COURT AGREEMENT PROVIDES NEW JERSEY JUNIORS AND SENIORS WITH CLEAR PATHWAYS TO HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION

http://edlawcenter.org/

A Court-approved agreement reached with the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) will provide clear pathways to graduation for all current high school juniors and seniors. The agreement was negotiated by the Education Law Center and the ACLU of New Jersey on behalf of several civil rights and parent advocacy groups, including the Latino Action Network, Latino Coalition of NJ, Paterson Education Fund, and NAACP NJ State Conference, that successfully challenged high school graduation testing requirements imposed by the NJDOE in violation of state law.

On December 31, 2018, the Superior Court, Appellate Division, invalidated the graduation assessment regulations enacted by the NJDOE in 2016, which included the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) end-of-course exams, because they violated statutory requirements for “exit” testing to obtain a high school diploma. In January, the NJDOE filed a motion for partial reconsideration, asking the Court to amend its order to address graduation requirements for current juniors and seniors.

In response, the groups that brought the case sought broader relief and highlighted the fact that the NJDOE’s request would leave thousands of students, who had not yet satisfied the testing mandate, without clear options to fulfill the requirement and earn their diplomas.

The agreement filed today will ensure all high school students in the classes of 2019 and 2020 have clear pathways to achieve a New Jersey diploma. The agreement postpones the effective date of the Court’s decision invalidating the graduation testing regulations and allows all juniors and seniors to use the rules defined in the regulations for the class of 2019—the broadest set of options—to fulfill the graduation testing requirement.

The agreement will also provide the NJDOE with time to propose new graduation testing rules for the classes of 2021 and 2022, current freshman and sophomores, that comply with statutory requirements and provide fair notice to affected students.

“We are pleased to reach an agreement that safeguards the graduation rights of seniors and juniors who relied on the rules invalidated by the Court,” said Jessica Levin, ELC Senior Attorney. “We look forward to working collaboratively with State officials to develop appropriate graduation policies for future classes.”

For more information about the lawsuit challenging the high school graduation regulations, click here.

N.J. Supreme Court must reject systemic racism in affordable housing debate

 

N.J. Supreme Court must reject systemic racism in affordable housing debate | Opinion

By Richard T. Smith and Christian 

Estevez

 

After 16 long years of Trenton gridlock, New Jersey municipalities are finally making meaningful progress addressing our state's pressing housing affordability crisis.

 

Thanks to a New Jersey Supreme Court decision handed down last year that turned over enforcement of our state's fair-housing laws to the judiciary, hundreds of municipalities are in the process of developing plans to provide tens of thousands of homes to meet the needs of working families, seniors and those with disabilities.

 

More than 70 towns have already reached agreements on their affordable housing obligations, which add up to more than 20,000 units. These settlements clear the way to quickly begin development on projects that provide decent, stable homes for New Jersey families in safe neighborhoods with access to jobs and good schools.

All of these recent advancements illustrate that a consensus is forming in New Jersey that municipalities can and should tackle their responsibility to provide fair-housing opportunities for families under the state constitution's Mount Laurel doctrine.

 

At heart, New Jersey's fair-housing laws aren't just about building homes. They're also about expanding ladders of opportunity to the middle class for the many thousands of families who are priced out of our state's many thriving communities.

 

While our state boasts some of the most desirable towns in the nation,  longstanding patterns of exclusionary zoning have shut too many New Jersey families out of the American Dream. These unconstitutional obstacles have hit minority communities -- especially African-Americans and Latinos -- the hardest.

 

Yet the progress we have made is being threatened by a group of recalcitrant municipalities that are seeking to undermine the Mount Laurel doctrine by pursuing a strategy of delay and obstruction. These towns are arguing they should not be held responsible for any of the state's fair-housing needs that accrued during a 16-year gap period beginning in 1999,  when bureaucratic gridlock kept New Jersey's fair-housing laws from being enforced.

 

In essence, these towns are arguing they should be able to ignore the many challenges New Jersey families confronted during this time, ranging from the Great Recession to the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy and the state's ongoing foreclosure crisis.

