Posted by magoo on March 7, 2008 at 12:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

These ladies better be careful of what they wish for.

Posted by Lenny on March 7, 2008 at 1:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You break the rules you have to go... Why is this simple concept so hard to understand? When you screwed up as a kid you got punished, same thing as an adult. Sure it's worse than a time out or being grounded but hey you are an adult now...
Oh, wait that's right personal responsibility and responsibility for raising your children have flown out the window these days. Just watch people will attack this post for not understanding the plight of the mothers.

Posted by ForPnC on March 7, 2008 at 3:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"personal responsibility and responsibility for raising your children have flown out the window these days."

You hit the nail on the head, Lenny.

Posted by ColdBeer on March 7, 2008 at 5:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It sounds as if they've already decided to let one family stay. When you have rules, they have to apply to everyone or the rule is no good. All of the families should be evicted.

Posted by mac0cm4 on March 7, 2008 at 6:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How much of the taxpayers money are they going to let these clowns waste? Move out already...

Posted by karmann on March 7, 2008 at 7:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How can this qualify for a jury trial when this is a lease violation and not a criminal violation. Again, these individuals signed a lease, a binding contract. Why is Jesse Jackson willing to bend the rules. Of course, maybe bending the rules to suit an issue, even though it is wrong, maybe okay with him. Maybe Jesse Jackson needs to mount a nationwide organization to fight the banks and mortgage companies that want to forclose on someone's propery for not paying their monthly mortgage. After all, if we are no longer going to hold people accountable for their responsibilities, why stop with just a couple of evictions.

Posted by nty05 on March 7, 2008 at 7:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So, let me get this straight...
-WE, the taxpayers, are already paying for the housing they are living in
-If they qualify for subsidized housing, they most likely qualify for other benefits (i.e. Medicaid, food stamps, etc.) that WE are paying for
-WE are paying for all of the expenses from THEIR children's criminal actions (i.e. Department of Juvenile Justice)
-WE are paying for their children's education
-And, now WE are supposed to pay for THEIR opportunity to have a jury trial because of what THEIR children did

That certainly sounds fair!

Posted by MIAMIHEAT on March 7, 2008 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There should be no discussions on this issue. These ladies knew the conditions imposed upon them when their lease was signed. As parents they have an obligation to control their children. They failed to meet those obligations and must now suffer the consequences.

Posted by jca on March 7, 2008 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

these stupid women are trying to play the race and pity cards and are hoping the jury will go for. i want in on this jury these stupid women will be out by monday

Posted by grannyofsix on March 7, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Rules are rules we have to abide by them at all times and not when it suits us. Maybe **NOW** Mom will show some disipline and say here is what your stupid a** caused us. We now have lost a free home to live in. Now I have to get a job and pay for housing. We had it goo till you screwed up.
Just a thought on my part

Posted by greyrider on March 7, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Entitlementitis - America's newest and most frustrating disease. Next we'll hear there is a "right to an apartment clause" somewhere in the Constitution. The one thing that does bother me here is that the fathers aren't also paying a price.

Posted by bribetaker on March 7, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OJ gave hope to guilty people everywhere. If they get a jury trial, I say they have better than a 50/50 chance of winning. Don't agree with it, just saying.....

Posted by southerner on March 7, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I did not know this was a retirement center, I thought the housing was for people that just needed a place to live until they got on their feet. I wonder if they think we should support them from cradle to grave. Why did they not put these people on the street last year, is someone afraid they will loose a few votes? Just like government, spend as much tax payers money as they want on something stupid like this.
Bottom line, ENOUGH is ENOUGH, put them out.

LINDSEY GRAHAM
ELIMINATE
IN 08

Posted by Perspective on March 7, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What is really funny is that in the interim these mothers actually have to pretend to do parenting and have to make sure their kids are not robbing anyone. I bet at least one of their kids gets locked up before the jury trial takes place.

What a novel idea for these mothers! "Parenting" rather than "partying". Some of the letters are the same, but they are two different words. Look them up.

Posted by Larz13 on March 7, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't let the door hit ya where the Lord split ya!

