![2
The updatedsupplemental memorandumthatIsubmittoyoutoday discusses,inpart,the
Township’s Mt.Laurel arguable “presentneed”fairshare obligationof 547 unitsof affordable housing
through2025 for Bloomfield lowandmoderate income residentscurrentlylivingin“deficient”housing
conditions;i.e.,overcrowded,lackingplumbingorkitchenfacilities. (Forthe legal andplanningcontext
on this,see the attachedstudybyDr. DavidN. Kinsey,pp.5-7,APPENDIXA,here,revisedinJuly2015,
on what“presentneed”meansandhisstudy’sattachedAppendix A (APPENDIXB,here).
The bottom line isthatthissupplemental memorandumpresentsdata,1
housingtrends (first
Memorandum, PARTSI & II,pp. 4-15) and legal analysisthatstrengthensthe argument thatthere isa
1 See for instance,recent articles and studies thatappeared after my original memorandum: “More Young
Women Waitingto Leave Home, Analysis of Census Data Suggests,” by Tamar Lewin, NY Times, p. 20 (Nov. 12,
2015) which reports on a PEW Research Center study (“[R]ents in some cities havebecome so high as to be
unmanageablefor many young adults,especially thosewith heavy student debt.”)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/us/more-young-women-waiting-to-leave-home.html?_r=0 . See PEW
study itself,Nov. 11, 2015: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/11/record-share-of-young-women-
are-living-with-their-parents-relatives/
See also,articleby MaryAnn Spoto, Newark Star-Ledger (NJ.com) entitled “Record number of N.J. residents living
in poverty, study says”(Nov. 12,2015) reportingon 2015 study conducted by Legal Service's Poverty Research
Institute, http://www.lsnj.org/PDFs/Benchmarks2015.pdf ("’The urgency to act is great, becausethe study
confirms that despite significantjob and economic recovery sincethe end of the Great Recession in 2009,poverty
in the Garden State has stubbornly remained at record levels not seen in 50 years,’[Melville] Miller said.”)
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/11/record_number_of_nj_residents_in_poverty_study_fin.html . See
also editorial in Opinion page,p. 20, of Newark Star-Ledger entitled “Finally, a real calculation of poverty in N.J.”
(Nov. 19, 2015)(“Our poverty rate is actually closer to 30 percent, as 2.8 million of our neighbors —including
800,000 children—can beclassified as poor.”)
See also,study, “Out of Reach: Low Wages & High Rents Lock Renters Out,” National Low Income Housing
Coalition (2015),pp.150-151(“In New Jersey [the 5th highest rental cost in the nation,after N.Y.], the Fair Market
Rent (FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment is $1,309.In order to afford this level of rent and uti lities — without
payingmore than 30% of income on housing — a household must earn $4,362 monthly or $52,347 annually.
Assuminga 40-hour work week, 52 weeks per year, this level of income translates into an hourly HousingWageof
$25.17.” For Essex County, the amount ($24.40) is slightly under the state average. Compare Essex Co. to all of
N.J. and to national averages. Essex Co. has 54%renter households compared to 34% for N.J. as a whole. For N.J.
data and national data,respectively,see http://nlihc.org/oor/new-jersey &
http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/OOR_2015_FULL.pdf .
See also,“America’s Rental Housing: ExpandingOptions for Diverse and Growing Demand,” (“Key Facts”), Joint
Center for HousingStudies of Harvard University (2015),p.3 (“Nearly half (49.3 percent) of all renter households
[in U.S.] spent more than 30% of income on housingin 2014,includingmore than one-quarter (26.4 percent)
devoted more than half of income to housing.) This national data is slightly lower than the Twp’s 2014 ConPlan,p.
16, which states that Bloomfield tenant households paid 51.1%of their adjusted gross incomefor rent and utilities
accordingto 2006-2008 estimates. See footnote 15, here. The “Key Facts” areat:
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/2015_jchs_rental_report_key_facts.pdf . See entire 44-
pp. report, especially TableA-6,p. 43, on New Jersey statistics, at:
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/appendix_tables_from_americas_rental_housing_2015_
web.pdf
See full 2015 update table of contents, “The State of the Nation’s Housing”:
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/research/state_nations_housing]()
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à Blfd - rc - SUPPLEMENTAL PPM to Blfd. Twp 04-25-2016 (Autosaved)
Similaire à Blfd - rc - SUPPLEMENTAL PPM to Blfd. Twp 04-25-2016 (Autosaved) (20)
Blfd - rc - SUPPLEMENTAL PPM to Blfd. Twp 04-25-2016 (Autosaved)
- 1. 1 UPDATED PUBLIC POLICY MEMORANDUM Date: April 25, 2016 To: The Honorable Michael Venezia, Mayor, Township of Bloomfield, N.J. and Dr. Wartyna Davis, Chair of Council Rent Control Study Committee Copy: Corporation Counsel, Michael J. Parlavecchio, Esq. From: Stephen V. St. Hilaire, homeowner, 11 HawthorneAve., Bloomfield, N.J. _______________________________________________________________ Introduction Thissupplemental update issubmittedtothe Council asa resultof Corporation Counsel Michael Parlavecchio’sinvitationtothe publicatthe Twp. Council’sApril 18,2016 meeting. Thisisa supplemental update tomyMarch 26, 2015 “PublicPolicyMemorandum –RentControl”whichI submittedtothe Mayor, Council,TownshipAttorney, andDirectorof CommunityDevelopment. I presentthisas a homeownerandnotin a representative capacityforanyindividual,groupor organization. The March 26, 2015 memorandumpresented demographicdata,housingtrends,and state and federal legal argumentsforthe Townshiptoconsiderinenactingarentcontrol ordinance whichwouldbe protective of vulnerable renterhouseholds. AfterI submitted the PublicPolicyMemorandum tothe Township onMarch 26, 2015, the factual and legal contextunderMt.Laurel and otherlegal authorities changedsomewhatonfairshare “presentneed”andthe “1999-2015 gap period”affordable housingobligationsof N.J.municipalities; newrelevantdatahasbeenreleasedoruncovered fromthe Township throughOPRActrequests;the U.S. Supreme Courtissuedadecisionon“disparate impact”underTitle VIIIof the CivilRightsActof 1968 (relatedtomunicipal governmentobligationsto“familialstatus”discriminationissuesinthe provisionof affordablehousingopportunities);HUDdevelopednew fairhousingregulationsrelated to families;and, HUD developednewHousingandCommunityDevelopmentregulationsrelatedtothe obligationof municipalitiestoremove barrierstoaffordable housingrelated to“familialstatus”and zoning. All of these newdevelopmentsare discussedbelow. (See “Conclusion”atpp. 27-28, here for the call toaction.) Thisupdatedsupplemental publicpolicymemorandum takesintoconsiderationthe Township’s August21, 2015 response tomyOPRActrequestasto the lateststatusof the numberof residential housingunits(bybedroomdistribution) of all of the projectsthathave beenconstructedand those currentlyunderdevelopment(OakPond,Avalon,HartzMountain,etc.). The Township’s174-page response tothatOPRAct request (APPENDIXF) containsresolutions fromthe TownshipBoardsof PlanningandZoning. Idistilledthose pages intoaconcise summaryfor you(APPENDIX C) of that Board’sapprovalsof site plansas tothe exactnumberof unitsbuilt--orunder development--ineachprojectbybedroomdistribution;i.e., studio, 1, and2, bedroomunits.
- 2. 2 The updatedsupplemental memorandumthatIsubmittoyoutoday discusses,inpart,the Township’s Mt.Laurel arguable “presentneed”fairshare obligationof 547 unitsof affordable housing through2025 for Bloomfield lowandmoderate income residentscurrentlylivingin“deficient”housing conditions;i.e.,overcrowded,lackingplumbingorkitchenfacilities. (Forthe legal andplanningcontext on this,see the attachedstudybyDr. DavidN. Kinsey,pp.5-7,APPENDIXA,here,revisedinJuly2015, on what“presentneed”meansandhisstudy’sattachedAppendix A (APPENDIXB,here). The bottom line isthatthissupplemental memorandumpresentsdata,1 housingtrends (first Memorandum, PARTSI & II,pp. 4-15) and legal analysisthatstrengthensthe argument thatthere isa 1 See for instance,recent articles and studies thatappeared after my original memorandum: “More Young Women Waitingto Leave Home, Analysis of Census Data Suggests,” by Tamar Lewin, NY Times, p. 20 (Nov. 12, 2015) which reports on a PEW Research Center study (“[R]ents in some cities havebecome so high as to be unmanageablefor many young adults,especially thosewith heavy student debt.”) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/us/more-young-women-waiting-to-leave-home.html?_r=0 . See PEW study itself,Nov. 11, 2015: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/11/record-share-of-young-women- are-living-with-their-parents-relatives/ See also,articleby MaryAnn Spoto, Newark Star-Ledger (NJ.com) entitled “Record number of N.J. residents living in poverty, study says”(Nov. 12,2015) reportingon 2015 study conducted by Legal Service's Poverty Research Institute, http://www.lsnj.org/PDFs/Benchmarks2015.pdf ("’The urgency to act is great, becausethe study confirms that despite significantjob and economic recovery sincethe end of the Great Recession in 2009,poverty in the Garden State has stubbornly remained at record levels not seen in 50 years,’[Melville] Miller said.”) http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/11/record_number_of_nj_residents_in_poverty_study_fin.html . See also editorial in Opinion page,p. 20, of Newark Star-Ledger entitled “Finally, a real calculation of poverty in N.J.” (Nov. 19, 2015)(“Our poverty rate is actually closer to 30 percent, as 2.8 million of our neighbors —including 800,000 children—can beclassified as poor.”) See also,study, “Out of Reach: Low Wages & High Rents Lock Renters Out,” National Low Income Housing Coalition (2015),pp.150-151(“In New Jersey [the 5th highest rental cost in the nation,after N.Y.], the Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment is $1,309.In order to afford this level of rent and uti lities — without payingmore than 30% of income on housing — a household must earn $4,362 monthly or $52,347 annually. Assuminga 40-hour work week, 52 weeks per year, this level of income translates into an hourly HousingWageof $25.17.” For Essex County, the amount ($24.40) is slightly under the state average. Compare Essex Co. to all of N.J. and to national averages. Essex Co. has 54%renter households compared to 34% for N.J. as a whole. For N.J. data and national data,respectively,see http://nlihc.org/oor/new-jersey & http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/OOR_2015_FULL.pdf . See also,“America’s Rental Housing: ExpandingOptions for Diverse and Growing Demand,” (“Key Facts”), Joint Center for HousingStudies of Harvard University (2015),p.3 (“Nearly half (49.3 percent) of all renter households [in U.S.] spent more than 30% of income on housingin 2014,includingmore than one-quarter (26.4 percent) devoted more than half of income to housing.) This national data is slightly lower than the Twp’s 2014 ConPlan,p. 16, which states that Bloomfield tenant households paid 51.1%of their adjusted gross incomefor rent and utilities accordingto 2006-2008 estimates. See footnote 15, here. The “Key Facts” areat: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/2015_jchs_rental_report_key_facts.pdf . See entire 44- pp. report, especially TableA-6,p. 43, on New Jersey statistics, at: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/appendix_tables_from_americas_rental_housing_2015_ web.pdf See full 2015 update table of contents, “The State of the Nation’s Housing”: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/research/state_nations_housing
- 3. 3 “rational basis”and a “sufficientlocal need”forthe Twp.toexercise its“police powers”toenacta strongrent control ordinance thatexemptsasfew apartments aspossible,withinreason,andthathas no provision forvacancydecontrol. See, Inganamortv.Boroughof FortLee,62 N.J. 521, 537-538 (1973) and HuttonPark Gardens,68 N.J.543, 564-565 (1975). PARTVII: update of March26, 2015 Policy Memorandum(pp. 60-70)-- Response to Mr. Simoncini’s allegationthat my Public Policy Memorandum, promoting the enactment of a strong rent control ordinance withno provisionfor vacancy decontrol, wouldproduce an unconstitutional result. At the Twp’sCouncil’sConference meetingon April 11,2016, Mr. RonaldSimoncini,lobbyistfor the local real estate interests,respondedtomy testimony thateveningduringwhichIappealedtothe Council toretaina progressive attorneyspecialistin rentcontrol toassistinthe draftingof a rentcontrol ordinance containingthe above-mentionedelements. (Mr.Parlavecchiohadnotyetassumedhis responsibilities.) Mr.Simoncini statedthathe hadspokentothe formermunicipal attorney,BrianAloia, Esq.,who allegedlytoldhimthatmyoriginal March26, 2015 PublicPolicyMemorandumwasbasedon an illegal foundation;towit: mylegal premise forthe Council enactingarentcontrol ordinance was unconstitutional becauseIwasusing rentcontrol to create a “housingprogram”;whereas,the true legal foundationforavalidordinance—accordingtoMr. Simoncini/Mr.Aloia--couldonlybe sustainedbylegal challenge incourtif itwas designed undera“consumerprotection”legal framework. On the economic push of people leavingNYC for cheaper housing,see articleby Mireya Navarro,“The Great Wall Divide,” NY Times, p. 1 & 6, “Metropolitan” section (Oct. 25, 2015)(On “hypergentrification”in Chelsea.) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/nyregion/in-chelsea-a-great-wealth-divide.html?_r=0 “Savinga New York Neighborhood from Gentrification,”editorial, New York Times, April 22,2016: “[C]rushing rents and tenant displacementthat have transformed so many working-classblocksof Brooklyn and Queens.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/opinion/saving-a-new-york-neighborhood-from- gentrification.html?ref=opinion Daniel McCue, “Staying Afloat: The Ongoing Struggle for AffordableHousing,” Posted on Shelterforce, October 10, 2012 http://www.shelterforce.org/article/2892/staying_afloat_the_ongoing_struggle_for_affordable_housing/ [“The rates of severe housingcostburdens for the lowest-income households arehigh and still growing.From 2007 to 2010,severe costburdens among households earningminimum wage or less rosefrom 64 to 68 percent. Perhaps even more disturbingis thatthe number of households in this low-incomecategory is growingfaster than any other group. … . Another path out of cost burdens for low-income renter households is rental assistance—if they can find it. Accordingto the “2009 HUD WorstCaseNeeds report”: http://www.nhi.org/go/WorstCaseHousing2009, only one in four very low-income households receivesuch assistance.And needs are growingmuch faster than assistancelevels. … . With new construction generally unable to providehousingaffordableto the lowest income groups,preservingthe existingaffordablerental stock is key to stemming the growth in cost burdens. Declines in the number of low-costrental units over the pastdecade have made itmore difficultfor low-incomefamilies to find affordablerents without assistance.”]
