Tenants react to trespassing policy as hearing nears

David Pomerantz

Residents of Boston’s public housing developments are sifting through the language of the Boston Housing Authority’s proposed no-trespassing policy in an effort to express their concerns — or lack thereof — as a public hearing on the policy approaches.

The new policy proposal has drummed up controversy in recent weeks, as civil and tenant rights advocates have claimed that it would needlessly criminalize youths and violate tenants’ rights.

According to a draft of the proposed policy, individuals “without legitimate business on BHA property are subject to barment from BHA property” if they are stopped and given a “no-trespass notice” by “a BHA development manager, his or her designee, or a constable, or a member of the BHA Police Department” all of whom are authorized to issue a no-trespassing order.

The main change from the current policy is that alleged trespassers would now be allowed to appeal their no-trespass notice. That appeal would be decided by the BHA Chief of Police, a fact that has rankled tenant rights leaders.

The BHA has defended the policy, arguing that it “is no more harsh than what we had before,” according to BHA spokeswoman Lydia Agro.

“It gives people more due process than existed with the policy before, based on concerns that we heard from our residents,” Agro told the Banner last week.

The policy is under public debate until April 30, when City Councilor Chuck Turner will hold a hearing to discuss its merits.

Tenants are taking the interlude to vocalize their thoughts on the policy, with several coming to the defense of the BHA.

“It is important to understand that the BHA’s No Trespass Policy is designed to protect the vast majority of law-abiding residents and families from non-residents who commit crimes and disturb the quiet enjoyment in our communities. Our residents deserve to feel safe and secure in their homes,” Sandy Ortiz wrote in a letter to the Banner that argued on behalf of the proposed policy.

Ortiz is the chairwoman of the Orient Heights Neighborhood Organization in East Boston. The BHA provided her letter to the Banner.

Stephen Laverty also expressed the need for a strong no-trespassing order in a letter to the Banner. Laverty is an elected member of the resident advisory board, member of the Tenant Task Force and co-chair of the public safety committee at the St. Botolph Street development for the elderly and disabled in Back Bay.

“The Boston Housing Authority must have some ability to deal with the individuals who represent a clear danger to the health and safety of the residents, both in their housing developments and the surrounding communities,” Laverty said. “I believe that without a strong policy in place, given the BHA’s limited resources, that nothing will change.”

“The residents I represent want to ensure that the final version of the no-trespass policy, while it should be fair and balanced, must have the teeth necessary to get the job done!” Laverty said.

Some tenants even say that the policy does not go far enough. In another letter provided to the Banner by the BHA, Georgia Schipani, the president of a tenants’ task force at the Heritage Development for the elderly and disabled, which is also in East Boston, wrote a letter to the BHA that expressed concern that some of the policy’s language does not go far enough.

Referencing a line in the policy that allows individuals with no-trespassing notices to return to BHA property if they are invited by a resident, Schipani wrote, “This segment seems to negate all of the good that a no-trespass notice can accomplish. If a person who has been issued a no-trespass notice can violate it with a simple invitation from another resident, there is very little to support that order, and the safety and well-being of other residents can be in jeopardy.”

Other residents, however, are also parsing through the language in the proposed policy, and are finding very different reasons for concern.

Mae Bradley, the executive director of the Committee for Boston Public Housing, met with approximately 15 residents last week on Terrace Street near Roxbury Crossing. She said that the group went through the policy line by line.

Bradley said that most residents did not take issue with having a no-trespass policy, but that several concerns with the policy were raised.

One is that a no-trespass order can be given orally, which could present a problem for individuals who do not speak English.

Another main concern was that a BHA employee or police officer could ask an individual for identification. Bradley said that residents were worried that children and teenagers who did not yet have drivers’ licenses would have no viable response, even if they had good reason to be on the property.

“Everybody had different pieces that they were comfortable with and concerned [with], but most were concerned with the ID part, and that the policy was saying ‘legitimate purpose,’” said Bradley. “Define a legitimate purpose. You’re coming to see somebody, is that legitimate enough for the BHA?”