Posted by sherlock on March 7, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree that low income housing is for those people/families that just need a little assistance until they can pull themselves up and out of a bad situation. I lived in low income housing for about three years BUT while I did, I improved my lifes situation. I collected food stamps and a utility check and medicaid benefits and so I am VERY thankful that the government was there to ASSIST me until I was able to pull myself out of a bad situation. For most of these residents, living off of the government is a way of life and they do not know any better. Sometimes they do not even want to try to have a better way of life and most certainly do not want to held accountable for their actions or the actions of their children. These women do deserve to be heard but in the end, they broke the contract that they signed. Of course they could claim that their lack of education prevented them from really understanding what it was that they were signing and agreeing to do.

Posted by forget on March 7, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you look up Ms. Clinton's past with the court, this isn't the first time she faced eviction at Gadsden. This seems to be an on going thing between them and her since she moved in ( or about there ). This just seems like the last straw. Let someone else down on their luck move in.
Maybe this will be a wake up call for alot of the others living there to get thei lives and their children's under control; if they can anymore.

Posted by wpc3iop on March 7, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh boy! Rainbow Jesse is getting involved...why doesn't he get involved in trying to teach young people about respecting and obeying the law? Before this is all over I'm sure Reverend Al will also be here to tell us how to run our business in SC...these people broke the terms of their lease...THROW THEM OUT!

Posted by wheels2u666 on March 7, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

well i say give them a trial, but ensure they put up the money first for, the court costs, the jury costs, the cost for the city attorney who will argue for the housing authority and then fine them when and if they lose, no doubt their attorney (whose paying him) will pick a jury of "their peers" to try and exonerate them... I sure hope their kids have learned a lesson on this, id love to see a time capusle on their kids future criminal activity..

Posted by highclass on March 7, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I would love to be on this jury. I would have these "mothers" out so quick. It is an open and shut case. By the way how can they afford an attorney and not rent.

Posted by ashleyriver on March 7, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Housing Authority has a responsibility to EVERY person staying in this complex to keep the environment resonably safe and livable...I assume this is the reason for the clause in their lease---making sure residents are not being unduly endangered by exposure to a criminal element. I do not believe that clause to be unreasonable. The safety of all the inhabitants should be of primary concern.

If these folks have violated the terms of the lease they signed, the Housing Authority has not only the right, but the responsibility to evict.

Posted by ColdBeer on March 7, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Presto, from what I've read, I think you're incorrect. I think the terms of the lease state that if someone in your family is in trouble with the law, you are to be evicted. I don't think it allows for a case by case judgement. I might be wrong. I'm only going off of what I've read in the paper. Do you know more than what's been put out here?

A jury trial in a court of law is not an option here. I think what the women are asking for is more of a town hall meeting, a "mock trial" with other Gadsen Green residents acting as a jury. Unless criminal or civil charges are brought against someone, a legal trial would not take place. The women being evicted could file a civil suit I guess, but then they would not be the ones on trial, the city would. Of course, what better way to waste tax payer money.

Posted by grannyofsix on March 7, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

the more they can tie this up in court the longer they get to stay. and it could be years the state should put them out now.and **IF** they win the case then reinstate them Why should we the REAL tax PAyers pay thier rent and the court cost. also if they lose then they should have to pay **ALL** court cost Just my thoughts

Posted by eyfigueroa on March 7, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Entitlementitis

my new scrabble word!

Posted by mominthesouth on March 7, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do not understand why these women say they are being thrown out in the streets. It wasn't long ago that I read that the "father" or "fathers" of these children are still around. Why can't they take some responsibility and take the children or at the least provide shelter for the families. Maybe compassion is not an understood word in these fathers vocabulary.
As far as a jury trial, we are footing the bill once again.

Posted by Two_Sheds on March 7, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If I'm not mistaken, this same thing can happen in government housing on military bases: the kids commit a major crime or otherwise wreak havoc, and the entire family can lose their base housing priveleges. Sure, the military member doesn't condone what his/her kid did, but it still won't stop them from getting evicted. Am I correct on this?