- 4. 4 On the assumptionthatMr. Simoncini accuratelycharacterizedMr.Aloia’slegal opinion— because Ididnot have the same access to Mr. Aloia’scounselthathe apparentlyhad—itissubmitted that the challenge tomylegal analysisis skewedand misplaced. Rather, my publicpolicyand legal analysis are primarily foundedonthe State Supreme Court’s legal conclusionthatamunicipalitymayutilizedstate statutory“police powers”toenacta rentcontrol ordinance toprotectincome-vulnerabletenants wherethere isfoundtobe a “sufficientlocal need.” The publicpolicyanalysisthatIpresented onMarch 26, 2015—based ondemographicanalysisand housingtrends—aswell aslegal analysisof federallaw (CDBG,Title VIIIof civil rightsact, Section8, etc.), and state law (N.J.Law AgainstDiscrimination, Mt.Laurel decisions), complementsandstrengthens that argumentfora strongrent control ordinance thatis authorized underthe N.J.Supreme Court’s conventional “police power”legal analysisthatisfoundedonthe abilityof municipalitiestoprotect income-vulnerable tenantsfromharm where there isfoundtobe “a sufficientlocal need.” My argumentisthat the Twp’s legal omissions,infailingtomeetits federal CDBG(dutytoremove “barriers to affordability”),fairhousingand Mt.Laurel fair share programmaticobligations, exacerbatesthat “local need”and createsthe obligationinthe Twp. toremedythatneedby enactinga rentcontrol ordinance underits“police powers. Itisthe veryabsence of anadequate “programmatic”housing plan—underCDBGregulations,fairhousinglaws,Mt.Laurel affordable housingobligations,andthe Twp’s2008 inclusionaryzoningordinance--thatdrivesthe needforastrong rentcontrol ordinance underthe Twp’s “police powers”to mitigate andcompensate forthese federal and State legal omissions. InHelmsleyv.Boro.of Ft. Lee,78 N.J.200, 209 (1978), the N.J.Supreme Courtsummarizedits caseson the legal use of municipal police powerasthe foundationforthe enactmentof rentcontrol ordinances: Municipal authoritytoenactrent control ordinancesunderthe police powerdelegated by N.J.S.A.40:48-2 was recognizedin Inganamortv.Boroughof Fort Lee,supra,62 N.J. 521 (1973). A rentcontrol ordinance isa validexercise of municipal powerif there isany rational basisforthe enactment. Brunetti v.Boroughof New Milford,supra,68 N.J.at 594; Troy HillsVillage,supra,68 N.J.at 616; HuttonPark Gardens,supra,68 N.J.at 564- 65. In sustainingthe municipal police powerstoenacta rent control ordinance underthe above statute,the Supreme Courtin Inganamortv.Boroughof Fort Lee,supra,62 N.J. at 537-538, indicated that the rightof propertymaybe restrained because of “asufficientlocal need”: That control of rentsaffectsthe exercise of the righttocontract withrespectto propertyisundeniable.Butthe righttocontract issubjecttothe police powerandno lesssowhenthe police powerisexertedatmunicipal level. [Citationomitted.] Whether an ordinance relatestozoning,orcontainsa housingcode,orimposesuponthe landlorddutiesrelatingtohealth,itnecessarilylimitsthe use of propertyorthe right to contract withrespectto it.That the ordinance imposesrestraintswhichthe State law doesnot,doesnot spell outaconflictbetweenState andlocal law.Onthe contrarythe absence of a statutoryrestraintisthe veryoccasionfor municipal initiative. The police
- 5. 5 powerisvestedinlocal governmenttothe veryendthatthe right of propertymaybe restrainedwhenitoughttobe because of a sufficientlocal need.2 [Emphasismine.] The Supreme Court,inthe earlypart of its decisionin Inganamort,supra,62 N.J.at 537, found: We mustassume there isa critical shortage of the housingcoveredbythe several ordinanceshere involvedandthattenants,trappedbythe fact, are beingexploited.The judgmentswere enteredonpretrial motionsinwhichthisfactual premise wasnot challenged. There isclearlya “rational basis,”underHelmsley,supra78 N.J.at 209, for a municipality like Bloomfield--givenitsdemographicprofile--toenactastrongrent control ordinance. The Supreme Court inHutton Park Gardensv.West Orange TownCouncil,supra, 68 N.J. at 562, fn.8 (1975), elaboratedon thistestwhenthere wasa substantive due processconstitutional challengetoa rentcontrol ordinance: The sole task of the Court isto determine whetherthe legislationiswithoutareasonable supportingfactual basisviewedasapolice powermeasure.Inanyevent,aswill be more thoroughlydiscussedin TroyHillsVillage [v.Parsipany-Troy HillsTp.Council,68N.J.604], supra at PointII,protectionof a landlord'sinvestmentisadequatelyprovidedbythe requirementthat rentlevelingordinancespermitrecoveryof a"justand reasonable"rate of return. [Emphasis mine.] HuttonPark Gardens,supra, 68 N.J.543, 564-565, establishedaverydifficultburdenfora challengerto meettooverturna municipal exerciseof itspolice powerinenactingarentcontrol ordinance: Municipalitieshave the powerandauthoritytoenactordinancesinsupportof the police power.Municipal ordinances,likestatutes,carryapresumptionof validity.[Citationsomitted]. The presumptionisnotan irrebuttable one,[citationsomitted],butitplacesa heavyburdenon the party seekingtooverturnthe ordinance.Legislativebodiesare presumedtoacton the basis of adequate factual supportand,absentasufficientshowingtothe contrary,it will be assumed that theirenactmentsrestuponsome rational basiswithintheirknowledgeandexperience. [Citationsomitted.] Thispresumptioncanbe overcome onlybyproofsthatpreclude the possibilitythatthere couldhave beenanysetof factsknownto the legislative bodyorwhich couldreasonablybe assumedtohave beenknownwhichwouldrationallysupportaconclusion that the enactmentisinthe publicinterest. [Citationsomitted.] The judiciarywill notevaluate the weightof the evidence forandagainstthe enactmentnorreview the wisdomof any determinationof policywhichthe legislative bodymighthave made. [Emphasismine.] 2 See also,Hutton Park Gardens v. West Orange Town Council,68 N.J. 543, 555-556 (1975): “Municipal rent control is,of course,but one example of the larger and more pervasivephenomenon of governmental regulation of prices under the policepower. For constitutional purposes,rentcontrol is indistinguishablefromother types of governmental priceregulation.Despite the permanence and concreteness of real property, and the special place accorded it by the common lawas expounded by the early commentators, its commercial useis no less subjectto regulation under the policepower than other, more ephemeral, goods and services.[Citation and footnote omitted.] The renting of residential property is as much an essential enterpriseas the retail saleof food-stuffs,the extraction and processingof natural resources,the operation of a railroad,or the conduct of a banking business, [citation omitted], and equally subjectto public regulation when the need arises.” [Emphasis mine.]
- 6. 6 In the presentBloomfield control rentdebate context,the Twp.hasadmitted,inseveral of its documentsthathave been recently submittedtoHUDseekingCDBGfundingforlow- andmoderate income households,thatthere is clearly asevere needforaffordablerental housingfor“cost-burdened” local households andothers. Thisconstitutes“areasonable supportingfactual basisviewedasa police powermeasure”underHuttonParkGardens,supra,at 562, fn.8.3 (See definition of “costburdened”at pp.8-9, 11, of my March 26, 2015 PublicPolicyMemorandum;andneedforaffordable rentalhousingin the Twp’s2010 Fair HousingPlan,pp. 24, 54-56, 61-66, 69; and its2014 Five-YearCDBGConsolidated Plan, pp. 3, 5, 15, 16. In addition, the Twp.specificallystatesthatitswaitinglistforits270 unitsof it Section8 HousingChoice Voucherprogram ishighandit has stoppedtakingapplicationsforthis resource because of highdemand. See myPPM,at pp. 11 & 40-51, on needforHCV recipientstohave opportunitiestohave housingchoice inraciallyandeconomicallydiversepartsof the Twp.) On February26, 2016, I sentto youa recentstudy,datedDecember2015, on the 40-year historyof rentcontrol inNewJersey. Isubmitthat it isuseful inrefutingmanyof the economicpointsin the N.J.contextthatMr. RonaldSimoncini made inhispublicappearance atthe December14,2015 regularCouncil meeting: JoshuaD.Ambrosius,WilliamJ.Gilderbloom,WilliamJ.Steel,WestleyL. Meares,and Keating,Dennis,“Fortyyearsof rentcontrol:Re-examiningN.J.moderate local policies afterthe great recession,”Cities:The InternationalJournal of Urban& Planning,Vol.49,Dec. 2015, pp. 121-133. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02642751/49 [See attachedstudyhere at the orange icon.] That study,at p. 131, referstoan article by Brenzel,K.“Rentcontrol battle inHobokenends aftergroup pushingderegulationwithdrawschallenge,” NJ.com.(2014,February19, 2014) <http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2014/02/rent_control_battle_in_hoboken_ends_after_group_p ushing_deregulation_withdraws_challenge.html>Retrieved07.03.14. Note that Brenzel’sarticle refers to the work of the lobbyist,Mr.RonaldSimoncini,inHoboken. The Cities study,atpp.130-131, then characterizesthe opponentsof rentcontrol inHobokenasa “contrived‘tax payer’organization.” At pp.131-132 of this12-pp. report,underthe subtopic,“Policyimplicationsandconclusions,” the authors of the evaluation of 40 yearsof rentcontrol in New Jersey,conclude,inpart: Thisdebate isongoinginNewJersey—asdemonstratedbythe recentbattlesinHobokenand othercitiesoverwhethertokeeporscrap rentcontrol.Our findingssuggestthatthispassion, for or against,maybe misdirectedenergy.Itdoesnotappearthat these ordinances,netother interveningfactors,have anycommunity-wide impactonrents,rental qualityorquantity, propertyappreciation,orforeclosure ratesinthe citiesthathave them.Theymaybenefitthe subsetof residentsenjoyinglowerrentsbypreventingrentgouging,buttheyhave nomacro effectonthe medianrent.Perhapsadvocacy energiesare betterspentpromotingaffordability throughothermeans.Perhapssupportersof the free marketshouldfindotherareasof governmentregulationtolambast.Rentcontrol isnotharmingthe citiesof New Jersey. …. 3 Hutton Park Gardens, supra,68 N.J. at 562-563: “N.J. Const. (1947), Art. 1, § 1, likethe federal due process clause,makes the constitutionality of governmental priceregulation dependent on neither the existence of an ‘emergency,’ [footnote 8 and citations omitted], nor any determination that the industry regulated is ‘affected by a public interest’in some special manner. [Citations omitted.] Either of those factors may, however, reinforce the reasonableness of a particular regulation under challenge.” [Emphasis mine.]
