Opinion ID: 2002109
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Mount Laurel Doctrine and the Fair Housing Act.

Text: On an intuitive level, the arguments offered to support the occupancy preference appear to be as plausible as those presented against it. Proponents contend that municipalities that satisfy their regional fair-share obligation to provide affordable housing should be permitted to make available some of that housing to eligible residents and workers in that municipality, thereby addressing the needs of households with an existing connection to the community and increasing local support for the governing body's decision to seek COAH certification for a fair-housing plan that satisfies the municipality's regional fair share of low- and moderate-income housing. Opponents assert that the exclusionary aspects of the occupancy preference could not conceivably be compatible with the statutory scheme of the Fair Housing Act and the methodology of its implementing regulations adopted, in part, to ameliorate the effects of decades of exclusionary zoning. Although intuition may enlighten our analysis of the validity of the occupancy preference, we gain deeper and more reliable insight from the origins and evolution of the Mount Laurel doctrine and the passage of the Fair Housing Act. In Mount Laurel I, Justice Hall pointedly framed the legal issue before the Court: [W]hether a developing municipality like Mount Laurel may validly, by a system of land use regulation, make it physically and economically impossible to provide low and moderate income housing in the municipality for the various categories of persons who need and want it and thereby    exclude such people from living within its confines because of the limited extent of their income and resources. [67 N.J. at 173, 336 A. 2d 713.] The Court observed that the effect of Mount Laurel's land use regulation has been to prevent various categories of persons from living in the township because of the limited extent of their income and resources. Id. at 159, 336 A. 2d 713. The Court noted that plaintiffs, representing poor minorities not currently residing in Mount Laurel, were not the only category of citizens excluded because of restrictive zoning: We have reference to young and elderly couples, single persons and large, growing families not in the poverty class, but who still cannot afford the only kinds of housing realistically permitted in most places  relatively high-priced, single-family detached dwellings on sizeable lots and, in some municipalities, expensive apartments. [ Ibid. ] The Court also acknowledged and accepted the representation of counsel for Mount Laurel that the Township was not motivated by any desire or intent to exclude prospective residents on the obviously illegal basis of race, origin, or believed social incompatibility. Ibid. As the trial court had noted, paraphrasing the then-Mayor of the Township, when a discussion arose as to low income housing    it was the intention of the township committee to take care of the people of Mount Laurel Township but not make any area of Mount Laurel a home for the county. Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel, 119 N.J. Super. 164, 169, 290 A. 2d 465 (Law Div. 1972). This Court rejected the view that Mount Laurel could discharge its zoning responsibility by providing housing for its own poor only, without addressing the housing needs of low- and moderate- income families within the region who might wish to reside there: [T]he universal and constant need for such housing is so important and of such broad public interest that the general welfare which developing municipalities like Mount Laurel must consider extends beyond their boundaries and cannot be parochially confined to the claimed good of the particular municipality. It has to follow that, broadly speaking, the presumptive obligation arises for each such municipality affirmatively to plan and provide, by its land use regulations, the reasonable opportunity for an appropriate variety and choice of housing, including, of course, low and moderate cost housing, to meet the needs, desires and resources of all categories of people who may desire to live within its boundaries. [67 N.J. at 179, 336 A. 2d 713.] [A] developing municipality's obligation to afford the opportunity for decent and adequate low and moderate income housing extends at least to    the municipality's fair share of the present and prospective regional need therefor. [ Id. at 188, 336 A. 2d 713.] Eight years later in Mount Laurel II, this Court reaffirmed the constitutional underpinning of the Mount Laurel doctrine, and emphasized that the lawful exercise of the zoning power compels municipalities to address not only their own needs but regional needs as well: When the exercise of that power by a municipality affects something as fundamental as housing, the general welfare includes more than the welfare of that municipality and its citizens: it also includes the general welfare  in this case the housing needs  of those residing outside of the municipality but within the region that contributes to the housing demand within the municipality. Municipal land use regulations that conflict with the general welfare thus defined abuse the police power and are unconstitutional. In particular, those regulations that do not provide the requisite opportunity for a fair share of the region's need for low and moderate income housing conflict with the general welfare and violate the state constitutional requirements of substantive due process and equal protection. [92 N.J. at 208-09, 456 A. 2d 390.] In Mount Laurel II, we also considered and rejected the adequacy of the zoning-ordinance amendment that had been adopted by Mount Laurel Township in response to our 1975 decision. We noted that the Township had calculated its indigenous need, based on the number of deteriorated or dilapidated housing units in the Township, to be 103 units, and had calculated its fair share of the prospective regional housing need to be 515 units. The zoning-ordinance amendments adopted by the Township would have permitted construction of 131 units of low- and moderate-income housing, only twenty-eight units more than the number required to meet the Township's indigenous needs. Id. at 299-300, 456 A. 2d 390. We concluded that the Township's revised ordinance fails completely to comply with the mandate of Mount Laurel I, id. at 302, 456 A. 2d 390, that even if the entire 131 units of low- and moderate-income housing were to be built, that number would fall far short of Mount Laurel's fair share of the prospective regional low income housing need   . Id. at 302-03, 456 A. 2d 390. In the Fair Housing Act, the Legislature expressly acknowledged the constitutional obligation of every growth-area municipality to provide through its land use regulations a realistic opportunity for a fair share of its region's present and prospective needs for housing for low and moderate income families, N.J.S.A. 52:27D-302a, and declared the statutory scheme of the Act to be one that comprehends a low and moderate income housing planning and financing mechanism in accordance with regional considerations and sound planning concepts which satisfies the constitutional obligation enunciated by the Supreme Court. N.J.S.A. 52:27D-303. The clear and recurring theme of the Fair Housing Act is its recognition and implementation of the requirement that municipalities must provide through their zoning ordinance a realistic opportunity to satisfy their fair share of their region's present and prospective need for low- and moderate-income housing. N.J.S.A. 52:27D-302a, d, e; -311a, -314a, b. Although the Fair Housing Act recognizes the relevance of sound planning concepts, N.J.S.A. 52:27D-303, and acknowledges the importance of encouraging housing construction in urban areas, specifically authorizing Regional Contribution Agreements that permit municipalities to transfer up to fifty percent of their fair share obligation to another municipality in accordance with sound, comprehensive regional planning, N.J.S.A. 52:27D-312a, c, the Legislature nevertheless determined that the provision of housing in urban areas must be balanced with the need to provide housing throughout the State for the free mobility of citizens. N.J.S.A. 52:27D-302g.