 

These legal arguments would artificially paper over up to 60 percent of the state's housing need. This means that tens of thousands of New Jersey families will never have the chance to move into homes they can afford in the state's many thriving communities. And it will cement our state's long history of racial and socioeconomic segregation for another generation.

 

That's why our organizations have joined together to submit a friend of the court brief laying out the impact of this case on the struggle for racial integration in New Jersey. That brief has been accepted by the court.

Almost as disturbing is the housing study that these towns are relying on to make these dangerous arguments. The study, written by Philadelphia-based Econsult Solutions, relies on a deeply flawed understanding that ignores the systemic racism which disadvantages New Jersey's minority communities, especially African-Americans and Latinos.

 

It argues that houses which have recently sold for up to a half-million dollars should be classified as affordable.

 

And Econsult principal Peter Angelides testified recently at an Ocean County fair-housing proceeding that there was "no measure" to indicate that New Jersey's minority communities still suffered from housing discrimination -- an astounding,  out-of-touch statement directly contradicting statistics showing that our state is one of the most segregated in the nation.

 

The New Jersey Supreme Court is set to take up the question of whether towns must truly do their fair share to respond to our state's housing crisis on Nov. 30.

 

The justices must reject these towns' radical ideology and vindicate their own 2015 landmark fair-housing ruling. The process the court established must be allowed to continue so that we can finally bring an end to the decades of litigation surrounding this issue.

 

It's time to turn to the work of building a state in which black and Latino families are no longer excluded.

 

Richard T. Smith is president of the NAACP New Jersey State Conference 

(info@NJNAACP.org).

 

Christian Estevez is president of the Latino Action Network (esteveznj@gmail.com).

 

Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.

 

 

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/11/nj_supreme_court_must_reject_systemic_racism_in_af.html#incart_river_home

Blocking affordable housing segregates N.J.'s blacks and Latinos | Opinion

Blocking affordable housing segregates N.J.'s blacks and Latinos | Opinion

By Richard T. Smith and Christian Estevez

We are confronting a moral reckoning in New Jersey.

The Garden State remains one of the most segregated states in the country — where too often the color of one's skin determines a person's future.

This system of de facto segregation is undergirded by a long history of exclusionary zoning practices by suburban municipalities seeking to keep low-income residents confined to struggling inner cities, where they are unable to take steps toward achieving the American dream in the form of safe neighborhoods, good schools and access to jobs.

Thankfully, the state Supreme Court last year struck a much-needed blow on behalf of New Jersey's poor and marginalized.

In a unanimous decision, the court re-energized the strongest tool we have in the fight against segregation and exclusion. The principle, known as the Mount Laurel Doctrine, mandates that suburban municipalities across New Jersey do their fair share to provide housing opportunities for working families, seniors living on fixed incomes and those with disabilities.

Yet a core group of recalcitrant municipalities have taken a different path and decided to fall back on the same tired tactics of exclusion to delay the construction of new housing and to water down their obligations as much as possible. They would waste untold thousands of dollars in taxpayer funds in expensive and ugly litigation rather than fulfill their legal and moral mandate to build a more inclusive New Jersey.

These municipalities are arguing, incredibly, that they shouldn't have to address the demand for housing that accumulated during the 15-year period when New Jersey's housing laws are in flux. Instead, they want to be rewarded for their years of delays and are asking for permission to simply ignore the tens of thousands of families experiencing poverty during this time.

Three trial court judges — in Mercer, Middlesex and Ocean counties — have already correctly rejected such extremist arguments. Today, a three-judge panel of appellate judges was to take up the case.

While these towns are couching their arguments in complicated legal jargon, the impact of their position is clear. If successful, they will be able to effectively eliminate up to 60 percent of the state's housing need — meaning many New Jersey families will never be able to realize their dream of moving into a permanent home.

Our state's fair housing laws aren't just abstract principles. They represent real hope to tens of thousands of New Jerseyans — disproportionately African-Americans and Latinos — who have been systematically excluded from employment and educational opportunities.

