ACY Rescue Mission joins amended suit, seeks $2M reimbursement

This afternoon, we filed new and expanded court claims on behalf of Ocean County’s homeless against Lakewood Township and Ocean County.  As you know, Lakewood began the lawsuit by seeking to eject the community of approximately 70 homeless men and women, including victims of the economy, living in the Lakewood tent city on publicly owned land in the woods.  In addition, the Atlantic City Rescue Mission has now sided against Lakewood and Ocean County, including claims against Lakewood and the County for, collectively, in excess of $2 million:  the costs that the Mission contends it has wrongfully had to bear to provide emergency assistance to residents of Ocean County and Lakewood.

Among other things, the court filing today (an Amended Answer, Counterclaim and Third Party Complaint) alleges that Lakewood and Ocean County have violated New Jersey’s General Poor Laws by turning away thousands of men, women and children who sought emergency shelter and other emergency assistance.  The filing also alleges that Ocean County has engaged in systematic, improper “interpretations” of other laws, the Specific Poor Laws, and wrongfully denied emergency shelter under those laws.  A copy of today's court filing is attached.  The main defenses to Lakewood's Complaint start on p. 5, and the claims against Lakewood and the County are on pp. 8 - 34.

In addition, as you already know, Lakewood has now -- more than a year into the litigation, with the winter approaching -- filed a motion asking Judge Foster to declare that Lakewood can force the homeless out of their tents in the woods, even though we contend that there is no available shelter for them in Ocean County. Once again, the hearing on Lakewood's motion is scheduled for Friday, November 18th at 9 a.m. at the Superior Court of New Jersey, 100 Hooper Avenue, in Toms River.

Jeffrey J. Wild
Member of the Firm
Lowenstein Sandler PC
65 Livingston Avenue
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
Tele:  973-597-2554
Fax:  973-597-2555
            -and-
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020
Tele:  212-262-6700
Fax:  973-5970-2555jwild@lowenstein.com
www.lowenstein.com

The DCA Nightmare Continues: Another Round of Proposed Rules

from Fair Share Housing Center by Adam Gordon

Following last week’s injunction on the Department of Community Affairs’ (DCA) unlawful interim rules implementing Governor Christies’ Reorganization Plan involving the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH), we have learned that DCA now intends to propose yet another set of procedural rules. We have obtained copies of the rules and write now to share our analysis of them.

We note that these are the third set of rules in six weeks to come out of DCA since it took over COAH’s responsibilities. The Christie Administration promised to make the COAH system simpler, and “end the COAH nightmare.” Instead, they are creating a new DCA nightmare — a dysfunctional system with ever-changing rules that undermines the creation of homes and jobs in New Jersey and threatens both non-profit and for-profit developers of modestly priced housing. This system, with no standards, no public process, and no accountability, doesn’t work for anyone but a select few town officials who are politically connected enough to get the outcome they want out of a closed door process.

The proposed rules themselves do not explicitly acknowledge that they are intended to further Governor Christie’s political goal of dismantling the Mount Laurel doctrine, but one does not have to dig too deep to see that is the case. Most of the amendments are intended to reduce the transparency of the process while giving local officials that the administration politically favors the power to do what they want. Likewise, the rules play into the propensity of some public officials to use public funds for their own purposes.

For instance, a proposed new rule involving economic feasibility provides a process for developers looking to reduce their housing obligations to “submit a request for determination of economic feasibility to the Department in a form to be prescribed by the Commissioner.” The rule requires developers and municipalities to submit extensive information and then provides that “the Department shall make a determination on the economic feasibility of providing the required set-aside.” It is not clear what that “determination” will be based on though because there are no standards included in the proposed rules. What good is a regulation if it doesn’t tell you what the law is? DCA has claimed that its goal is to “foster greater predictability for all players in the affordable housing arena,” but a standardless rule is anything but predictable. And the absence of standards also makes the process ripe for politicking. Do friends of the Governor get a better deal? Perhaps municipalities that want to sink a development can advocate for developers to get a higher, infeasible set aside. In New Jersey, these are not just possibilities; they are probabilities.

Similarly, under the proposed rules, spending plans are not required to be approved by the governing body through a resolution, but rather can be approved upon the submission of a letter from the municipality. With hundreds of millions of dollars sitting in municipal trust funds, how could anyone think it is a good idea to authorize a single person to approve expenditures for a municipality? Why would the administration adopt such a relaxed procedure when governing bodies otherwise approve municipal budgets and municipal expenditures? In a state with as much corruption as New Jersey, this proposal is a recipe for indictments, not an effective approach to spending trust funds.

