question: In what way might Congress' intent to keep public housing safe, be mismanaged by those in charge of the housing complexes? answer: They gave landlords too much power paragraph: As a husband, father and tenant of a Grand Rapids public housing complex, Aubrey Robertson puts security at the top of his home priority list. Because of that, Robertson is all for a zero-tolerance drug law in force at Creston Plaza apartments on Grand Rapids' Northeast Side. That includes cases in which families may be evicted for the drug use of a single family member, even off the premises. Robertson sees it as a tool to keep his complex as clean and safe as possible. "If there's one person (using drugs), that is a start," said Robertson, 52, a native of Jamaica. He has lived the past four years at Creston Plaza with his wife, Tammy, and his daughter, Precious, 3. In recent months, Robertson was pleased to see casual drug use at the complex diminish with the installation of security cameras. "If there is a start, then there will be some other problem. I totally agree (if there is a drug link), get them out." Critics say the law -- argued Tuesday before the U.S. Supreme Court -- tramples on individual rights and harms the very people public housing authorities are supposed to help. "It's basically one strike and you're out, and I think they went beyond what Congress intended," said Michael Chielens, executive director of Western Michigan Legal Services. "Someone who had no knowledge or involvement in a criminal act is being punished. That's kind of a basic due process notion that we have had in our legal tradition for a long time." The case was brought by four Oakland, Calif., senior citizens, including 63-year-old great-grandmother Pearlie Rucker. They received eviction notices because of the drug use of relatives or caregivers. Rucker was ordered out because her mentally disabled daughter was caught with cocaine three blocks from the apartment she shared with her mother and other family members, court records show. An appeals court blocked enforcement of the law. At issue is whether housing directors are being more aggressive than Congress intended. 