The Supreme Court's strong decision cut through a mess of bureaucratic and political gridlock that had kept fair housing regulations from operating effectively for more than 15 years. The justices were clear: The constitution of the state of New Jersey required towns to step up and do more to ensure that all New Jerseyans can benefit from the prosperity so many of its communities have to offer.

As a result of this ruling, we are now finally starting to see towns make significant strides forward in increasing opportunities for New Jersey families. More than 10 municipalities across the state have agreed to permit nearly 8,000 homes to be built to meet the state's growing demand.

These settlements will provide thousands of working families, seniors and those with disabilities with homes in thriving communities for the first time. They represent a model for other towns to follow – and many more are currently involved in constructive discussions with developers and housing advocates about how they can provide additional opportunities to our families.

ZIP code matters. Where you live has a disproportionate impact on your life trajectory — including your educational prospects, your employability, your access to health care and healthy food, your likelihood of incarceration and your life expectancy.

The violence that plagues our urban communities falls disproportionately on the backs of young black and Latino men who, on account of their ZIP code, have been deprived of the opportunities they need to succeed.

We call on the courts to continue to protect the rights of these families and to continue to hold towns accountable to the letter and the spirit of New Jersey's Constitution.

Richard T. Smith is president of the NAACP New Jersey State Conference.

Christian Estevez is the president of the Latino Action Network.. 

[This Op-Ed below appeared on NJ.com on June 6, 2016. You can read the original article on their website at: http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/06/nj_civil_rights_leaders_blocking_affordable_housin.html]

New Jersey municipalities say black and Latino families, people with disabilities don't exist in new housing report

Civil rights leaders call for wealthy municipalities to stop pretending working poor don't exist

 

CHERRY HILL - Civil rights leaders are fighting back against a new  report commissioned by more than 200 towns across New Jersey that undercounts the pressing housing needs of low-income families, people with disabilities, and people of color. These towns are pursuing policies of exclusion while simultaneously attempting to hide a second publicly funded study that apparently shows far greater housing needs.

Towns, in the report they chose to release, relied on demonstrably false assumptions and legal trickery to make tens of thousands of working families, seniors and those with disabilities disappear. Their approach would disproportionately impact African-Americans and Latinos living in one of the nation's most segregated states.

"We have to name exclusion for what it is," said Mike McNeil, Housing Chairman of the New Jersey NAACP. "These mayors believe in Jim Crow. They're like Governor Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door against integration. These mayors are overwhelmingly standing on their borders saying people of color aren't welcome in their neighborhoods. We have been fighting this mindset since the 1960s. As long as there is racism and as long as there are people who want to keep us out, we'll keep on fighting.  One day we will win this fight."

McNeil was joined by Latino Action Network President Frank Argote-Freyre, who called on the state's judges to protect the constitutional rights of New Jerseyans by holding towns accountable to New Jersey's fair housing laws.

"This report is an attack on the civil rights of tens of thousands of Latino and African-American families," Argote-Freyre said. "If mayors across New Jersey refuse to do the right thing, we are going to have to force them to through the courts. New Jersey can be better than this and is better than this - but it is going to take continued work to overcome their discrimination."

This housing study is the latest in a long series of attempts by municipal officials to disregard the orders of the New Jersey Supreme Court and to evade the Mount Laurel Doctrine, the principle embedded in the state Constitution requiring that municipalities do their fair share to provide affordable housing opportunities to New Jersey families.

Municipal officials are also trying to hide an earlier housing study conducted by Rutgers University. Although Rutgers distributed a report to more than 200 municipalities, these towns are now going to court to fight against that report becoming public - likely because the report shows that the actual need for homes is greater than municipalities want to admit.

After stopping work with Rutgers, municipalities hired Philadelphia-based Econsult Solutions Inc. to come up with an alternative report, which is now being released as part of ongoing litigation involving municipal housing responsibilities.

The report differs strongly with a study by noted planner Dr. David N. Kinsey released in July, which found that New Jersey families need more than 200,000 additional affordable homes to combat the growing pressures of high property values, an ongoing mortgage foreclosure crisis and the effects of Superstorm Sandy and a wave of casino closings that have left thousands jobless. This would meet the state's housing need from 1999 through 2025.

