Judge lets Fair Share intervene in Montvale’s suit

Judge's gavel and law books

MONTVALE—A Superior Court judge in Mercer County ruled Nov. 22 that Fair Share Housing Center (FSHC), a nonprofit advocating for low-income families in affordable housing disputes, may intervene in Montvale’s lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s new affordable housing law.

At the center of the case is Montvale’s motion to stay, or pause, the state’s fourth-round affordable housing obligations. Judge Robert Lougy has set a hearing date for Dec. 20 to decide on the motion. Ahead of that, both FSHC and the state Attorney General’s Office must respond to Montvale’s filings by Dec. 6.

Mayor Michael Ghassali expressed disappointment with the court’s decision to allow FSHC to intervene.

“It’s not surprising. We presented a strong case against it,” Ghassali said on Nov. 25. “Beyond labeling us [Montvale] as racists and wealthy elitists for highlighting the constitutional flaws in the affordable housing mandate, they have provided little else in response.”

Montvale filed its lawsuit in Mercer County Superior Court on Sept. 9, challenging the state’s affordable housing law. Initially joined by eight other towns, the coalition has since grown to 28 municipalities, with more potentially joining following outreach at the State League of Municipalities convention in mid-November.

Fair Share Housing Center Executive Director Adam Gordon criticized the lawsuit in a press release, highlighting what he sees as demographic disparities between Montvale and the broader state population. He argued that urban municipalities already bear significant affordable housing responsibilities and defended the new law as addressing statewide needs.

“Montvale, the town leading the lawsuit, has less than 2 percent Black residents and less than 6 percent Latino residents,” said Gordon. “The small percentage of New Jersey municipalities that have signed on include many ultra-wealthy communities that have fought hardest against affordable homes, like Millburn.”

The judge’s rationale

In approving FSHC’s intervention, Judge Lougy cited four key reasons:

  • Interest in the Subject Matter: FSHC has a vested interest in the litigation, given its decades-long advocacy for affordable housing rights under the Mount Laurel Doctrine. The judge noted that FSHC’s involvement has been pivotal in shaping affordable housing law, including its opposition to rules proposed by the state Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).
  • Potential Impact on FSHC: The lawsuit could impair FSHC’s ability to represent low-income families. The judge wrote, “The challenged legislation substantially rewrites that landscape, and FSHC deserves an opportunity to participate in its defense.”
  • Distinct Interests: FSHC’s interests in the case differ from those of the state defendants, particularly as the organization has intervened in numerous municipality-specific legal disputes over affordable housing obligations since COAH was declared moribund in 2015.
  • Timely Application: FSHC filed its motion to intervene promptly, the judge said. He directed that FSHC’s response to Montvale’s amended complaint be filed alongside the state’s response by Dec. 6.

The stakes of affordable housing

Gordon defended the new affordable housing law, arguing it requires urban municipalities to meet their obligations by rehabilitating thousands of existing affordable homes, often exceeding suburban obligations.

“By pretending that urban municipalities don’t have obligations under the law, Mayor Ghassali is counting on the willful ignorance of residents already inclined to oppose affordable housing,” Gordon said.

Montvale’s motion to pause the fourth-round obligations will be decided Dec. 20.

For more background, see “Council agrees up to $100,000 for affordable-housing lawsuit,” by Michael Olohan, Nov. 25, 2024.