- 7. 7 [131/132] Acrossthe nationrental affordabilityworsensandrentsinNew Jersey(whetherrent controlledornot) are muchhigherthanmost of the nation(National Low Income Housing Coalition,2015).The intendedimpactsof New Jerseyrentcontrol ordinancesovera40-year period seemminimalwhencomparedtocitieswithoutregulations.Housingactivistsand policymakersneedtolookatadditional kindsof approachestoaddressthe post-crashrental housingaffordabilitycrisis. Landlordsare ultimatelyprotectedunderHuttonParkGardens,supra,68 N.J.at 572 in applying for a hardshiprentincrease tomeettheirconstitutional righttoreceive afairreturnontheir investment: Everyrent control ordinance mustbe deemedtointend,andwillbe soread,topermitproperty ownerstoapplyto the local administrative agencyforrelief onthe groundthatthe regulation entitlesthe ownertoa justand reasonable rate of return. In myMarch 26, 2015 PublicPolicyMemorandum,PARTVI.A,p. 54,it ispointedoutthat the N.J.Supreme Courtin Helmsleyv.Boro.of Ft.Lee,78 N.J.200, 210-211 (1978) statedthat there are three separate fair-right-of-returnformulastoaddress alandlord’sconstitutionalrighttoa fairreturn on itsinvestment.4 So,if a landlordthinksthatitis notreceivingafairreturnon its investment,itfilesfora hardshipapplicationandopensitsbookstothe RentLevelingBoard. The landlordthushasa substantive constitutional due processremedy. The problemisthat some landlordsdonotwantto opentheirbooks tothe lightof day,whichcan reveal mistakesand/orrefinancingtransactionswhich can hide profits. Some owners after2001, whenthe interestrateswere low,refinancedtheirmortgages and saveda bundle. Then,some tookthe profitsfrom those transactionsandboughtotherrental properties at a time whenthe rental marketwasboomingandincreasedtheirprofits further. Bloomfield’srental vacancy rate, as reflectedinthe 2010 U.S. Censuswas3.07%: a rate lowerthanitwas at the time the Twp’srentcontrol ordinance wasenactedinthe late 1980s. (The rentcontrol ordinance was terminatedin1994, exceptfor“grandfathered”tenanthouseholds.) Thislowertenancyvacancyrate, driven,inpartby home foreclosureswithformerhomeownerslookingforapartments,ledtoanupward pushon rents; i.e., lowervacancyratesledto higherrentswithtenantincome remainingflatthroughout the 2007-2008 recessionandbeyond. [See myMarch 26, 2015 PublicPolicyMemorandum, PARTVII, pp.60-70, fora full discussionof the dataand trends.] 4 See, 78 N.J. supra.at210-211,were the Supreme Court outlined the history of the constitutional question, discussingthree basic approachesto defining“fair return”: “There are at leastthree basic approaches to definingfair return. In an early regulatory case,the United States Supreme Court decreed that return on fair valuemust be the criterion for confiscation.[footnote omitted.] Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466 (1898), decree modified, 171 U.S. 361 (1898).The Court later modified this position,approving(butnot mandating) the useof return on investment. Federal Power Comm'n v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591 (1944). A third standard,the fraction of gross income comprised by operating profits,was employed in the now-expired New Jersey Rent Control Law, L. 1953 c. 216. We upheld its constitutionality in Jamouneau v. Harner, 16 N.J. 500, 526-28 (1954),cert. denied, 349 U.S. 904 (1955).”
- 8. 8 At the April 18, 2016 regular Twp. Council meeting I submitted the following suggestions to strengthen the draft ordinance that the Council ultimately tabled and did not introduce as a first reading: • The definitionof capital improvementistiedtoIRSdepreciable items. Thatis a mistake. It shouldonlybe fornewphysical changesthatprovide anew benefittoall tenantsthatwasnot provided before. Maintenance replacements(notsimplyrepairs) like roofsandboilersdonotprovide anythingnew. Theygetdone whenthe costof repairisgreaterthan the cost of replacement. Thatisa cost of doingbusinessthatisbuiltintothe rent. Anefficientoperatorwill have areserve for replacements. • As to the definitionof “rent,”the provisionshouldbe changedtoread: “Nocharges shall be permittedforlate rent,whethertermedalate rental fee orinterestonrentpaidlate,inexcess of [Twenty($20.00)] Thirty-Five ($35.00) Dollars,returnedcheckfeesinexcess[Twenty($20)] Thirty- Five ($35.00) Dollars,or any othersimilarcharges. • Exemptingdwellingswith5or fewerunitsdoesnotmake anysense. Tenantsinsmaller buildings have justasmuchneedtobe protectedfromunreasonable rentincreasesasthose inlarger buildings. Infact,tenantsinsmallerbuildingsare typicallyof lowerincome andhave more questionable credithistories. Theyare more vulnerable,notless.The ideathatthe ownersof smallerbuildingshave some special needtobe able togouge rentsis unsupportable. Theyare runningbusinesses,justasina largerbuilding,are notlimitedintheirinitial rentlevels,andshouldthereforebe able tobe limitedto reasonable rentincreaseswithoutbeingdeprivedof ajustand reasonable return. Theyare,also, frequentlyownersof manysuchsmall buildings,andthustotallycomparabletoownersof a large building. The onlyexemptionthatmightmake sense is forowner-occupied2- or3-unitdwellings,as these are not protectedbythe EvictionforJustCause law. Rent control withoutevictionprotectionhas limitedvalue. Fewerexemptionsprovidesformore affordable housingopportunitiesforlow- and moderate income households:(1) Over51% of tenanthouseholdsinthe Twp.whoare low- and moderate income (i.e.,earninglessthan80% of medianincome) paymore than30% of theiradjusted gross income inrentandutilities;(2) the lowerthe numberof unitsexempt,the higherthe opportunity of tenantswithSec.8 voucherstobe successful infindingapartmentsthatare affordable;(3) the vacancy rate for rental housinginthe Twp.is 3.07% makingitdifficultforcost-burdenedtenant householdstolocate affordable housing; and, (4) loweringthe numberof exemptunitspromotesmore housingopportunitiesforracial minorityandfamiliestomove fromareasof highracial andlow-income concentrationinthe Twp. (See myMarch 26, 2015 PublicPolicyMemorandum, pp.60-70,for a more exhaustivereasonsforthiscoverage andwhynovacancy decontrol shouldbe permittedinan ordinance.) • Delete: “Section435-7D. Paymentof rental increase fortwoconsecutiveyearsshall be construedtobe an agreedincrease and notsubjecttothe provisionsof thischapterexceptthatinthe eventthatthe Board determinesthatthe landlordhasnotserveduponthe tenantthe rental statement setforth in§ 435-1. The Board shall waive the two-yearlimitationsperiod.” Thisisa large loophole for owners. Waivernotionsshouldbe decidedbycourtsusingstatutoryandcommonlaw principles.
- 9. 9 • The partial newconstructionexemption(redevelopmentbased) isirrelevant,aspost- 1987 newconstructionisexemptfromrentcontrol for 30 years(or lengthof conventionalmortgage) understate law. • The formulafor fairreturnon landlord’sinvestment: Mostof “fairnet operatingincome” (FNOI) formulasare arbitrary(60%expense ratioiscommon - there are many profitable buildings, usuallyolderones,thatare above 60%). An investmentbasedformulais,imo,preferable,butitshould be made clear that the investment,inthiscase equityinvestment,mustbe reducedbyanywithdrawals, whichusuallyoccurat refinancing. (See 435-10, I and J.) The Boardmust be able to see all refinancing information. Excessivepurchase price whichresultsinaninflatedmortgage interestexpenseand inflatedinvestment,shouldbe disallowed. The (new orexisting) ownermustbe bothanefficient operatorand an efficientinvestor. Suchan investorwouldneverbuyabuildingthatwouldimmediately (or withinayearor two) and predictablybe ina hardship. The purchase price,investment,and mortgage interestexpensemustbe reduced,forthe purpose of ahardshipdetermination,tothatwhich wouldhave beenreasonable. Thismaybe partially,butnotfullyaddressed. One more thingon hardships. Expensesthatare not expectedtorecureachyear,but ratherhave a useful lifeof more than one year,shouldbe prorated(dividedbythe numberof yearsintheiruseful life). The Boardshould receive 5years’worthof annual income/expensestatements(certified) sothatcomparisonsfor reasonablenesscanbe made,andnon-recurringexpensesidentified. There shouldbe a severe limitationonvacancyallowances,asvacanciescouldbe filledatlower rents,yieldinghigherincome andlowerhardship. Managementexpense shouldnotbe allowedinself- managedbuildings,andshouldbe limitedtonomore than 5%. Administrative(office/lease writing) expensesare includedinmanagementexpenses. All contractedexpensesmustbe arm’slengthandeveryexpense mustbe reasonable. • There have beencomplaintsthatarent levelingBoardwouldhave highadministrative costs. The answer,inpart, isto use part of HUD CDBG funds(over$800,000 per year) which,under federal law,issupposedtogoforthe needsof low- andmoderate income persons. Rightnow,a lotof those CDBG fundsgo to pave streetsandforpublic relationstopromote the luxurydevelopmental area inthe BloomfieldAve.corridor. Partof the housingmarketanalysisthatBlfd.isrequired,forinstance, to provide isidentificationof “barrierstoaffordable housing,”24 CFR §91.210(e): “[The consolidated planto HUD] mustexplainwhetherthe costof housingorthe incentivestodevelop,maintain,or improve affordablehousinginthe jurisdictionare affectedbypublicpolicies,particularlybypoliciesof the jurisdiction,includingtax policiesaffectinglandandotherproperty,landuse controls,zoning ordinances,buildingcodes,feesandcharges,growthlimits,andpoliciesthataffectthe returnon residentialinvestment.” (Formore detail onhow the CDBG program worksfor the benefitof low and moderate income householdsinthiscontext,see federal regulationsinmyMarch 26, 2015 PublicPolicy Memorandum,pp.15-18 and the Twp’s2010 CDBG 5-yearConsolidatedPlanthatwassubmittedto HUD. Appendix Btomy PPMforsummaryof HUD’s ConPlan regulations.)
