City Council holds hearing on trespassing controversy

David Pomerantz

The Boston City Council held a long and tense hearing Monday in an effort to learn the reaction of public housing residents to a controversial trespassing policy proposed by the Boston Housing Authority (BHA).

The general answer the council received was that most everyone wants a policy that keeps them safe without infringing on their rights. But tenant leaders and housing advocates disagreed sharply on the details of such a policy.

The controversy comes at a time when violence in Boston is on the rise, with much of it occurring in or near public housing developments. There have been 19 murders in the city in 2007, compared with 14 at this time last year.

At the same time, sharp cuts in federal housing funds have forced the city to pay $2.2 million just to keep the BHA’s police force afloat through this September. As it is now, there are only 26 BHA police officers for 64 public housing developments in Boston that house 26,000 residents.

The new trespassing policy was first proposed on March 12 and, since that time, has sparked both criticism and approval from tenants and their representatives.

The major departure from the BHA’s previous policy is a new section that allows for individuals who have received a “no-trespass notice” to file for an internal review of the notice with the BHA Department of Public Safety.

The BHA’s chief of police, Stephen Melia, would then have final say over whether or not to withdraw the notice.

That change was added as a response to criticism that children of tenants had been improperly issued no-trespass notices, particularly at the Bromley-Heath housing development in Jamaica Plain.

The nature of the appeal process, however, has drawn the ire of critics like Lisa Thurau-Gray, the attorney from the Juvenile Justice Center at Suffolk University who first approached Councilor Chuck Turner to request a hearing on the matter. Thurau-Gray says that the proposed appeal process would give the BHA police the power of “judge, jury, and executioner.”

The City Council’s Housing Committee heard testimony from BHA administrators, policemen, tenant leaders both opposed to and in favor of the policy, advocates like Thurau-Gray, and a dozen or so public housing residents who waited over four hours at the hearing to speak their mind.

Bill McGonagle, deputy administrator of the BHA, said that the trespassing policy is of “critical importance.”

“I have the utmost confidence in the policy’s legality, importance and usefulness to keep residents safe,” McGonagle said.

In a PowerPoint presentation, BHA police chief Melia argued that the policy is designed to target criminals, not innocent residents or their guests.”

“In most instances, it is abundantly clear why a particular non-resident was issued a trespass notice — for example, as a result of a firearm or violent incident arrest,” Melia said. “However, it is equally important to send a message that any conduct which negatively impacts the quality of life for our residents will not be tolerated. It is widely established in problem-oriented community policing concepts that if important quality-of-life issues are not quickly addressed, conditions within a community will quickly deteriorate.”

Melia offered a series of statistics that he said proved that most trespassing offenders are, in fact, dangerous criminals.

Of 382 individuals given trespassing notices for congregating or loitering, the BHA took a random sample of 38, and found that 90 percent had criminal records and 76 percent were convicted felons.

Of 147 individuals given notice for disturbing the peace, a random sample of 20 found a similar ratio.

Responding to a question from Turner about how officers would recognize criminals from innocent non-residents, McGonagle said, “There’s something of a reasonable persons test.”

“If they’re clearly en route to visit a relative, it’s no problem,” McGonagle explained. “If they’re three blocks away [from where they claim to be going and] … in a hallway smoking dope, it’s another matter.”

Melia also combated Thurau-Gray’s claim that the policy “criminalized youth,” saying that of nearly 1,600 no-trespass notices given in the past four years, only 124, or 7.2 percent, were given to individuals under the age of 18.

Still, critics had their qualms with the policy.

The main concerns expressed were that a no-trespass notice could be given orally, which would pose a problem for individuals who did not speak English; that police officers could ask individuals to produce identification, which young people and some immigrants might not have; that development managers could designate other people who are not police officers to give notices; and that the review of appeals should be undertaken by a panel, not than just Melia.

“It says that any visitor must have identification. How about for youths that look like they’re 19, but are really 14 and don’t have ID?” said Mae Bradley, executive director of the Committee for Boston Public Housing and a critic of the policy.

“This could scare away visitors who may be illegal immigrants or just immigrants who don’t understand English,” Bradley continued.

Leo Murphy, a resident of the Spring Street Development in West Roxbury for the elderly and disabled, took issue with the appeals process.

“This is unacceptable. It’s our housing. We should decide,” Murphy said. “I thank the BHA for its interest, which we believe is to create a safe environment — but do not do something in my name while keeping me out of the room.”

The policy also had its supporters among tenant leaders. Lacretia Green, president of the Old Colony Task Force in South Boston, said that Old Colony has over 800 units, 86 hallways and 11 tunnels that are plagued by crime.

“In every hallway and tunnel there is [drug] paraphernalia, needles and human waste,” Green said.

Stephen Laverty, a member of the task force at the St. Botolph development on the border of Back Bay and the South End, is one of the policy’s most vocal supporters.

“Violence in the housing developments has reached a point where it’s out of control,” Laverty said at the hearing, adding that he has been a victim of violent crime.

“Whatever comes out in the final analysis, the policy must be a tough one,” Laverty said in a later interview. “The paranoia that was spread by some of the lawyers [opposed to the policy] was unfounded and uncalled for.”

McGonagle said the BHA would work to address residents’ worries, but that it had no answers yet for the language or identification concerns.

In an interview after the hearing, McGonagle said that the BHA had received “some very thoughtful and reasonable comments.”

“If you listen close, there’s a lot of common ground. I didn’t hear anyone say there shouldn’t be a no-trespassing policy,” he said. “But the devil’s in the details.”

He said that the BHA was already trying to make the appeals process more inclusive, but that he feared doing anything that would mean greater expenses during a time of dwindling resources.

The current no-trespass policy will remain in effect as long as debate continues, McGonagle said after the hearing.