabilities, including
those with mental illness or histories of drug abuse. But is it against the
law, she asked, for neighbors to speak out against what she described as an
ill-conceived, expensive project that would bring troubled people to a
neighborhood already struggling with urban problems. [sic]
John J. Phillips, a spokesman for HUD's San Francisco office, would not
comment directly on the case, but he said there was a thin line between
speech and conduct.
"What's the difference between you saying the words that advocate for the
door to be slammed in the face and the big ugly landlord slamming the door in
the face?" Mr. Phillips asked. "When you put mental handicap and substance
abuse in there, it seems to get fuzzier."
The complaint against Ms. White was filed in November by Marianne Lawless
[sic], executive directory of Housing Rights Inc., a housing advocacy group.
Ms. Lawless said she became alarmed when she received a pamphlet, bearing Ms.
White's name and phone number, that criticized the project. Ms. White
says she was not the author of the flier.
Federal investigators asked for every article, flier and letter to
the editor that Ms. White, Mr. Deringer and Mr. Graham had written about
the Bel Air, as well as minutes from any meeting they have spoken at,
said David Bryden, their lawyer.
Adding to consternation of some, City Attorney Manuela Albuquerque recently
wrote residents involved in another dispute to warn them that their
activities could involve them in a fair-housing complaint.
Ann Brick, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern
California, called the HUD investigation disturbing. "There's a big
difference between the HUD going after a government body denying permits
and going after citizens complaining about a project," Ms. Brick said.
"We may not find their opposition admirable, but it's a fundamental
right of citizens to make their views known."
THE END
[No byline given.]