- 10. 10 PARTIII.E. update of March 26, 2015 Policy Memorandum (pp. 25-40) onMt. Laurel issues:Twp’s affordable housing “present need”obligation. (Afterthe date of that Memorandum, the N.J. trial courts have determinedthat there is an additional affordable housing “gap period”obligation5 for municipalities for the period1999-2016. Bloomfield’s possible “gap”obligationis not yet resolved.) Bloomfield’s“PresentNeed” Obligation In March 2015, the NewJerseySupremeCourtissuedadecisionand anorder statingthatthe N.J.Council onAffordable Housing(COAH) hadnotmetitsN.J.constitutionalobligationtolow- and moderate-income households(i.e.,householdswhose income wasunder80 percentof medianincome) inits failure topromulgate rulessettingthe obligationsof municipalitiesinthe State todeterminetheir respective fairshare obligationstodevelopaffordable housing forthese vulnerablehouseholds. Because of COAH’sfailure toact, the Supreme Courtruledthat regional SuperiorCourttrial judgeswere to be assignedthistaskand municipalities,likeBloomfield,were giventhe opportunitytofile declaratoryjudgmentmotionstoestablishwhethertheyhada fairshare obligation—calleda“present need”and/ora “prospective need”—tofacilitate the developmentacertainnumberof affordable housingunits intheirmunicipalities. Itappearsthatthe Twp. electednottofile sucha motion according to a response tomy OPRActrequest. Since the Supreme Court’s decision,the FairShare HousingCenter,one of the petitionersbefore that Court,commissionedastudyby DavidN.Kinsey,PhD.,FAICP,PP,Kinsey&Hand,to create a methodologytopresenttothese regional trial courtstoassistthose courtsin calculatingthe fairshare obligationsof municipalitieswhoare withintheirrespectivevenues. Dr.Kinseyauthoredhisstudy entitled“New JerseyLowandModerate Income HousingObligationsfor1999-2025 CalculatingUsing the NJ COAHPriorRound (1987-1999) Methodology”(April16,2015, revisedJuly2015).6 (See Dr. Kinsey’s APPENDIX A forhis analysisof “presentneed,”pp.5-7.) The formulathathe usedresultedin 5 See analysisbelow,pp. 19-20,for discussion of pending Mt. Laurel fair share“gap” obligation litigation. 6 The New Jersey League of Municipalities commissioned Econsult,Philadelphia,Pa.,to critiqueof Dr. Kinsey’s study which was issued on September 24, 2015 which challenged his methodology and argued that his “present need” and “prospective need” fair shareobligationsfor municipalities were inflated. See http://www.njslom.org/letters/2015-0928-afford-housing.html. The Township of Bloomfield has failed to filea timely motion for a declaratory judgment in the Superior Court of New Jersey usingthe Econsultcritiqueto challengeDr. Kinsey’s analysis. See Dr. Kinsey’s updated report, March 16, 2016 in the Ocean Co. context on the “present need” analysis,pp.13-20. (Full copy of that update at p. 18, fn. 19, here.) https://www.dropbox.com/sh/pfcj1ccrrtzld3p/AAB3iPYE7hf8DrWLnYrE5V2za/4-6-16%20-%20Barnegat- %20Appeal%20-in%20support%20of%20amicus%20mtns-%20%20Omnibus%20Appendix%20-final%20s.pdf?dl=0 ) The Twp. has presented no alternativedocumentation demonstrating that its “present need” fair shareobligation is less than what Dr. Kinsey claimed in his September 24,2015 report. It appears that Bloomfield is content to ignore the entire Mt. Laurel declaratory judgment process and to hope that no person or entity chal lenges its performance. It is assumed thatif legally challenged on the “present need” obligation,itwould cite as a defense the Econsultcritiqueof Dr. Kinsey’s analysis. But,it is disingenuous for Bloomfield to just“sitand wait” for a possiblelegal challengein the faceits local at-risk “costburdened” renter population given its professed commitment to the Twp’s “quality of life.”
- 11. 11 hisassessmentof fairshare obligationsforeverymunicipalityinthe state,includingthe Twp.of Bloomfield. He determinedthatBloomfielddidnothave a“prospective need”fairshare obligation; however,he determinedthatithasa “presentneed”fairshare obligation of 547 affordable units (combinedrental andhomeowner). (See“AppendixA”of hisstudyfor Region2 under“Bloomfield” whichislabeled APPENDIXB to thisupdatedMemorandum.) In orderto understand“presentneed”affordable housingobligation,itisuseful tosummarize Dr. Kinsey’sreportinsalientpart. He statesthat: “COAH excludedcost-burdenedhouseholdsandtheir affordable housingneedsfrommunicipalhousingobligationsunderthe [NJ] FairHousingAct,a determinationupheldbythe Supreme Court. Consequently,andconsistentwiththe Supreme Court’s decision,the housingneedsof cost-burdenedhouseholdsare notincludedinthe fairshare housing methodologypresentedinthisreport. “ [p.2]. “Cost-burdened”householdsare those whoare low and moderate income households (i.e.,who have incomesunder80% of the area medianincome) whoare payingmore than30% of theirmonthly adjustedincome forhousingandutilities. Itisto be notedthat these Bloomfieldcost-burdened householdsare clearlyincome-vulnerable andof concernto the U.S. Departmentof HousingandUrban Development(HUD) inevaluatingthe Twp’slegal requirementtoremove “barrierstoaffordability”(also knownas “affordabilityimpediments”) underthe federal HousingandCommunityDevelopmentActof 1974, as amended,andTitle VIIIof the Civil RightsActof 1968, and regulationsthereunder; however, for the purpose of determiningthe Twp’s“presentneed” legal obligationunderthe state N.J.Fair HousingAct (i.e.,“Mt. Laurel” legislation), the needsof Bloomfield’s“cost-burdened”households donot factor intoDr. Kinsey’s“presentneed”calculation underAppendixA of hisstudyto increase the Twp’s obligationtoprovide more thanthe 547 affordable housingunits. Dr. Kinsey presented inhisstudyabrief historyof how the N.J.Supreme Courtdevelopedits “presentneed”standardunderthe N.J.FairHousingActas part of the Court’sconstitutional interpretation: The Supreme Courtdirectedthatthe PriorRoundmethodologybe usedtocalculate municipal presentneed.AsdefinedbyCOAHin itsSecondRoundRulesin1994, “Presentneed”meansthe sumof indigenousneedandreallocatedpresentneed…. However,the Supreme Courtalso upheldCOAH’sdecisions,initsthree iterationsof ThirdRoundrule-making,tonolongerinclude “reallocatedpresentneed”inthe fairshare methodology. The PriorRoundmethodology defined “indigenousneed”’asdeficienthousingunitsoccupiedbylow andmoderate income householdswithinamunicipality…. In effect,suchhousingisinneedof rehabilitationtocomply withapplicable housingcode standards.The PriorRoundmethodologycalculatedthe numberof lowand moderate income familieslivingin‘deficienthousing’ata subregional level,due to constraintsonthe availabilityof dataatthe municipal level,andthenallocatedindigenousneed to municipalities. [Emphasismine.] Dr. Kinseythenstatesthatdata isnow available atthe municipal level fromthe U.S.Census Bureauin itsdecennial censusanditsAmericanCommunitySurveyof samplesof the population. He thenstatesthat hisreport: [U]sesthe term“PresentNeed,”asdirectedbythe Supreme Court,tomeanthe numberof deficienthousingunitsoccupiedbylow andmoderate income householdswithina
- 12. 12 municipality.” PresentNeedisacomponent of amunicipality’sfairshare housingobligations, whichmay be addressedunderCOAHSecondRoundrules byeitheralocal housing rehabilitationprogramorbycreatingnew unitsof affordable housing. [Emphasismine.] Dr. Kinseythenexplainsthe process thathe utilizedincalculatingthe “presentneed”fairshare affordable housingobligationof municipalitiessuchasBloomfield: PresentNeediscalculatedinatwo-stepprocess,similartothe processCOAHhas usedto determine the RehabilitationShare inatwo-stepprocess,mostrecentlyin2014. First,COAHidentifiedtotal deficienthousingbymunicipalitybyusingthree surrogatesor indicators:(a) overcrowdinginhousingbuiltbefore 1960,(b) housinglackingcomplete plumbing facilities,and(c) housinglackingcomplete kitchenfacilities.InitsMarch 2015 decision,the Supreme Courtruledthatuse of these three surrogateswasacceptable. COAHalsofound throughPUMS data in2014 that about14.86% of deterioratedunitshadmultipledeficiencies and made an adjustmenttoavoiddouble counting. Second,COAHdeterminedthe degree towhichovercrowdedanddeterioratedhousingwould be occupiedbylowor moderate income householdsineachcounty,using2007-2011 American CommunitySurveydata,findingarange from48.6% in Sussex Countyto85% inHunterdon County,withabouta 65.3% statewide average. COAHthenappliedthose countypercentagestothe non-double-counteddeficienthousingin each municipality tocompute the RehabilitationShare for eachmunicipality. [Emphasismine.] In an attemptto ascertainhowDr. Kinseymostlikelyarrivedat547 affordable units as Bloomfield’s“presentneed”fairshare obligation,we mustlooktosome recentreliabledatasources that countonlylowand moderate income households(i.e.,incomesunder80% of median) whoare currently livinginBloomfieldandin overcrowdedanddeterioratedhousing conditions. Recall this involvescountingonlythose householdswhoare overcrowdin housingbuiltbefore 1960, lackcomplete plumbingfacilitiesandhousinglackcomplete kitchenfacilities. However,we are NOTto count “cost- burdened”households(i.e.,those paying30% or more of theiryearlyadjustedincomeforhousingand utilities). For thisdata we cite the Twp. of Bloomfield’s 2015-2019 ConsolidatedPlan(“ConPlan”) and 2015 One-YearActionPlanthatthe Twp.,signedbythe Mayor on May 1, 2015, that wassubmittedto HUD underthe requirementsof the federal Housing&CommunityDevelopmentActof 1974 and regulationspromulgatedthereunder.7 The Table at p.15 of the CP (below),entitled“HousingNeeds 7 For legal authorities on how the CDBG program works, see HUD’s regulations: 24 CFR §§91.200 to 91.253 and §§570.302, 570.303,570.495 & 570.496. (See also,Appendix C, p. 130,of the Twp’s 2010 Fair HousingPlan for the full text of HUD’s “Equal Opportunity & Fair HousingReview Criteria for 24 CFR Subpart O, §570.904(a)(1)(ii)). (The civil rights protected classes includes “familial status”in addition to the traditional protected classes such as race, origin,etc. The CDBG regulations requiringtheTwp. to remove “barriers to affordability”arefound at See 24 CFR §91.200(a), 91.210(e), 91.215(h) and §91.220(g)(j) & (k). Because local governments are required to obey state laws under HUD regulation 24 CFR §91.225(b)(8), the N.J. Law AgainstDiscrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-4 and N.J.S.A. 10:5-5 also provides protections to those not expressly referred to in the federal Fair HousingAct: “marital status,” “affectional or sexual orientation,”“gender identify or expression,”and “source of lawful incomeused for rental...payments.” (“Familial status”is a protected classunder both federal and state law.)
- 13. 13 SummaryTables: HousingProblems,”liststhe numberof householdsinBloomfield--bythe separate categoriesof “renters”and“owners”as well as byincome—whofall withinfourlisted“needs”: (1) “substandardhousing –lackingcomplete kitchenorplumbingfacilities”;(2) “severelyovercrowded – with> 1.51 people perroom(andcomplete plumbingorkitchen)”;(3) “Overcrowded –with 1.01 - 1.5 people perroom(andnone of the above problems)”;and,(4) “Housingcostburdengreaterthan 50% of income (andnone of the above problems)”.8 For purposescheckingDr.Kinsey’scalculationthatBloomfieldhasa“presentneed”obligation of 547 unitsof affordable housingwe needtoignore itemfour(4) onthe above listand we are notto count anyof the renterand homeownerhouseholdslistedinthe Table whose incomeis80% or above the area median(i.e.,”>80-100% AMI”).9 So,the categoriesof householdsinthe three listed“needs”—items(1),(2) and(3)—forrenters is729; and the for homeownersitis175. The total for bothrentersandhomeownersis904. As notedthere isa difference of 357 unitsinDr. Kinsey’scalculationof “presentneed”of 547 in Appendix A of hisstudy and904 unitsfoundinthe Twp’sConPlan,p.15, Table below. UnlessDr. Kinseyunderstated the “presentneed”fairshare obligation forBloomfield,the difference inthe numbersmaybe accountedfor statisticallybyDr.Kinsey’sreference inhisstudyatp. 6: “COAHalso foundthroughPUMS data in 2014 that about14.86% of deterioratedunitshadmultiple deficienciesand made an adjustmenttoavoiddouble counting.” 8 HUD considers “cost-burdened” those lowand moderate income households (i.e., those with incomes 80% of area median) who arepayingmore than 30% of their net adjusted income for rent and utilities. See my March 26, 2015 Public Policy Memorandum, p. 8, for more detail on this which is also found in the Twp’s 2014 CP, p. 15. 9 Although not all of lowand moderate income tenants (i.e., households with income under 80% of area median) who residein “deficient” housing--for Mt. Laurel “present need” purposes—are“cost-burdened,” it is reasonable to assumethat at least51% arebased on the Twp’s 2006-2008 estimates. See Twp’s 2014 Consolidated Plan,p. 16, submitted to HUD. Extracts arein APPENDIX A to my March 26, 2015 Public Policy Memorandum.