The proposed rules include numerous other changes, such as shortening the time for the public to oppose actions taken by municipal governments; eliminating the requirement for decisions to be made at public meetings and instead allowing them to be made behind closed doors whenever the DCA Commissioner desires; and welcoming waivers of regulations with the goal being to give municipalities whatever they want.

“The only thing worse than a dysfunctional COAH is Chris Christie running the show,” we told the Star-Ledger when the first of the now three versions of rules were proposed. So far, our statement has proven right. The hyper-politicization of every housing decision and ever-changing rules may work for the well-connected, but it doesn’t work for New Jersey.

The good news is that because of our court victory last week, these rules will have to go through a public notice and comment process instead of being implemented without public involvement like the last two sets of rules were. We anticipate that the rules will be published for comment on November 21, 2011. Assuming that is the case, comments will be received for 60 days, through January 20, 2011. They will thus not go into effect until February or March 2011 at the earliest.

In the meantime, our court challenge to the reorganization and the prior set of rules continues, with briefing this fall and winter and oral argument scheduled for February 15, 2012. We also expect the Supreme Court to take up the pending case on growth share and the Third Round rules sometime in the next few months. Only these court decisions will resolve the DCA nightmare that has descended on our state. We will continue to keep this list posted as we have more information on any of these developments.

For those interested in reading the proposed rules, they are available here.

Small Steps Toward the Human Right to Housing in the U.S.

from Homelessness Law Blog

Affirming our presentation that homelessness is a social justice issue

Over the past decade and a half, the Law Center has been working hard to get the federal government to acknowledge housing as a basic human right and begin taking steps to implement its obligations.  As documented in our report, Simply Unacceptable: Homelessness and the Human Right to Housing in the U.S., for many years, the government was openly opposed to defining housing as a human right.  It came close in recent years, but didn’t quite get there.

Then, during last year’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR), HUD stated for the first time the relevance of this human rights process to its domestic housing and homelessness policies.  Last week, the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness issued its first-year assessment and update of Opening Doors: The Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness.  Among other items, the report states:

HUD has been working on a number of other activities over the past year that helps further the housing objectives in Opening Doors[.] In March 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) conducted the first comprehensive review on human rights done in the United States.  For the first time, the United States acknowledged housing as a human rights issue on an international stage. The Department of State, with the support of representatives from HUD, noted its support of the recommendation by UNHRC, which stated “broad range of safeguards for the homeless people to allow them the full enjoyment of their rights and dignity” and supports reducing and ending homelessness as a human rights concern.

This reaffirmation of the importance of the UPR in HUD’s and the Interagency Council’s work on homelessness is another step toward making the human right to housing the framework to which our government holds itself accountable.  While these words on paper don’t put homeless families in homes today, they are an essential step toward making sure those homes are created tomorrow, and that homelessness is prevented for more families in the future.

From my personal perspective as the Law Center’s human rights program director, this reference is a gratifying acknowledgment of the work we – and many others across the country – have been doing.  For years, pushing the human right to housing felt like banging our heads against the wall, with seemingly little progress.  But without those years, we would not have reached this tipping point, where it appears these references are beginning to build on each other.

Small words, but they represent a fundamental shift in policy. And as momentum continues to build, these words and values will help create that future where no one in America spends a single night without a place to call home.

- Eric Tars, Human Rights Program Director

Pastor Michael Mazer's comments before the OC Freeholders Oct. 19

Our presentation to the Freeholders last Wednesday was to show that homelessness is a social justice issue, not a political issue.  The following are Pastor Michael  Mazer's comments to the Freeholders.

Rev. Dr. Michael M. Mazer, pastor of East Dover Baptist Church

974 Bay Avenue

Toms River, N.J. 08753

“I begin by thanking the Board of Freeholders for allowing me to speak this afternoon.

The subject of homelessness has been on your agenda for a number of years. The subject of homelessness in Ocean County has been the subject of news articles in our local paper, the Wall Street Journal, and even abroad as well as television coverage. More recently, you have given it a much increased focus. I want to commend you on the numerous efforts made to address homelessness and your willingness to hear us today.

