Below is a letter indicating the recent work NJTO and Matt Shapiro have undertaken to show support for low-income tenants who need affordable housing and the LAD requirements of DCA, which also ties in with the Hoboken, NJ tenant struggle.
Dear Ms. Kaley Lentini, Deputy Associate Director for Policy:
In response to DCR’s request, Matthew Shapiro, President of the New Jersey Tenants
Organization (NJTO), asked me as a member of the organization to review and comment on
the DCR Rules of Practice and Procedure Readoption and Amendment Proposal. NJTO has
long been the voice of organized tenants in our state, and has been the primary proponent
and defender of the rights of NJ’s tenants. I have been a member of NJTO for many years,
and have served on its Board of Trustees. I am a retired Legal Services attorney, with over
40 years of experience as a housing advocate, much of it involving tenant representation in
eviction matters and on a wide range of other issues, including individual and systemic
discrimination. With regard to the latter, I have worked with DCR on many occasions, and
often engaged in policy advocacy around the LAD. Thank you for providing NJTO the
opportunity to submit the following comments.
After reviewing the draft, the proposed readoption and amendments appear to be positive
and unobjectionable, as far as they go. However, based upon NJTO’s and my experience as
advocates for tenants facing eviction, as well as those applying for critically-needed rental
units, both the existing provisions of, and proposed revisions to, N.J.A.C. 13:4-2.4, 4.1,
4.2, 11.3 and 14.4 need to be significantly strengthened in order for the housing-related
sections of the LAD to be more effectively and meaningfully enforced.
When a housing-related complaint is made, the regulations should require an immediate
preliminary determination as to (a) whether the complainant household has asserted a
facially colorable claim that they are being displaced from an existing unit, or denied
admission to an otherwise available dwelling, for reasons that in whole or in part violate the
LAD; and (b) whether they are confronting potentially irreparable harm as a result.
“Irreparable harm” in this context would mean possible displacement from a subsidized
apartment, or one that is otherwise affordable by a lower-income household, without
concurrent access to another available safe, decent and affordable unit. “Irreparable harm”
would also comprise denial of admission to such a unit where the applicant household’s
existing housing situation is untenable or unsustainable.
Examples of such situations would
include homelessness or imminent homelessness; living in an unaffordable, unsafe or
inappropriate dwelling; or residing in a location that is temporary or soon to be unavailable.
If the emergent preliminary evaluation determines that both of the above conditions have
been met, the regulations should mandate that DCR seek emergent preliminary injunctive
relief compelling the landlord/owner to stay the eviction proceedings, reinstate the family to
the dwelling if they have already been displaced, or, in the case of an applicant, refrain from
renting the unit to anyone else, pending an expedited determination of the complainant’s
assertions of unlawful discrimination.
If the complainant ultimately prevails, the
eviction/denial would be dismissed or overturned, and the tenant or applicant would be
allowed to remain or gain admission to the dwelling at issue. If the respondent prevails, the
stay would be lifted and the eviction or denial would be allowed to proceed or stand.
(Simply telling a landlord to return an at risk displaced tenant to possession, or keep a unit
vacant in the case of an applicant, is not enough should the landlord not voluntarily and
quickly comply. Moreover, in the absence of a judicial order, if a defiant landlord re-rents a
vacant unit in the interim, there is every likelihood that the new occupants would have to be
displaced in order for the complainants to prevail, thereby visiting displaced in order for the complainants to prevail, thereby visiting a hardship upon them.
This is something courts, as well as DCR, would be and have been reluctant to do, and its
looming presence subconsciously but significantly prejudices the complainant’s case. )
The regulations should further mandate that, in the course of investigating any complaint
involving possible violation of the housing-related provisions of the LAD, the DCR must
also investigate, make a determination, and issue a finding as to whether or not a
discriminatory pattern and practice is involved. If such a practice is found, the
regulations should mandate that appropriate injunctive and related relief be sought on an
expedited basis.
The foregoing amendments NJTO is proposing, especially if extensively used and
publicized, are critically important. Filing a discrimination complaint frequently means
little or nothing to a lower-income tenant if the immediately available apartment or home
becomes unavailable before the complaint is resolved, even if the tenant ultimately prevails.
To vulnerable, struggling people, such “victories” are nothing if not Pyrrhic in nature: for
them, retaining, obtaining or regaining a place to live, a home, is the real victory.
Enforcement of the LAD housing provisions in such instances can only be deemed
truly meaningful if the households seeking relief actually get to live in the housing they
so desperately need.
The severe affordable housing shortage that has plagued New Jersey for decades, especially
for low-income people, has grown exponentially worse, for reasons that have finally been
widely discussed and acknowledged. Unless invidious evictions or denials - such as those
involving discriminatory screening criteria, or eviction campaigns targeting people of color
in gentrifying neighborhoods - are addressed and eliminated, the most vulnerable
households in our society will be even more at risk of housing instability. And as study after
study continues to show, housing insecurity contributes in a powerful way to the physical
and mental health issues and family problems that afflict so many lower-income children
and adults, and too often ends in the tragedy of homelessness.
In sum, NJTO has no issue with the proposals as submitted, but believes they must be
substantially strengthened if they are to meaningfully facilitate enforcement of the
LAD’s crucially important housing provisions.
Sincerely,
Connie M. Pascale, on behalf of the NJTO