- 14. 14 Once the “presentneed”fairshare obligationisset--asdeterminedbyDr.KinseyforBloomfield at 547 affordable housingunits--the nextquestionthatneedstobe addressediswhetherthose units can be addressedby“eitheralocal housingrehabilitationprogramorbycreatingnew unitsof
- 15. 15 affordable housing.” See p.6 of Kinsey’sstudyandhisfootnote referencetoCOAH’sregulation,NJAC 5:93-5.1. Clearly,Bloomfieldhassome discretionhere touse bothmethods. However,thatdiscretionis seriouslycircumscribedby“factsonthe ground”; i.e., (1) by the fact that accordingto the Twp’sCP, Table,p.15, only125 lowandmoderate income households,of the total listed,are inrental households that lackplumbingorkitchenfacilities;(2) the vastremainderof the households (approximately422) whoare in“deficient”housingare overcrowded;and,(3) Bloomfieldhasnotprovidedforthe developmentof affordable unitsinthe luxuryhousingthatithas promotedinthe face of its municipal inclusionaryzoningordinance,Chapter112, whichrequiresthe constructionof one (1) affordableunit for everyfour(4) marketrate unitsthatare developed. Itisto be notedthatit almostimpossible to abate and rehabilitate the deficientconditionsof overcrowdedhouseholdswithoutrelocatingthemto affordable units! And,where wouldthoserelocationresourcesbe if notbythe Twp. “creatingnewunits of affordable housing”? The N.J.Supreme Court,initsMarch 10, 2015 opinion,__N.J.__ (2015) (slipop.at p. 45), lookedbeyondthe narrowexclusionof “cost-burdened”householdsinthe fairshare methodology analysis,andembracedthe trial judge’sconcernfor“cost-burdened”householdsin AMGRealtyCo.v. Twp.of Warren,207 N.J.Super.388, 422-23 [(Law Div.1984) as to a municipality’saddeddutiesto “cost-burdened”residentsof amunicipality: In addressingthe firstiterationof ThirdRoundRules,the AppellateDivisionalsoapprovedthe “exclu[sionof] the cost-burdenedpoorfromthe presentneedor rehabilitationshare calculation.”Inre Adoptionof N.J.A.C.5:94 & 5:95, supra,390 N.J.Super.at 36. Indoingso, the appellate panelnotedthatpre-FHA courtsalsohadallowedexclusionof the “cost-burdened poor” fromthe fair share formula.Id.at 35 (citingAMG Realty[Co.v.Twp.of Warren],207 N.J. Super.[388] at 422-23 [(LawDiv.1984)]). The court foundthat COAH’sdecisiontoexcludethe cost-burdenedpoorwasapermissible exercise of discretion.Id.at36. Althoughthe BloomfieldTwp’s“cost-burdened”local populationisexcludedfrombeing countedinthe Mt. Laurel methodologytodeterminethe Twp’s“presentneed”fairshare obligation,itis significantthatthe Supreme Courtwrote withapproval of the AMGRealty case andintimatedthat it expectsaTwp. to meetitsotherobligationstothisvulnerable classof low- andmoderate-income households. In AMG Realty,supra,207 N.J.Super.at 424, the trial judge wrote: Nothingthathas beensaidhere concerningexclusionof afinancial componentshould countenance amunicipality'sfailuretoundertake anaggressiveprogramof pursuingany available rentsupplementprogramswhichmaybe availabletoassistthose whoare infinancial need. It istherefore submittedthatthe State case law language in AMG Realty isconsistentwiththe more rigorousfederal HUDConsolidatedPlanregulations whichrequire aCDBG-recipientTwp.tonot “fail”(language of “omission”)—inthe wordsof AMGRealty--to“undertake[] aggressive program[s]” which“may be available toassistthose whoare infinancial need.” It issubmittedthat,underthe trial court’sabove omissionlanguagein AMGReality, itwouldbe disingenuousand inequitable forthe Twp.of Bloomfield toallege thatits547 “presentneed”fairshare obligationislimitedtoa“RehabilitationShare” strategy—i.e.,use of onlyarehabilitationprogram,as distinguishedfromproviding newconstruction affordable rental housingforlow andmoderate income
- 16. 16 householdswhopresentlyreside in “deficient”overcrowdedrentalhousing-- inthe lightof the Twp’s consciousdecisionorculpable neglectin: (1) failingtoenforce itsinclusionaryzoningordinance,Chap. 112, to create one affordable unitforeveryfourmarket-rate unitsinpastand pendingresidential developments;(2) building-out(exhausting) all of itsvacantlandfor luxuryrental housingdevelopment therebyeliminatingthe opportunityinthe future toconstructaffordable rental housinginthe future;10 (3) withthe physical impossibilityof relocating—through“checkerboard,”orphaseddevelopment--547 “presentneed”overcrowdedrental householdsresidingin“deficient”multifamilydwellings; and,(4) relyingsolelyonits federallyunderfunded Section8HCV program to meetitsHUD ConPlanobligations to lowand moderate income renterhouseholds. For equitable reasons,itissubmittedthatthe Twp’s Mt.Laurel obligationmustbe broadly interpretedtoincludeprotectinglowandmoderate income “presentneed”households. The contextof the Supreme Court’sfavorable reference tothe AMG Realty language cannotbe narrowlyinterpretedto be limitedtothe Twp.applyingformore Section8 HCV Program fundswhenitknowsverywell thatthe Congressional appropriationswill notbe forthcominginface of ahistoryof massive budgetcutsto that program.11 In addition,failuretoadopta rentcontrol ordinance wouldviolate HUD’shigherConPlan regulatorystandardsandwouldconstitute aregulatory“omission” toprotectthe “presentneed”Mt. Laurel classof lowand moderate income beneficiaryhouseholds livingin“deficient”housing until a multi-yearnew construction/rehabilitationremedial planiscompleted. A rentcontrol ordinance islikely neededformanyyearsto come to protect thisprotected Mt. Laurel classgiventhe Twp’s 2008 admissionthatthe Twp.is“built-out”;i.e.,lackinginvacantland forresidential. In myMarch 26, 2015 PublicPolicyMemorandumtothe Twp., p.35, I wrote that since the Twp. submitted toNJCOAHits 2008 HousingElementandFairShare Planand2008 inclusionaryzoning ordinance (requiring “aset-aside forprojectsthatgenerate five [5] ormore residentialunitsof one [1] affordable housingunitforeveryfour[4] marketrate units”),itappearedthatnone of the luxuryrental developmentsthathave beencompleted,andnone currentlyunderdevelopment,have anyinclusionary zoningaffordable-rental-unitsetasidesintheirdesigns. Atpage 35 of my Memorandum, Ilistedseveral of these luxurydevelopmentincluded: 44 ParkStreet,Avalon,HartzMountain,Block243 RedevelopmentPlan(“AnnieSez”),andOakesPond. OnJuly29, 2015, I sentan OpenPublicRecordsAct requestaskingthatthe Twp.provide the exacttotal unitsineach project underdevelopment—aswell as those notcitedin myPolicyMemorandum—aswell as the bedroomdistributions foreach of these projects. The Twp’s respondedtothisrequestonAugust21,2015 with174 pagesof Twp. Planningand ZoningBoard projectsite approvals withthisdata.12 See APPENDIXC, here fora site-by-site summaryof 10 See footnote 24, here, on Twp’s 2008 admission in its 2008 HousingElement submission to COAH of the “ build- out nature of Bloomfield (96% developed), [and that] the Township’s overall land usepattern has remained substantially unchanged duringthe past10 years,and only moderate future growth is expected to occur. … .” 11 See footnote 17, here, for the limited Congressional commitment to fundingthe Section 8 HCV Program. 12 The Twp’s August 21,2015 OPRAct response to me states: “The followingrecords arebeing provided in their entirety and are the ONLY documents in the Township’s possession responsiveto your request: [1]. Resolutions from the Township’s PlanningBoard for 110 Washington Street, 252-303.[ 2]. 262 Liberty Street-56 Broad Street,
- 17. 17 those distributions. Note inthe “remarks”portionof thatgrid the discussionof the school funding issuesrelatedtoeachluxurydevelopment,andthe factthat “OakesPond”appearsto be the only residentialdevelopmentwhere possiblefundingfromtax contributionstothe BOE forthe additional studentswasrecommendedbythe Twp.PlanningBoardtobe exploredbythe Twp.Council.13 Thisand otherdata obtainedfromthe Twp.throughotherOPRActrequestsin2015 confirms that, as of the date of St. Hilaire’sOPRActrequest, thatthe Twp. had completed,orhasunder development,the followingunits: Total units 1-bedroomunits Studios 2-bedroomunits Rental units 1,438 627 120 693 Ownershipunits 12 0 0 12 Grant total rental & ownershipunits 1,45014 627 120 705 Aside fromthe 82-unitHeritage Villageseniorcitizens’project(74,1-BR units& 8, 2-BR units) and the 12-unithomeownershipprojectat92-102 Willow St., none of these residential developments have Twp-enforcedprovisionsforaffordable housing setasides underthe Twp’sinclusionaryzoning ordinance whichcallsfora ratio of 1 affordable unitforevery4market-rate unitsdeveloped. This 92-102 WillowStreet, 390 Franklin Street, 221-225 BellevilleAvenue, 5 Lawrence Street, 192-200 Bloomfield Avenue, ParkingDeck in Block 228 and 44-58 Park Street, all in responseto Item No. 1.0 of your request, … of your request (174 pages).” (The Twp. Department of Community Development on December 7, 2015 sent me an email responsethat stated that the 177 Franklin St.project (the old South Junior High School) was slated for the development of 104 apartments.) This responsewas to my July 29, 2015 OPRAct request: “Provide me with the number of units--broken down by rental units and ownership units-- for each of the followingresidential development project sites,and indicatethe bedroom distribution for each project(i.e., the number of 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. bedrooms) for rental and homeownership units: 44 Park Street, Avalon Bloomfield Station on Glenwood Ave.; Hartz Mountain Redevelopment area (16.5 acres);Block 243 Redevelopment Plan (“Annie Sez”);…; Oakes Pond Redevelopment area; Fairways atBrookdale (“Liongate”); 177 Franklin Street redevelopment area;and 110 WilliamSt. redevelopment area.” (Liongate was not utilized for housing;instead,the site is beingused for other non-housingpurposes.) 13 It is not clear whataction the Twp. Council took on this PlanningBoard suggestion. 14This total excludes the 361-unitPrismproject(the old “Westinghouse” plant), the housingcomponent of which is really physically located in EastOrangebut has a Bloomfield address for “marketing” purpos es. This 1,450 unit total does includethe 114-unitproject at177 Franklin St. that is under development (site of old South Junior High School). On July 13,2015, I had sent to the Twp. a request that it table a resolution on the redevelopment plan for the rehabilitation of this former school for residential development and to amend the ordinanceto includein the study consideration of the Twp’s ordinancefor the provision of affordablehousingunder the Twp’s Chapter 112 ordinancewhich callsfor a 1:4 ratio of one unitof such housingfor every four market-rate units. The Council declined my recommendation.
- 18. 18 means that 1,368 other unitshave no affordable housingset-asides.15 Twenty-percent(20%) of this latter amount—274 affordable units16 —were notdevelopedunderthe Twp’szoning ordinance, Chapter 112, and could have beenaffordable housingresourcesfor current low and moderate income householdslivingin“deficient” housing,classifiedas“presentneed” households. But for the Twp’s omissioninfailingtoenforce itsordinance,asubstantial numberof low and moderate income householdscurrentlyresidinginBloomfieldinthe categoryof “presentneed” householdslivinginthe Twp.in“deficient”housing—i.e.,overcrowded,lackingplumbingor kitchen facilities—havemissedthe opportunityforaffordable,safe andsanitaryhousing. The devastatingeffectof thisisthatalthoughthe Twp.has until 2025 to meetDr. Kinsey’s547- unit“presentneed”fairshare obligationunderthe constitutionalrequirementsof the N.J.Supreme Court’sMt. Laurel case law;however,because the Twp.hasused-uppracticallyall of the availablespace inthe Twp.to build luxury rental housing, the Twp.islackingvacantcurrenthousingdevelopmentsites for future affordablehousingtomeetits“presentneed”Mt.Laurel obligation:an awful omission. Recall,these householdswouldnotburdenthe school districtwithadditional studentsbecause these “presentneed”households alreadyliveinthe Twp.andtheirchildrenare alreadyin District schools. It appearsthat onlyone residential development—OakesPond—hascommitteditself tohelp financiallywiththe costof schoolinginthe BOE district. Itdoesnot appearthat any otherof the housingdevelopershave beencalledupon—orvolunteered—toprovideassistancetothe BOE fortheir privilegetogentrifythe Twp. See my“remarks”onBOE issueson the gridIn APPENDIX C which summarizesthe Twp.PlanningBoardorZoningBoardresidential developments providedbythe Twp.in itsAugust21, 2015 OPRActresponse. Itisnot clearwhythe PlanningBoardandTwp.Council have not appliedthe same school costreimbursementconcepttoall of the otherdevelopmentsotherthanOakes Pond. The Twp. statesthat the 82-unitHeritage Village,acrossfromTownHall,isan affordable housingresource fordisabledandelderlypersonthatisavailable tolow andmoderate income householdswhomayfall intothe housing“deficiency”category—noplumbing,kitchenfacilitiesor overcrowd. However,that project is oflimitedusefulnesstothis“presentneed” protectedclass because: (1) the projectisforlimitedbeneficiariesdue tothe factthat all of the unitsare one- bedrooms,exceptforfour(4) two-bedroomunits;(2) thisresource isnotconducive forfamiliesinthe “presentneed”housing“deficiency”category;and,(3) there isno indicationthathouseholdsinthis “presentneed”categoryare receivingatenantselection“preference”bythe developerforadmissionto thisproject,a fact that can onlybe ascertainedafterall 82 unitsare occupied. 15Ironically,these higher income renter households areprotected from rent control for 30 years while the Twp’s low and moderate income rented households,especially thosewho are “cost-burdened,” remain vulnerable. See N.J.S.A. 2A:42-84.2, L.1987, c.153,s.2 & s.3; amended 1999,c.291, s.1. N.J.S.A. 2A:42-84.2. 16 1,450 minus 94 units = 1,368; times 20% = 274 of affordableunits which should havebeen set asideunder the Twp’s inclusionary zoningordinance,Chap.112. This could have gone to meet the Twp’s “present need” Mt. Laurel fair shareobligation,however established,either by Dr. Kinsey or by Econsult.