It is a given that the problem of homelessness and the numbers of area residents that are just a mortgage payment away from becoming so is growing. I serve a congregation of eighty members. Some came to our church from a homeless situation. For a few, the fear of losing their home is very real. There are others who are active in supporting the residents living in “Tent City.” It is an act of grace and providence that we meet our financial obligations each week.

Whether we are speaking of my congregation or any other resident of Ocean County, the need to reduce and ultimately eliminate the problem of homelessness must be addressed.

To this end I believe we are heading in the right direction. This quote comes from the Ocean County Board of Social Services, “NO ONE SHOULD BE WITHOUT A ROOF OVER THEIR HEAD. EVERYDAY WE WORK TO MAKE CERTAIN OUR RESIDENTS DO NOT GO HUNGRY OR HOMELESS.”

To assure our residents that they do not go hungry or homeless will depend on a number of factors: availability of affordable housing, their location, access, and the availablity of other services promoting one’s wellbeing.

Having a place to call “home” is more than just putting a roof over one’s head. It speaks of the right each Ocean County resident has to live with a quality of life that includes a standard of decent health, the ability to get an education, the ability to secure employment, the ability to participate as productive member of society, to associate with their peers, and the privilege to vote on who will be their freeholder.

It is my observation that some of the strife and conflict stemming from the subjest of homeless has come from the approach to the subject. Perhaps we should address the matter of homelessness not as a welfare issue but as a resident’s rights issue. This approach will not in and of itself eliminate the problem. This approach will however consider the homeless in a new light. This approach will no longer cast homeless individuals as statistics and the objects of charity and help. They are people in Ocean County who deserve the same consideration and access to public services most of us in this room take for granted.

Let us assume that the Freeholders have done all that the state and federal laws allow. What barriers exist that keep the Freeholders from doing more? I would like to think that we expect more from ourselves than just meeting a basic and arbitrary minimum standard. We are Ocean County and we expect to strive for the best and to live at our best.

If you are of the mind to do more for the residents of Ocean County but find yourselves tied by the law, tell us what is needed to change the law and guide us in this process. We want to help you help the entire constituency of Ocean County.

I conclude by thanking you again for allowing me to speak to you on this subject. Rest assured that there are many people in addition to those of here this afternoon who want to help you and work with you on addressing and ultimately ending the problem of homelessness in Ocean County. Please accept our offers of help and support.You will feel better about what we are able to accomplish together. You will feel better about yourself and you will sleep in perfect peace tonight. Thank you.”

Lakewood seeks to eject the homeless

As it threatened at the last status conference, Lakewood has filed a motion to shut down the Lakewood Tent City.  A copy of the motion papers is attached.  The hearing has been scheduled for Friday, November 18th at 9 a.m. at Judge Foster's courtroom at the Ocean County Courthouse, 100 Hooper Avenue, Courtroom 7, in Toms River.  Please mark your calendars and spread the word.  As many of us as possible should be at the November 18th hearing to show that we care about the residents of Tent City and all of Ocean County's homeless.  The date/time could change, and if so, we will let you know.  We will also be in touch about other ways that we can take action to help not only those in Tent City, but all of New Jersey's homeless.

Basically, Lakewood is arguing that even though they are members of the public with no place to sleep but the public woods, the homeless are "trespassers" whom Lakewood has the right to remove.  As stated in a footnote (on p. 1 of the legal brief), Lakewood "is not seeking the immediate ejectment" of the homeless -- but is seeking a court order "that no new persons are permitted to occupy the Property" and for "an orderly vacation of the Property by the Defendants" -- whatever that means.   This law firm will prepare papers to oppose the motion.  Stay tuned for further information.

 Jeffrey J. Wild Member of the Firm Lowenstein Sandler PC

Response to our Freeholder meeting proposal

I want to first say "Thank you" to the Freeholders for permitting us time during their Oct. 19th meeting to present some of what we have learned about homelessness.  This was the first time I can recall where we spoke to the whole board (minus one Freeholder who was on vacation.)

Following our 20-minute presentation about a dozen people spoke during the public portion of the meeting.  Freeholder Director Vicari was very gracious to all the speakers and showed them great respect.  With one lone exception all the comments supported the homeless and several supported enactment of the Homeless Trust Fund in Ocean County.  (See previous posts that detail the trust fund.)

We presented the homeless issue as a social justice issue, not a political issue, and had the support of many of the clergy in the area.  We sought to establish common ground between the county government and the supporters of the homeless.  Both the Freeholders and the activists are concerned about the well-being of all people in Ocean County.  Both groups need to identify to common areas and begin there.

