One Story Up

One strike and you're out: public housing residents and the one-strike policy

Eugene Bailey

Eugene Bailey leaves Cook County jail after his release Monday. Photo by Jason Wambsgans of the Tribune.

There's been a lot of talk today over Eugene Bailey, a Roseland teen charged and later exonerated in the beating and death of Derrion Albert.

Bailey and his mom, Ava Grayer, were served with an "intent to terminate" notice from the Chicago Housing Authority, letting them know that Chicago Housing Authority was planning to evict them from their Section 8 apartment over the charges.

Many people were outraged. A family evicted just for someone being charged? What about due process? And why should the mother be evicted for her son's behavior?
Continue Reading...



Recent Posts


Leave a comment


Mike d said:


Again Great. I actually just commented on one of your previous posts saying residents in public housing should be held more accountable then I stumbled upon this post. Ive never heard of the one strike policy but I think its absolutely great. In noway should people receiving free housing should feel they can do whatever they want, if they want to engage in criminal activity their public housing rights should defiantly be revoked. It might seem harsh but I cant see how anyone can argue accountability.

Megan Cottrell said:


Hi Mike - I just read your previous comment, and I was about to post "you should really read this..." but you found it yourself :)

I agree that accountability is important. It's important that people living in public housing don't have to live with people who are causing trouble. My only concern is that it's used too widely. There are many cases where someone's grown child, who didn't live with them and who was not visiting them, committed a criminal offense blocks away from the public housing site, and the family was evicted. That's some tough accountability, especially when children are grown and a parent doesn't have any more control over what they do.

rhoticity said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

I actually think this is the beginning to a solution of sorts, at least if it can actually be carried out effectively (from the Invisible Institute article): "In 263 cases (37%), the family was allowed to stay on the condition that it exclude the offending party—often a child or grandchild of the leaseholder--from the family home."

anthony bozeman said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

If people don't like it then leave people need to know the taxpayers is all so paying for there stay in public housing. The one-stike rule should be enforced and maybe people will not take there stay in public housing for granted more and more people in public housing is taking the attitude of hear no and see no evil.

Two Old 2 Play said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

The problem is policy enforcement is arbitrary. I live next to a CHA resident who has been convicted of stealing from me and has a case file gooing back to 2000! She continues to live next to me and all we hear is that the CHA is afraid of Legal Aid and won't pursue. I bet you the Legal Aid people would have a different view if they lived with them. Every CHA resident is not a criminal. By the same token, they're not all innocent. Looks like I've got to take matters into my own hands and punish this clown...

Leave a Comment?

Some HTML is permitted: a, strong, em

What your comment will look like:


what will you say?

Most Active Pages Right Now on Facebook