- 19. 19 The existence of astrongrent control ordinance withminimumdwellingunitexemptionsand withno provisionforvacancydecontrol wouldmitigate the problemof relocationuntil suchtime that the Twp. expeditiouslyconstructsaffordable unitstomeetthe Mt. Laurel “presentneed”obligation through2025. Althoughrentcontrol isnot a “housingprogram,”the failure tothe Twp.to provide affordable housingisacomponenttothe “police power”requirementthatthere be a“sufficientlocal need”foran ordinance. Failure tomeetthisobligationaggravates“local need.” Thisisparticularly importantinthe face of the fact that the Bloomfield’sHousingAuthority(PHA) hasonly270 HUD-issued vouchersof Section8 Tenant-BasedProgramthatare alreadydistributedtoincome-vulnerable tenants; and the PHA hasover430 householdsonitswaitinglistwhichhasbeen“frozen”withnoother householdsbeing able togetonthat waitinglist. The paltryincrease Congress’sFY16HUD appropriationsforthisfederal program,signedbythe presidentonDecember 18, 2015, is unlikelyto make much of difference in increased voucherfundingforthe BloomfieldPHA to meetitswaitinglist demand.17 Bloomfield’spossible “gap period” affordable housingobligation It iswithinthe realmof possibilitythatthe Twp.of BloomfieldhasaMt. Laurel fairshare obligationthatisbeyondwhatever“presentneed” obligationthatEssex CountySuperiorCourtdecides as a resultof the N.J.Supreme Court’sMarch10, 2015 decisionin Inre Adoptionof N.J.A.C.5:96 & 5:97 by N.J.Council onAffordableHousing,__N.J.__ (2015)(M-392-14). That Court declaredthatCOAHhad abdicateditsconstitutionalobligationtoimplementthe Mt. Laurel legislationleadingthe Courttoassigntoeverycountyjudicial vicinageatrial judge whowould entertainmunicipal motionsfordeclaratoryjudgmentstodetermine municipalaffordable fairshare obligations. Those trial courtsare to establish“prospective”and“presentneed”obligations,if they exist. Thensomethingnewoccurredwhenatrial judge inOceanCounty,Hon.Mark A.Troncone, J.S.C., commissionedaspecial master(RichardB.Reading) toassisthimwiththe fulfillmentof hisjudicial obligationsunderthe Supreme Courtdecision. Mr. Readingreviewedfairshare planningdata thatthe Fair Share HousingCenter(FSHC) submittedtothe Court, includingdocumentation fromDr.David Kinsey.18 17 See footnote 33 of my March 26, 2015 Public Policy Memorandum for federal budget problems in FY15. The federal FY16 Omnibus Spending Act was passed by the Congress and signed by the president on December 18, 2015. The HUD appropriations by programappears in the National Low Income HousingCoalition budgetchart, as of December 18, 2015, at: http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/FY16HUD-USDA_Budget-Chart.pdf . There was a negligiblefundingincreasein HUD’s Tenant-Based Rental Program (Section 8 Vouchers) for contractrenewal set- asides from$17.486 billion in FY15 to $17.681 billion in thecurrent FY16 budget. Itis doubtful that the Twp. PHA will receiveanythingbut a negligibleincrease—if any--beyond the present contractauthority subsidy for its current 270 Sec. 8 voucher units. 18 See Dr. D. Kinsey’s March 24, 2016 analysisthatwas the FSHC’s submission in the Ocean Co. context that included a discussion of “present need” atpp. 13-20,especially pp.19-20 that discusses theSpecial Master Reading’s report to Judge Troncone. (Note that Reading has been commissioned by Judge Carey, Essex Co. in the pending cases involvingW.Caldwell,Maplewood and Fairfield): https://www.dropbox.com/sh/pfcj1ccrrtzld3p/AAB3iPYE7hf8DrWLnYrE5V2za/4-6-16%20-%20Barnegat- %20Appeal%20-in%20support%20of%20amicus%20mtns-%20%20Omnibus%20Appendix%20-final%20s.pdf?dl=0
- 20. 20 The FSHC statesthat thisrulingcouldleadtothe constructionof thousandsof new homesfor NewJerseyfamilies. Judge Troncone,inadecision inthe contextof OceanCounty,19 datedFebruary18, 2016, Dkt.No. OCN-L--2640-15, rejectedargumentsbythe New JerseyState League of Municipalities and several individual municipalitiesthattheyshouldbe able toignore the housingneedsof working families,people withdisabilities,andlow-income seniorsthatarose overthe past15 years. (Municipalities,includingthe N.J.League of Municipalities, filedaninterlocutoryappeal inlate March, earlyApril 2016, to Judge Troncone’sFebruary18,2016 order in thisOceanCountycase to the Appellate Divisionwhere the “gap”obligationissue ispendingdecision.) FSHC statesthat the OceanCounty decision, whichmayhave far-reachingeffectsbeyondOcean County,will helpensure thattensof thousandsadditional New Jerseyansgetaccesstonew housing opportunities.Itwill alsosubstantially increase municipalfairhousingobligationsbeyondthe unrealisticallylownumbersproposedbyaconsortium (throughitsstudybyEconsult) of over200 municipalities.Judge Troncone rejectedthe central conclusionof areportsubmittedonbehalf of more than 200 townsthat was designedtoexclude workingfamilies,seniorsandthose withdisabilitiesfrom permanenthomes.Itarguedthattownsshouldnothave to provide fairhousingopportunitiesfora 15- yearperiodthat beganin1999, whenthe state’sfairhousinglawswere influx. The rulingreliedonthe analysisof courtspecial masterRichardB. Reading,whohasbeen appointednotonlyinOceanCountybutalsoin Essex County,byJudge Carey,toadvise the courtas to fairshare obligations. Reading,inareportto Judge Troncone, recommendedthatthe courtinclude housingneedsfrom1999 to 2015 as part of municipal fairshare obligations.Similarreportshave already beenrequestedfromReadingbyJudge Carey. InhisMarch 24, 2016 schedulingorderinMt. Laurel casesinvolvingthe Essex Countymunicipalitiesof WestCaldwell,Maplewoodand Fairfield, Judge Carey orderedthatMr. Readingevaluate whatthe “gapperiod” fairshare obligationforall of the other municipalitiesinEssex County, presumablyincludingthe Twp.of Bloomfield. So,that pendingcase—whichBloomfieldisnota party to—will conceivably bearonthe Twp.of Bloomfield’s ”presentneed”and“gapperiod”fairshare affordable housingobligation underthe N.J. Fair HousingActand the N.J.Supreme Court’sMarch 2015 Mt. Laurel decision. Bloomfieldhasmade a 19 See opinion at: http://fairsharehousing.org/images/uploads/160218_Troncone_Opinion.pdf Judge Troncone’s Order states, in part: “ Based upon the findings of this opinion, the Special Regional Master [Mr. Richard B.Reading] is hereby “ORDERED to prepare his final reportso as to: “1. Include,as a separateand discretecomponent, the affordablehousingneed which aroseduringthe “gap period” encompassingthe period from the end of the second round housingcyclein 1999 to the present into his methodology in determining the statewide and regional housingneed and the allocation of thatneed to the constituent Ocean County municipalities. “2. Apply FHA’s 1000 unit cap provision as directed by this opinion. A municipality’s presentand prospective need for the third round housingcycletogether with the gap period need shall all besubjectto the cap. A municipality’s present and prospectiveneed shall beaccounted for firstand then the gap period need is to be added. … .” [Emphasis mine.] Mr. Reading’s report, “Bridging the Gap: 1999-2015 ‘Gap Period’Affordable HousingNeeds” (Feb. 17, 2016),that Judge Tronone accepted on methodology for the “gap period” is found at: http://files.ctctcdn.com/b3ea0b6a001/5ad8ffd4-0138-4054-bf33-fc8106523fea.pdf .
- 21. 21 decisionnottofile adeclaratoryjudgmentactioninthe Essex Countyvicinage toseekclarificationonits fairshare obligationand itisapparentlywillingtoacceptthe judicial findingof obligation—without participating--inthe upcomingtrial of these three Essex Countymunicipalities. PARTIII.C. update of March26, 2015 Policy Memorandum (pp. 21-23) onTwp. obligationtocomply withthe federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 toavoid “disparate impact “ on families inits implementationof municipal residential zoning powers. The Supreme Courtof the UnitedStatesissuedanopiniononJune 25,2015 in TexasDepart.of CommunityAffairs,___ U.S. ___ (No.13-1317)20 thatinterpretedthe federal FairHousingAct,42, U.S.C. §§3601-3619 et seq.,to permithousingdiscriminationactionswherethere isa“disparate impact”on certaincivil rights protectedclassesunderthatstatute. The case dealswithissuesof race;however,the Fair HousingActalsoincludes“familial status”asamongthe protectedclassesregardlessof the race of the householdsaffected. Althoughthe legal issuesare complex andnoattemptwill be made here to explore the full applicationof the Court’sholdingtothe Bloomfieldcontext forthe provisionof affordable housingforfamilies,itisclearthat the Fair HousingActappliestothe denial of housing opportunitiesforprotectedclassestoincludeincome-vulnerablefamilies,regardlessof theirrace. The Court indicatedthatsuitstargetingunlawful zoninglawsandotherhousingrestrictionsthat unfairlyexclude minoritiesfromcertainneighborhoodswithoutsufficientjustification are atthe heartof disparate-impactliability.See,e.g., Huntingtonv.HuntingtonBranch,NAACP,488 U. S. 15, 16–18. It ruledthatrecognitionof disparate-impactliabilityunderthe federal FairHousingAct playsanimportant role inuncoveringdiscriminatoryintent:itpermitsplaintiffstocounteractunconscious prejudicesand disguised animus thatescape easyclassificationasdisparate treatment. Clearly,municipalitiesmay provide allegedly“neutral”reasonsfortheiractions;however plaintiffs are notrequiredtoprove discriminatoryintenttoprevail inthese zoningcases. In the Bloomfieldcontext,itistroublesome thatthe Twp.hasconsistentlyfailedtoapplyits inclusionaryzoningordinance,Chapter112 of the Municipal Code,toitsdevelopmentandfacilitationof hundredsof unitsof luxuryhousing. Thatordinance callsforthe developmentof one affordable housing unitfor everyfourmarket-rate unitsdeveloped. CurrentBloomfieldresidentincome-vulnerable householdswhoare inthe categoryof beneficiariesof the Twp’s Mt. Laurel “presentneed”fairshare obligation—i.e.,547 lowandmoderate income households,21 manyof whomare familiesresidingin “deficient”housing—have beendeniedthe opportunitytoparticipate in residingin the over700 two- 20 See also,articleby Adam Liptak in the New York Times, “Justices Take Broad View Of Bias Suits In Housing,” June 26, 2015. See also, Morgan Williams, “Symposium:An endorsement of forty years of effective fair housing enforcement,” SCOTUSblog (Jun. 25, 2015,8:38 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/symposium-an- endorsement-of-forty-years-of-effective-fair-housing-enforcement/ . 21 See footnote 6, here, on The New Jersey League of Municipalities commissioned Econsult,Philadelphia,Pa.,to critiqueof Dr. Kinsey’s study. The Twp. is a member of the League, but the Twp. has been silenton its position on Dr. Kinsey’s estimate.