We had a great mix of people (about 200, SRO) at the meeting., including the homeless, businessmen and women, the clergy, retirees and community service groups.

At the conclusion of our 20-minute presentation I asked the Freeholders for follow up meetings so that we could discuss further the issues the homeless face and discuss solutions to end homelessness in Ocean County.

I called the Freeholder's office Friday afternoon and was told:
The absent Freeholder would have to be briefed before a decision would be made;
The first Freeholder meeting after our Oct. 19th presentation will be this Wednesday, Oct. 26th at which time they will discuss ithe proposal with their attorney;
And  the attorney will recommend the Freeholders not discuss the homeless issue until pending litigation between the county and the homeless is resolved for fear that it would be used in the case.

I walked away from that decision still thankful for the opportunity to have presented our findings and looking forward to further discussions once the case was resolved.  But I also sought a second opinion about the Freeholders' decision.

I am certainly not an attorney and do not pretend to offer legal advice to anyone, including the Freeholders.  But I thought you might want to see what that second opinion said.

As I mentioned, there is absolutely no reason why the Freeholders cannot meet to talk about solutions to the problem of homelessness because of the Lakewood litigation.  To start with, by Court Rule, any such meeting, even if called a settlement meeting, could not be used against the county in any way.  The applicable court rule, New Jersey Rule of Evidence 408 provides as follows: 

RULE 408. SETTLEMENT OFFERS AND NEGOTIATIONS

When a claim is disputed as to validity or amount, evidence of statements or conduct by parties or their attorneys in settlement negotiations, with or without a mediator present, including offers of compromise or any payment in settlement of a related claim, shall not be admissible to prove liability for, or invalidity of, or amount of the disputed claim. Such evidence shall not be excluded when offered for another purpose; and evidence otherwise admissible shall not be excluded merely because it was disclosed during the settlement negotiations.

I still look forward to sitting down with the Freeholders for discussions to end Ocean County homelessness and hope we can do that very soon.  This has to be a collaborative effort and the first step is to talk.

Larry's introduction to the Freeholder meeting

These are Larry's opening comments to the Freeholders Oct. 19th.

Thank you for setting aside 20 minutes of your meeting to allow us to share what we have learned after years of studying homelessness and working with that community of men, women and children.

I am Larry Meegan, President of the Kiwanis Club of Jackson.  Among the people here today are other members of community service and non-profit groups, students, businessmen and women, the homeless, and members of the clergy.

From the very outset let me assure you that we are not here to be confrontational, nor are we going to present homelessness as a political issue.  Many people would not be here this afternoon if that was our goal.  Instead, we are here to discuss homelessness as a social justice issue and in the short time we have introduce you to the humanity of homelessness.

During the past year the community service groups hosted three forums that were attended by more than 500 people to put a face on the homeless, to examine programs that have been successfully employed around the state, and to gauge Ocean County residents’ willingness to assist the poor.

We learned that many people found themselves displaced and on the street through no fault of their own. We learned that there are at least three levels of homeless: the immediate need, the transitional housing, and low-income housing.  And we learned that there must be a collaborative effort involving government, business, and the community to deal with the issue.

Efforts are being made to remedy the needs of the homeless but despite those best efforts, a lot of people are still slipping through the safety net.  Not only do we see it, the County Board of Social Services also calls attention to the fact that it does not have the resources to meet those needs.

From their letter “A Gift of Shelter,” the Board writes that the dollars they receive are sometimes not enough to take care of everyone.  “In these difficult economic times, more and more of our neighbors are finding it hard to make ends meet some unique needs that may otherwise go unmet.”

“No one should be without a roof over their head,” the letter concludes, “and every day we work to make certain residents do not go hungry or homeless.  Your donation will help our continuing efforts to assist our neighbors who need help now.”

There is a need for more resources, both money and a volunteer workforce.  Our speakers will address that and for the last two minutes I will close our presentation with an offer that will demonstrate our commitment to our neighbors and our county.

Our first speaker is Steven Nagel, Director of InfoLine in Middlesex County who will share their success story.  Next will be Lynn Swett, who following divorce suddenly found herself a single mom living in a tent.  Tracy Boyer will discuss the Housing First model and tell you how it has saved Mercer County thousands of dollars per homeless client. Pastor Mazur will discuss housing as a social justice issue and I will wrap it up.