Released on = June 20, 2006, 7:53 pm

Press Release Author = Keith Gormezano

Industry = Law

Press Release Summary = Judge Suzanne Barnett, a King County Superior Court judge
ruled on April 28, 2006 that the Seattle Housing Authority cannot prohibit tenants
from posting posters, messages, notices or signs on the outside of their apartment
doors. Housing Authority officials appealed the decision in May. Tenant advocates
say that the case could be a national precedent for free speech in public housing.


Press Release Body = The ruling came after the Resident Action Council (RAC), an
elected group of SHA high rise residents that represents SHA's more than 15,000
tenants filed suit last December against the Housing Authority on the grounds that
the new rule infringed on their First Amendment rights.

The sign rule was part of an addendum to tenants' lease agreements that went into
effect on December 1, 2005. The Housing Authority has not been enforcing the rule.
In September, after tenants raised objections, the agency dropped an earlier version
of the rule that would have also prohibited signs in windows.

"The legal issue was whether a tenant has a possessory right to the outside of the
door," said SHA spokeswoman Virginia Felton, quoted in the May 10, 2006 issue of
Real Change News.

Northwest Justice Project attorney Eric Dunn, who represented the Resident Action
Council, pointed to a Massachusetts ruling that held that a door was part of an
apartment. Northwest Justice Project is a nonprofit organization that provides free
civil legal services to low-income people.

\"I feel good about the court's decision,\" said Rick Harrison, the Cedervale building
tenant who spearheaded the case quoted in the June 2006 issue of The Voice, a
monthly newspaper which provides news and information of interest to low-income
individuals and residents of Seattle and King County public housing. \"I think we
proved our point that we have a right to free speech.\"

But Housing Authority General Counsel James Fearn disagreed with Judge Suzanne
Barnett's ruling, saying he thought that she based it on sentiment. \"I don't think
we really got a decision on the law,\" he said.

In granting the Resident Action Council's motion for summary judgment, Barnett noted
that when landlords sign a lease with residents, they give up some of their rights
associated with property ownership.

A summary judgment is rendered by the court prior to a verdict because no material
issue of fact exists and one party or the other is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law. Traditionally, trial court judges are seldom overturned by appeal
courts.

Just as they pass their \"right of possession\" of the apartment to the tenant, in her
estimation they also pass on the \"right of possession\" to the door, Barnett said.

\"Certainly in our society front doors are symbolic,\" she added. \"People celebrate
the first set of keys to their new home; they carry their bride across the
threshold.... All of this indicates that we think in our society of the door as an
integral part of the home.\"

Former apartment and property manager and Seattle University law school alumnus
Keith Gormezano agreed with the Judge\'s decision as well.

"It has always been considered the industry trade standard that apartment doors
belongs to the tenants. People hang wreaths (on their doors) around the holidays,
decorations, and other personal items. In one SHA building I have visited, tenants
have posted notices addressed to SHA employees telling them not to enter without the
tenant being present. Some post birthday cards and party invitations on their
neighbor's doors. In my case, I have a corn cob reflecting my Hispanic heritage on
my door while my woman friend has a mezuzah (a Jewish religious icon) on her
doorframe. If you ban signs, SHA would have the right to ban all these items as
well."

The United States Supreme Court has upheld the right of housing authorities to
restrict speech in the hallways and common areas of their buildings. Those areas
are considered public property, which is subject to a legal analysis that allows for
speech restrictions in places that are not traditional forums for expression.

SHA spokesperson Virginia Felton quoted in the December 21, 2005 issue of Real
Change News says the agency doesn't want clutter in its common areas - an important
phrase that the judge had to define in the case.

But Gormezano says that is hogwash. "In the building I frequently am in, there are
three duplicate signs posted next to each other by management. One reminds tenants
and visitors not to smoke, the second to shut the front door and not let in
strangers or other resident's visitors, and the third is for the date of the next
fire alarm test. Maybe they ought to walk the talk first. If there is any visual
clutter, it usually caused by the agency."

In the lawsuit, attorney Eric Dunn of the Northwest Justice Project argued that
tenancies include the front door - and that government can't take away rights for
the sake of aesthetics.

At issue in this case is whether front doors are part of the hallways, and therefore
public property, or part of the apartments.

Fearn argued that because the lease is silent on who possesses the doors, the
Housing Authority's responsibility and liability for the doors should compel the
court to consider them as part of the hallway.

Gormezano disagreed noting that "The entry door to the apartment is mentioned in the
damage check-in list that SHA signs with their tenants which means that a tenant
would be responsible for damage to it. If the outside of the apartment door is in
the common area, then why are tenants responsible for it? If a tenant were to
sustain a break-in, they would be the one filing criminal charges and insurance
reimbursement for the door, not the landlord."

"Even SHA as a landlord gives notices to individual tenants by taping them to the
tenant's apartment door which would indicate that they do not see the outside of the
door as the common area. If they did, such notices could be seen as an invasion of
tenant privacy."

"This decision is important," Gormezano commented because "because unlike the
private sector, if you don\'t like the way your public housing management is treating
you, you don\'t have other alternatives to move to instead. The supply of public
housing is extremely limited. People live in public housing as a matter of economic
and financial necessity and because they have to. It isn't the same as private
housing where you can buy or build your own house or move to a unit managed by a
property owner who supports free speech."

"Unfortunately," he said "by appealing the ruling, the Housing Authority is wasting
financial and legal resources that could be used instead to benefit their tenants."

-30-

Web Site = http://groups.yahoo.com/group/searaccouncil

Contact Details = 6561 Phinney Ave N #217
Seattle, WA 98103-5255
(206) 789-8328
(206) 350-2347 fax
bb822@scn.org or keithgormezano@hotmail.com