- 22. 22 bedroomunitsdevelopedasluxuryhousing,none of whichprovidearealisticaffordable housing opportunityfor“costburdened”renterhouseholdsinthe “familialstatus”protectedclassunderthe federal FairHousingActof 1968. No attempthere ismade to evaluate the full meritsof sucha “disparate impact”discrimination claim. However,there isacolorable basisforthe Twp.to examine the implicationsof itsactionsin failingtoaddressthe affordable housingneedsof this Mt.Laurel “presentneed”classof familylowand moderate income householdswho presentlyreside indeficienthousinginourtown. The U.S. Supreme Court’sdecisioninthe above case wasprecededbythe U.S.Departmentof HousingandUrban Development’s(HUD) promulgationof its“disparate impact”enforcement regulations,24C.F.RPart 100, whichdefined“disparate impact”andsetforththe procedure for assessingthe meritsof aclaimfor discrimination. (See APPENDIXE fora relevantportionof the regulation,24C.F.R.§100.500.)22 HUD’s comments, 78 Fed.Reg. at11468, to its final regulationsare instructive onthe Twp’somissionsinnotenforcingitsinclusionaryzoningordinance;anditsfailure to enacta strongrent control ordinance,thathasa novacancy decontrol provision andfailstominimize the numberof dwellingunitscovered: HUD agreeswiththe … commenterthatthe [U.S. FairHousing] Actis bestinterpretedas prohibitingactionsthatpredictablyresultinanunjustifieddiscriminatoryeffect.HUD’s interpretationissupportedbythe plainlanguage of the FairHousingAct,whichdefines ‘‘aggrievedperson’’asanypersonwho‘‘believesthatsuchpersonwill be injuredbya discriminatoryhousingpractice thatisaboutto occur,’’and whichspecificallyauthorizesHUDto take enforcementactionand [AdministrativeLaw Judges] ALJsandcourtsto orderrelief with respectto discriminationthat‘‘isabouttooccur.’’Moreover,courtsinterpretingthe Fair HousingAct have agreedthat predictable discriminatoryeffectsmayviolatethe Act. [Footnotes omitted.][Emphasismine.] My March 26, 2015 PublicPolicyMemorandumdocuments23 --throughvariousfactual sources (includingdatainthe Twp’sown2010 FairHousingPlanand 2014 ConsolidatedPlan/Annual Plan)--the adverse disparate impactthatthe Twp’sinclusionaryzoningomissionsandrentcontrol omissions 22 See HUD’s comments to its final regulationsin 78 Fed.Reg. at 11460, et seq. (Feb. 15, 2013). http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=discriminatoryeffectrule.pdf 23 See, for instance,PARTS I and II,pp. 4-15, of that Memorandum and Appendix C of this Supplemental Memorandum on the Twp’s failureto include affordabletwo-bedroom and higher dwellingunits in the 1,368 luxury units that have no affordablehousingset-asides,notwithstandingtheTwp’s inclusionary zoningordinance’s call for a ratio of 1:4 of affordableunits to market-rate units. The Twp. admits in its 2010 Fair HousingPlan and 2014 ConPlan that 51% of rental households are“cost-burdened.” The Twp. wrote: “[T]he Township of Bloomfield has many residents who experience a cost burden, most likely dueto the high cost of livingin this area. Approximately one-third of the Township’s residents pay 30 percent or more of their income on housingcosts. Based on this statistic,more affordablehousingis needed in Bloomfield and throughout the County. With the cost of housingincreasingeach year,Essex County risks losingresidents to more affordableareas.… . Of households in Bloomfield that spent 30 percent or more of their household income on housing,58.1 percent of all owners with mortgages, 34.2 percent of all owners without mortgages, and 51.1 percent of all renters accordingto 2006-2008 estimates. These percentages represent an increaseof 25.4 percent, 24.1 percent and 33.7 percent respectively from 2005-2007 estimates.” [Twp’s 2014 Consolidated Plan,p.16, submitted to HUD.][Emphasis mine.]
- 23. 23 presentlyhave,andpredictablyhave,ondiminishingaffordable housingopportunitiesforthe protected “familial statusclass”of income-vulnerable householdsinthe Twp.24 It isimportantto note that the federal FairHousingActwasamendedtoinclude the “familial status”protectedclasstothe classes foundinthe original Act; i.e., race,national origin,etc. The commentsto the final HUD regulations,78 Fed.Reg.at11469, are clearin statingthatthe “familial status”classmustbe readintoHUD’s and the case law’sconcernforestablishing trulyintegratedandbalancedlivingpatterns: Recognizingliabilityforactionsthatimpermissiblycreate,increase,reinforce,orperpetuate segregatedhousingpatternsdirectlyaddressesthe purpose of the [federal FairHousing] Actto replace segregatedneighborhoodswith‘‘trulyintegratedandbalancedlivingpatterns.’’25 PARTIII.B. update of March 26, 2015 Policy Memorandum(pp. 15-20) the federal Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 andregulations that relate to the Twp’s obligationtohave appropriate strategies for the removal of affordability impediments (barrierstoaffordability). Subsequentto mysubmittingthe PublicPolicyMemorandumtothe Twp.on March 26, 2015, HUD promulgatedregulations,called“AffirmativelyFurtheringFairHousing (AFFH),”onJuly16, 2015 at 80 Fed. Reg.42271-42371, 24 CFR §§5.150-5.168,26 whichstrengthenedthe fairhousingcomponentsof the CommunityPlanningandDevelopmentregulations--24CFR§§91.200 to 91.253 and §§570.302, 570.303, 570.495 & 570.496--that I citedat pp.15-20 (andAppendix2, there) of thatMemorandum concerningthe obligationof municipalitieslikeBloomfield initsfuture 5-yearConPlansandOne Year ActionPlanstoaddress the removal AffordabilityImpediments(AI) and barrierstoaffordabilityfor 24 The Twp’s 2008 HousingElement & Fair SharePlan to COAH, p. 17,states that “[d]ue to the build-outnature of Bloomfield (96% developed), the Township’s overall land usepattern has remained substantially unchanged during the past10 years,and only moderate future growth is expected to occur. The majority of future growth and development in the Township will begenerated by redevelopment activity in the Bloomfield Station redevelopment area, and Township-wide as the entire Township was declared as an Area in need of Rehabilitation pursuantto the [NJ] Local Housingand Redevelopment Law in 2002.” [Emphasis mine.] 25 As to the issueof the Twp’s inclusionary zoningordinancethatwas not enforced to provide a 1:4 ratio set-aside of affordableunits to market rate units,HUD’s comments, 78 Fed.Reg. at 11478,are perhaps instructional that “familial status”disparateimpacteffects can occur where housingis rendered “unavailablebecauseof [this] protected characteristic”: Because the illustrated conductmay violatethe Act under either an intent theory, an effects theory, or both, HUD also finds itappropriateto replace‘‘in a manner that has a disparateimpactor has the effect of creating, perpetuating, or increasingsegregated housingpatterns’’ becauseof a protected characteristic with ‘‘otherwise make unavailableor deny dwellings becauseof’’ a protected characteristic. As discussed in the ‘‘Validity of Discriminatory Effects Liability under the Act’’ section above, the phrase ‘‘otherwise make unavailableor deny’’ encompasses discriminatory effects liability.[Emphasis mine.] 26 See new regulations at www.hud.gov/AFFH .
- 24. 24 income-vulnerable households incertain civil rightsprotectclasses,toinclude racial and“familial status” classifications. Althoughthe newAFFHregulations(summarizedbelow) donottechnicallytake effectforfive years,twothingsare important relative tothe needtoenact,now,astrong rentcontrol ordinance and enforce itsinclusionaryzoningordinance,Chap.112: (1) HUD’s currentCDBG and fairhousing regulations are still ineffect thatgovernthe Twp’sobligationto analyze and remove affordability impedimentsandbarrierstoaffordabilityforincome-vulnerablerenterhouseholdsandhouseholdsin the “familiarstatus”protectedclass underfairhousingstatutes;27 and(2) if the Twp.in the future isto submitan adequate AFHandConPlantoHUD, itwill needtoshow that ithad beenimplementinga strategy, all along, thatwas consistentwith protectingthese vulnerablegroups if itisto avoidfair housingculpability andsanctionsatthattime. It wouldbe disingenuousfive yearsfromnow forthe Twp.to representtoHUD that it justrecognizedthe needsof these at-riskpopulations—whenall of the available landforhousingdevelopmentislost--whichare clearlyidentifiedinthe Twp’s2010 Fair HousingPlan, 2014 ConPlanandAnnual Plan. That said,I nowturn to a brief summaryof HUD’s new AFFH regulationsthatwere finalizedafter I submittedthe PublicPolicyMemorandumtothe Mayorand Council onMarch 26, 2015. Then,I will restate the view,expressed inthatMemorandum, thatHUD’s currentCDBG and fairhousingregulations governthe Twp’s needtoenact a strong rentcontrol ordinance andenforcingitsinclusionaryzoning ordinance toprovide affordablerental housingset-asides. On July8, 2015, HUD announceditsfinal regulationstofurtherfairhousing.28 The pressrelease statedinpart: The U.S. Departmentof HousingandUrban Development(HUD) announcedafinal rule todayto equipcommunitiesthatreceiveHUDfundingwithdataand toolsto helpthemmeetlong- standingfairhousingobligationsintheiruse of HUDfunds.HUD will alsoprovide additional guidance andtechnical assistance tofacilitatelocal decision-makingonfairhousingpriorities and goalsfor affordable housingandcommunitydevelopment. For more than fortyyears,HUD fundingrecipientshave beenobligatedbylaw toreduce barriers to fairhousing,soeveryone canaccessaffordable,qualityhousing.Establishedinthe Fair HousingAct of 1968, the lawdirectsHUD and itsprogram participantstopromote fairhousing and equal opportunity.Thisobligationwasintendedtoensure thateverypersoninAmericahas 27 HUD has prepared instructional guided for jurisdictionssuch as Bloomfield on whatis expected of them under CDBG regulations thatpreceded the August 17, 2015 effective date of the new AFFH regulations: HUD AFFH webpage, http://1.usa.gov/VFQbbE; HUD’s Fair Housing Planning Guide, Vol. 1 (#HUD1582B-FHEO), www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/images/ fhpg.pdf . In addition,for a good summary of the HUD regulations thatgovern the Twp’s CDBG Affordability Impediment’s obligation atthe current time, see Appendix AA, here, which is an extract from an articleby Ed Gramlich from the National Coalition for Low Income Housingentitled “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing”(2015),written after publication of HUD’s proposed regulation,but prior to HUD’s issuanceof the final AFFH regulations on July 16,2015. 28 See also,articleon this new regulation by Binyamin Appelbaum in N.Y. Times, “Helping Families Move Far From Public Housing,”July 8, 2015,pp. 1 & B6: “Housing vouchers,likeschool vouchers,are sometimes criticized for helpinga few whileleavingmany behind. ‘A child’s courseof lifeshould notbe determined by the ZIP code she’s born in,’President Obama declared lastyear.”