Posted by forget on March 7, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As a former miltary brat, you are right on. My father was no nonsence, and he made that plain as day. We received that lecture as early as elementary school. We never made any trouble at school, as that was in the center of the housing area. Couldn't take THAT chance and make our family homeless! No, we had the fear put into us. Kinda still have it today.....even today kinda afraid to disobey even the HOA!

Posted by KidYendor on March 7, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please go to the SC EBT web site to see the new multi-color photo design of the formerly solid green SC EBT card that stuck out like a sore thumb. I saw a girl use her WIC voucher and then her new SC EBT card last night. She was having problems using it and after a delay she got her welfare food. I asked the clerk what kind of card was that? She said it was a newly designed EBT. Clerks get sick of freeloaders and are usually friendly in telling you when a freeloader used a voucher or EBT card when holding up the line in front of you. Clerks will also give you totals on welfare sales and race percentages per shift. One Gadsden Green girl was on WTMA today at 2:45 pm. She said she was not on welfare with seven kids, but living in Gadsden Green and having EBT. The host then explained to her she was on welfare but she denied it still, not knowing what welfare is. These people are on welfare and they don't know what it is because that is the lifestyle they have always known. We need to elect people who will stop the government cheese so the rest of us can buy $4 gas come summer.

Posted by COFC2007 on March 7, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

These women have to go period the end. First of all these women live in public housing which means that they are there temporary and the housing authority have the right to put them out even if they were not doing anything at all. Second these women should have done a better job raising their children or take them off the lease to fend for themselves. Third the jury is going to take the side of the housing authority and say that they broke the rules. Finally why is Jessie Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition is getting involved waste of time to me.

Posted by COFC2007 on March 7, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Kid Yendor do not agree with it but well spoken

Posted by COFC2007 on March 7, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey everyone let make baby, applied for welfare, and food stamps because goddamn i wonder my tax dollars should come back to me wow.

Posted by Mon_Kie on March 7, 2008 at 8 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There has been a similar case brought up
before the Suprime Court:

The case arose out of the 1998 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which, among other things, required public housing agencies to use leases that allow for eviction of tenants if the tenant, tenant's family member, or guest engaged in drug-related crimes. The Oakland Housing Authority enforced the measure with vigor, moving to evict:

Lead plaintiff Pearlie Rucker, 64, her mentally disabled teenage daughter, two grandchildren, and a great-grandchild, because the daughter possessed cocaine three blocks from the apartment.
Willie Lee, 72, and Barbara Hill, 64, because their grandsons, who lived in the unit, were caught smoking marijuana in the parking lot.
Herman Walker, 76, a disabled man ordered out of his home of 10 years after his caretaker and two guests were caught with cocaine in the apartment.

The plaintiffs sued to block their evictions and the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in their favor, calling a law that threw innocent tenants out onto the street "absurd."
The 9th Circuit argued that to avoid constitutional problems, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act must be interpreted to bar the eviction of innocent tenants without proof of individualized wrongdoing.

The Supreme Court disagreed. "It is not absurd that a local housing authority may sometimes evict a tenant who had no knowledge of drug-related activity," wrote Chief Justice William Rehnquist for the court.

In its ruling, the court assiduously avoided the constitutional snares thrown up by the 9th Circuit, instead taking a crabbed view of the case as a lesson in landlord-tenant law.

"The government is not attempting to criminally punish or civilly regulate respondants [the tenants] as members of the general populace," wrote Rehnquist. "It is instead acting as the landlord of a property it owns, invoking a clause in a lease" that tenants have signed.

There is no constitutional issue, Rehnquist wrote.

Posted by southerner on March 8, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Where are the father's of these children? What needs to happen is the state needs to enforce the law on child support. If they don't pay they go to jail, as long as there is no penalty on non support they will continue to drop kids by the dozen's. It's been this way since 1964 when Johnson and the congress passed the great welfare bill, and put every no load on early retirement, they were raised that way and they don't want it to end. I can't understand how a group of people can be like this, don't they have any respect for themselves? No ambition, just want to live off the backs of tax payers and live in filth. I feel no compassion at all for them, they don't know who the fathers are and they don't really care as long as someone supports them.
I heard that jesse jackson says that Father's Day discriminates against the blacks and he wants them to have a WHO'S THE DADDY DAY.