Subcommittee Hearing on H.R. 589: Fair Housing and Freedom of Speech Act of 1997
April 17, 1997
Testimony by Carol Clark
National League of Cities Board of Directors
City Council Member
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee: Thank you for inviting me to testify on H.R. 589, the "Fair Housing Reform and Freedom of Speech Act of 1997." I am Carol Clark, a Councilmember from the 5th Ward in East Orange, New Jersey, and a member of the Board of Directors of the National League of Cities (NLC).
I am here today to testify on behalf of NLC and to share with you the situation in my community as it relates to siting of group homes. I believe that you can help my City of East Orange, N.J., and thousands of other cities throughout the country that are trying to balance the overall needs and priorities of the citizens of their communities. We believe you could amend federal laws to ensure some protections so that communities are not overwhelmed with group homes without full disclosure and to restore some authority to the host local governments.
My fear, as a former chairperson of my City Council's Health, Education and Welfare and Public Safety Committees, and current chairperson of our Art, Culture and Recreation Committee, is that our City, which is struggling with a number of social and financial issues common to urban areas, is or will become the location of preference for group home facilities without our consent. As I will explain in my remarks, despite my best efforts to find out, I have no idea how many group homes are located in East Orange, and I have never received any notice prior to a siting of a home.
As a local elected official I am working and fighting everyday to try to preserve some semblance of a safe and stable quality of life for the residents of East Orange. We need the federal and state governments to be partners with us in our efforts to rebuild our cities and improve the quality of life for the residents we were all elected to serve.
Each of us, the President, Senators, Representatives, Justices, Governors, Councilpersons live in cities. Just remember for a moment what it was like for you growing up in your home town before you became a distinguished legislator. Then try to empathize with me for a moment about the anguish I feel when, as a local legislator, I can't have input in a matter so central to families and communities as the siting of group homes. I can't even find out how many homes are in my city, nor does the state provide notice when it decides to issue a special use permit for a group home that will locate in my community.
I do not believe that you, in your infinite wisdom, intended for the Fair Housing Act to eliminate the power of local municipal authorities to shape their communities while considering and balancing the needs of everyone.
The National League of Cities is a nonpartisan organization which represents some 150,000 elected officials from 16,000 cities and towns throughout the country. Like each of you, our responsibilities are to all the residents in our communities, and we respond to their concerns daily.
The League strongly supports fair and equal treatment for all persons. However, there are times when we go so far to ensure fair treatment for certain individuals and groups that the results may be counter productive. We are especially concerned where federal and state actions may interfere and preempt the right and authority of local governments to address the needs and safety of our constituents. This, I believe, is what has happened as a result of the Fair Housing Act.
I am not a student of the Fair Housing Act, but I do know it has brought both positive changes, as well and significant problems to cities like mine. Let me share with you the situation we face throughout New Jersey as well as in my City of East Orange.
Pursuant to N.J. Statutes Annotated 40:55D-66.1, in the State of New Jersey local municipalities have no control over siting of group homes. State municipal land use laws allow for "specially permitted use" under state law and licensing. There is no central agency in Trenton that deals with siting or licensing group home facilities; it is fragmented throughout many different departments, each with authority to issue a license.
As you can imagine, this makes it very difficult for the local municipality to keep track of these facilities and to monitor them. It makes it impossible for us to balance the needs and priorities of our neighborhoods.
In speaking recently with the New Jersey State Municipal League director, he said, "This is a very emotionally charged issue in our state and indeed throughout the nation. It is imperative for municipalities to preserve local planning and zoning authority. We must also ensure that appropriate certificates of need be issued by health departments et al to preserve local oversight."
As far as one can discern the only stipulations placed on group home siting in New Jersey are:
That they not be located closer than 1500 feet from one another; and That a municipality can deny entrance into the community if the maximum number of allowable people in a city's group homes is exceeded. This is based on a town's total population.
Getting factual information about group homes is a difficult challenge in East Orange. This Councilperson checked with the State Departments of Community Affairs and Housing; I tried unsuccessfully to contact the Department of Youth and Family Services' division of licensing; and I asked our town zoning officer and our law department in an attempt to compile factual data for this testimony.