- 25. 25 the right to fairhousing,regardlessof theirrace,color,national origin,religion,sex,disabilityor familial status.The final rule aimstoprovide all HUDprogramparticipantswithclearguidelines and data theycan use to achieve those goals. [Emphasismine.] At itswebsite,HUDdescribedthe purposesof thisnew AFFHplanningregulation: HUD’s rule clarifiesandsimplifiesexistingfairhousingobligationsforHUD granteestoanalyze theirfairhousinglandscape andsetlocally-determinedfairhousingprioritiesandgoalsthrough an Assessmentof FairHousing(AFH).Toaidcommunitiesinthiswork,HUD will provideopen data to granteesandthe publiconpatternsof integrationandsegregation,raciallyand ethnicallyconcentratedareasof poverty,disproportionatehousingneeds,and disparitiesin access to opportunity.ThisimprovedapproachprovidesabettermechanismforHUDgrantees to buildfairhousinggoalsintotheirexistingcommunitydevelopmentandhousingplanning processes.Inadditiontoprovidingdataandmaps,HUD will alsoprovide technical assistance to aidgranteesas theyadoptthisapproach. [Emphasismine.] HUD commentedonthe AFFHon the applicabilityof fairhousingassessment of amunicipality’s zoningordinances,80Fed.Reg.at 42310: [T]he purpose of thisassessmentistoenable HUD programparticipantstobetterfulfilltheir existinglegalobligationtoaffirmativelyfurtherfairhousing,inaccordance withthe FairHousing Act and othercivil rightslaws. It isimportantto note…that,while zoningandlanduse are generallylocal mattersasstatedby the commenters,whenlocal zoningorlanduse practicesviolate the FairHousingActorother Federal civil rightslawssuchastitle VIof the Civil RightsAct,section504 of the Rehabilitation Act, or the AmericanswithDisabilitiesAct,theybecome aFederal concern,aswithanyviolation of Federal lawthatoccurs at a local level.See,e.g., U.S.v.Cityof Black Jack,Missouri,508 F.2d 1179, 1187-1188 (8th Cir.1974), cert. denied,422 U.S. 1042 (1975); U.S. v. YonkersBoard of Education,etal.,837 F.2d 1181 (2d.Cir. 1987), cert.denied,486 U.S. 1055 (1988). Inclusionof zoningandlanduse isnot intendedtoassume these issueswillhave such implicationsformostor manyprogram participants.However,includingzoningandlanduse for considerationisneededtogainanaccurate overall picture of local housingandneighborhood issues,suchasthe availabilityof affordable rentalhousinginadiverse setof communities. The newregulationsrequirethateachConPlanprogramparticipantandeach PHA participating witha local governmentindevelopinganAFHsubmitanAFH at leastonce everyfive years.PHAs undertakingtheirownAFHwould be requiredtohave annual updates. Unlike the AI,the AFHwouldbe submittedtoHUD for reviewandapproval.HUDcould decide nottoaccept an AFH,or a portionof one, if it isinconsistentwithcivil rightslawsorif the assessmentissubstantiallyincomplete.29 Forexample: 29 HUD’s final AFFH regulation,24 CFR §5.126 (“Review of AFH”), contains certain reviewstandards of municipalities such as Bloomfield: “(b) Nonacceptance of an AFH. (1) HUD will not acceptan AFH if HUD finds that the AFH or a portion of the AFH is inconsistentwith fair housingor civil rights requirements or is substantially incomplete.In connection with a regional or jointAFH, HUD’s determination to not accept the AFH with respect to one
- 26. 26 • If the AFHwas developedwithoutcommunityparticipationorconsultation. • If the AFHfailsto satisfythe requiredelementsof the regulation,suchasprioritiesthatare materially inconsistentwithdataandotherevidence.Inorderfora ConPlanorPHA Planto be approved,and therefore aprogramparticipantto receive funds,anapprovedAFHwouldbe necessary. The ConPlan’s“StrategicPlan”(five-yearplan) wouldhave todescribe how ajurisdiction’s prioritiesandspecificobjectiveswill affirmativelyfurtherfairhousingbyhavingstrategiesandactions consistentwiththe goalsandotherelementsof the AFH.The ConPlan’sAnnual ActionPlanwouldhave to describe the actionsajurisdictionplanstocarryout inthe upcomingyeartoaddressfairhousing issuesidentifiedinthe AFH.The rule refinesthe currentdefinition of “certifying”thata jurisdictionwill “affirmativelyfurtherfairhousing”bystating in24 CFR §1.561(e) that each program participant ”must certifythatit will take meaningful actionstofurtherthe goalsidentifiedinitsAFHconductedin accordance withthe requirementsin§§5.150 through5.180 and24 CFR91.225(a)(1), 91.325(a)(1), 91.425(a)(1), 570.487(b)(1), 570.601, 903.7(o), and 903.15(d), as applicable.” Although,technically--because BloomfieldjustsubmittedaConPlanandOne-YearAnnual Plan in2015--the new AFH regulations donotrequire the Townshipto submitanAFHwitha ConPlanfor quite some time intothe future. However,these newregulations require jurisdictionssuchas Bloomfieldtofollow the currentCDBGConsolidatedPlan/Annual Plan obligations"asrequiredof the program participantbyone or more of the HUD programs [suchas the CDBG program] listedin§5.154, inaccordance withrequirementsineffectpriortoAugust17, 2015.”30 [Emphasismine.] program participant does not necessarily affectthe acceptance of the AFH with respect to another program participant.(i) The followingareexamples of an AFH that is inconsistentwith fair housingand civil rights requirements:(A) HUD determines that the analysis of fair housingissues,fairhousing contributingfactors,goals,or prioritiescontained in the AFH would resultin policies or practices that would operate to discriminatein violation of the Fair HousingAct or other civil rights laws;(B) The AFH does not identify policies or practices as fair housingcontributingfactors,even though they resultin the exclusion of a protected classfromareas of opportunity. (ii) The followingareexamples of an AFH that is substantially incomplete:(A) The AFH was developed without the required community participation or the required consultation;(B) The AFH fails to satisfy a required element in §§5.150 through 5.180. Failure to satisfy a required element includes an assessmentin which priorities or goals arematerially inconsistentwith the data or other evidence availableto the program participantor in which priorities or goals arenot designed to overcome the effects of contributingfactors and related fair housingissues .” [Emphasis mine.] 30 24 CFR §5.160 (2015) “Submission requirements”: (a) FirstAFH—(1)….; (2)…; (3) Compliance with existing requirements until first AFH submission. Except as provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, until such time as program participants arerequired to submitan AFH, the program participant shall continue to conduct an analysis of impediments, as required of the program participant by one or more of the HUD programs listed in §5.154, in accordance with requirementsin effect prior to August 17, 2015.” [Emphasis mine.] This cited new regulation,§5.154(a)(“Assessment of Fair Housing(AFH)”), applicableto Bloomfield, states,in part: “For HUD program participants already required to develop plans for effective uses of HUD funds consistentwith the statutory requirements and goals governingsuch funds,an AFH will beintegrated into such plans.” The new §5.154(b) includes jurisdictionssuch as theTwp. of Bloomfield that receives CDBG funds grants (referring to 24 CFR part570, subparts D and I) and to Public HousingAuthorities,such as the Twp., which receives assistance under sections 8 of the U.S. HousingAct of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f or 42 U.S.C.1437g). The reader is invited to review my Public Policy Memorandum, dated March 26, 2015,which discusses thecivil rights and Affordability
- 27. 27 We have nowcome to full circle onthe questionof whetherwhatIwrote inthe previous memorandumisstill avalidanalysisof the Twp’s currentHUD regulatoryand statutory responsibilities.I submitthatit is. Recentdevelopments,describedinthissupplemental memorandumhave only strengthenthe original analysis. The readeris againinvitedtoreview the Twp’sConPlanobligationsfoundinmyMarch 26, 2015 PublicPolicyMemorandum, PARTIII.B.,pp.15-20,previouslysubmittedtothe Mayor and Council.The effectivedate of the final AFFHregulationswasAugust17,2015: afterI submitted thatMemorandum. However, whatIwrote thenisstill legallyapplicable. Although24CFR §5.160(a) of the final regulation doesnotapparently require Bloomfieldtosubmitanew five-yearConPlan toHUD witha AFH inanother five (5) years,the Twp. isstill requiredto complythe HUD regulations in existence priorto August 17, 2015 relatedto documentingand strategizing for the removal of AffordabilityImpedimentsand barriers to affordabilityunderthe HUD regulationsthatwere ineffectpriortothatdate: 24 CFR §§91.200 to 91.253 and §§570.302, 570.303, 570.495 & 570.496, and HUD’s “Equal Opportunity&Fair HousingReviewCriteriafor24 CFR SubpartO, §570.904(a)(1)(ii)). The CDBG regulations,requiringthe Twp.to remove “affordabilitybarriers”and “barriersto affordability”are foundat 24 CFR §91.200(a), 91.210(e), 91.215(h) and §91.220(g)(j) & (k). CONCLUSION The factual, CDBG andfederal andstate regulatoryandstatutoryanalysisof the Bloomfieldof municipal performance, dataandhousingtrends thatissetforth inmy previousMemorandum, pp.4- 20, isstrengthenedbysubsequentlegal,demographicandpublicpolicyevents,includingthose related to Mt. Laurel,31 federal courtand HUD’ fairhousing rulingson“disparate impact,”andHUD’s July16, 2015 AFFH planningregulations governingthe Twp’sadministrationof itsCDBG program. Impediment programmatic requirements that were in effect before August 17, 2015. See footnote 1 of that memorandum as well as pp. 15-20 for an analysisof why the absence of a strong rent control ordinancewould be an omission with CDBG and fair housinglegal implications. 31 See my March 26, 2015 Memorandum, pp. 25-40, on Mt. Laurel and this supplemental memorandum, pp. 9-20, on the “present need” analysis for Bloomfield. Also,see footnote 1, here, on The New Jersey League of Municipalities commissioned Econsult,Philadelphia,Pa.,which critiques Dr.Kinsey’s study which was commissioned by the Fair Share HousingCenter. For purposes of argument, even if Dr. Kinsey’s 547 “present need” calculation was inflated by 50%--a challengewe do not concede—it is clear thatthe Twp., pp. 17-18 of this Supplemental Memorandum, developed 1,368 other units have no affordablehousingset-asides under its inclusionary zoningordinance. [See footnote 24, here, on Twp. admission on the “build-out nature of Bloomfield (96% developed)”.] Twenty-percent (20%) of this latter amount—274 affordableunits —were not developed under the Twp’s zoningordinance,Chapter 112, and could havebeen affordablehousingresources for currentlow and moderate income households livingin “deficient”housing,classified as “presentneed” households. So, 50% of Dr. Kinsey’s 547 calculation is 274. That is exactly the number of affordable units that the Twp. did not provide for local Bloomfield residents who are low and moderate income households residing in “deficient” housing as defined by the N.J. Supreme Court as “present need” beneficiaries! The fact that the Twp. has virtually exhausted physical sites for housingdevelopment makes itvirtually impossiblefor itto make-up for this omission before 2025.
- 28. 28 As I statedat p.4 of thisSupplemental Memorandum, mypublicpolicyandlegal analysisis primarilyfoundedonthe State Supreme Court’slegal conclusionthatamunicipalitymayutilizedstate statutory“police powers”toenacta rentcontrol ordinance toprotectincome-vulnerabletenantswhere there isfoundto be a “sufficientlocal need.” The publicpolicyanalysisthatIpresentedonMarch 26, 2015—based on demographicanalysisandhousingtrends—aswell aslegal analysisof federal law (CDBG, Title VIIIof civil rightsact,Section8,etc.) and state law (N.J.Law AgainstDiscrimination, Mt. Laurel decisions),complementsandstrengthensthatargumentfora strongrent control ordinance that isauthorizedunderthe N.J.Supreme Court’sconventional “police power”legal analysisthatisfounded on the abilityof municipalitiestoprotectincome-vulnerable tenantsfromharmwhere there isfoundto be “a sufficientlocal need.” Myargumentis thatthe Twp’slegal omissions,infailingtomeetitsfederal CDBG (dutyto remove “barrierstoaffordability”),fairhousingand Mt.Laurel fair share programmatic obligations,exacerbatesthat“local need”andcreatesthe obligationinthe Twp.toremedythatneedby enactinga rentcontrol ordinance underits“police powers. It is the veryabsence of an adequate “programmatic”housingplan—underCDBGregulations, fairhousinglaws, Mt. Laurel affordable housingobligations,andthe Twp’s2008 inclusionaryzoning ordinance--thatdrivesthe needfora strongrentcontrol ordinance underthe Twp’s“police powers”to mitigate andcompensate forthese federal andState legal omissions. For the reasonsstatedinthe original PublicPolicyMemorandumandthisSupplemental Memorandum,the Twp.32 needstomitigate the confluence of itshousingdevelopmentand fairhousing omissions by: enactingastrongrent control ordinance33 ;correctingitspoorperformance underits inclusionaryzoningordinance;addressingitsneglecttoaddress itsMt. Laurel “presentneed”(and possible “gapperiodMt.Laurel fairshare obligation) tolow andmoderate income local resident households residingindeficienthousing;abatingthe fairhousingdisparateimpactsthese omissions have had on at-riskincome-vulnerablerentersin the “familial status”statutorily protectedclass;and protectingother“cost-burdened”tenantresidentsbystrategicallyremoving,underCDBGregulations, “affordabilityimpediments”and“barrierstoaffordability.” 32 These trends began long ago with the previous Twp. municipal administration and continuewith the present one. 33 See pp. 7-9, here, for what I suggest arecritical elements in an ordinance.