Astonishingly, no one had the information I requested. All I wanted was a list of State of New Jersey approved and licensed group homes in the City of East Orange and a description of the various types of homes. How hard could it be to find this information? Surely, someone, some agency in the state must have a list compiled by county and by city. After all, you don't have to answer to the local governing body or zoning official, so pertinent information on group home locations and their occupants must be documented and on file somewhere. Well if they are, as of this writing I cannot find them.
However, on my own I have pulled together some facts:
East Orange occupies 3.9 square miles and the average per capita income is approximately $14,000 per year. The population is about 80,000, and 98 percent of our residents are African American.
Our city has about 10 group homes that we know about. One is a halfway house for men. It was only after my mother, a retired State Correctional Officer, got wind of the news from general conversation that we learned of the siting of this halfway house. No one ever stopped to consider the implications of locating this type of group home in a somewhat depressed spot in town or the impact it could have on the kids in the neighborhood.
In the 5th Ward which I represent, a group home was sited in the middle of a block that had received citations from the Historical Preservation Society. The homes on the block are among some of the largest and most spacious in the entire city. Needless to say, the residents were incensed, but the city council's hands were tied by the law.
As I read H.R.589, I believe it would allow my city to determine the number of unrelated persons permitted to live in a group home in a single-family neighborhood. This would not provide much relief for East Orange as most of our neighborhoods are both single- and multifamily. This change will be welcomed by thousands of cities, and, if you broaden it as I have suggested, it will find even more support.
The bill would also address the issue of proximity. This, I assume, would allow a city to require that group homes be sited a minimum number of feet from each other. We have a 1500 foot spacing requirement in New Jersey now, so this might increase the spacing requirement some, although it would contribute very little to addressing the concentration of group homes in East Orange.
Currently, we must meet the Fair Housing Act standard which determines discrimination based on disparate impact. Therefore, no city or state can impose use restrictions that would exclude a group home. H.R. 589 would allow exclusion of homes for convicted felons, sex offenders and recovering drug addicts if the purpose of the restriction is to restrict land use to single family dwellings. This is certainly a step in the right direction.
I do believe that H.R.589 would interject some common sense into a municipality's ability to decide on siting group homes in single-family residential neighborhoods, but I would encourage you to broaden the definition of a residential neighborhood to include both single- and multifamily homes as we have in my city. To do otherwise might unreasonably impose an even greater burden on neighborhoods in cities with multifamily homes.
Even with these positive changes, this still leaves open some other uses which may not be appropriate in certain areas of a city. For example, as I mentioned earlier, siting a halfway house in a depressed neighborhood is probably not the best location for the occupants or for the residents of the depressed neighborhood.
NLC believes that there is a need to balance considerations of a municipality, its residents, and the neighborhood with the benefits to the group home's residents. We would encourage the committee to consider including language which would require fair and even distribution of group homes throughout a city's residential communities. This would help avoid concentration of these homes in particular areas and would find them sited in neighborhoods across a community.
The League is pleased by the direction of the courts as it pertains to "reasonable accommodation." The courts have ruled that among the "rules, policies and practices" that are subject to the reasonable accommodation requirement are zoning and land use ordinances of municipalities. This gives municipalities the opportunity through a standard process to gather the information they need to issue special use permits and variances and to maintain reasonable control over use in their communities.
Attached is NLC's policy which relates to local zoning authority and land use principles. Also attached is Resolution - #97-10, "Guidelines for Housing Accommodations for Persons Recovering from Alcohol and Drug Abuse."
Let me summarize briefly our zoning and land use policies. NLC opposes federal preemption of local zoning and land use authority. The League also opposes the use of local zoning and land use authority to advance or condone discrimination of any kind. It is our belief that equal housing opportunities for all, and full zoning and land use authority for local governments are not incompatible public policies. Municipalities can maintain their governing authority and at the same time ensure that the exercise of zoning authority neither intentionally or unintentionally produces discrimination.
Let me thank you for this opportunity to testify today. I will be pleased to answer your questions now as time permits and in writing following this hearing.
Judiciary Homepage