By contrast, this report, commissioned by a consortium of 200 towns that have banded together to fight inclusion, found that New Jersey families needed only 36,494 units of housing over the same 25-year period. Towns are hoping to use this report to water down their obligations in a series of fair housing lawsuits taking place throughout the state that provide a once in a generation opportunity for New Jersey families waiting for quality affordable homes.

"This report is the newest statement from wealthy towns that they want to exclude people who aren't wealthy.  They want to keep school kids out, too," Fair Share Housing Center Executive Director Kevin Walsh said. "This is why homes in New Jersey cost so much.  If you don't drive a BMW or Mercedes, you're not welcome in much of New Jersey.  If your house doesn't have granite countertops, you're not welcome.  We have laws to stop this sort of discrimination, and we are hoping judges will identify what the towns have submitted for what it is."

The report relies on a series of gimmicks to effectively pretend that tens of thousands of working families, seniors and those with disabilities don't exist as a way of artificially reducing housing need.

First, it argues that New Jersey municipalities shouldn't have to meet the state's housing need from 1999 through 2015 - a time when political gridlock in Trenton kept the state's housing laws from functioning properly. This flies in the face of the law and contradicts arguments that the New Jersey League of Municipalities made in an earlier court case, when attorneys for the League confirmed that municipal need for that period of time could not be made to disappear.

"This proposal is so absurd, even the state League of Municipalities rejected that approach in court years ago," Walsh said. "The report flies in the face of common sense. Anyone who has ever been to New Jersey knows that families need help now. That need didn't disappear just because of political gridlock in Trenton. Towns are talking out of both sides of their mouth, proving that some municipal officials will go to any lengths to continue excluding New Jersey families."

Econsult's latest report directly contradicts an earlier housing study the firm performed for the state Council on Affordable Housing in 2008, which found a statewide need of 116,000 homes, and found that the housing need that accumulated up to that point did not disappear.

The report also proposes a statewide need that is significantly less than what was established in previous fair housing rounds. The Council on Affordable Housing, for instance, determined that the state's need from 1987 through 1999 was approximately 85,000 homes. It beggars belief that municipalities are now arguing that New Jersey has a need less than half of that over a 25-year period.

In addition to this report, the state League of Municipalities is proposing a dramatic rewrite of New Jersey's housing policies to exclude the very poorest New Jerseyans - those making under 20 percent of the regional area median income - from housing.

This approach would also violate state law and was first proposed by Econsult in an earlier report for the League. It was rejected by the New Jersey Working Families Alliance and the Supportive Housing Association of New Jersey because it would disproportionately disenfranchise people with physical and mental disabilities - many of whom rely on government help and report very little income.

"Towns are engaged in a more sophisticated form of discrimination - in which they got experts to say black and Latino families and people with disabilities don't exist," Walsh said. "Municipal leaders want to ignore these people because they think they're just not worth caring about."

Click here to read a copy of the Econsult report.

Click here to read a copy of the Appellate Division case in which the League of Municipalities argued that housing need could not disappear.

Newark Housing Crisis Forum

Families in Newark continue to lose their homes to predatory lending and illegal foreclosures by banks. Meanwhile abandoned homes and vacant buildings created by the foreclosure crisis sit empty waiting for private equity firms from Wall Street to drop into Newark and make a quick profit off from our housing crisis.

Join NJ Communities United and our partners as we discuss Newark’s housing crisis and begin to build a movement to take back our our homes,
our community and #OURNEWARK!


This FREE community event is organized by NJ Communities United with support from Newark NAACP, ACLU New Jersey, New Jersey Community Capital, CWA Local 1037, 1199SEIU and the Latino Action Network.


**Child care will be provided for free


**Beverages & light refreshments


RSVP by contacting Roger at roger@unitednj.org or call 973-623-1828

N.J. must stop Gov. Christie's defiance of state's Fair Housing Act: Opinion

By Frank Argote-Freyre and Richard T. Smith

Star-Ledger January 13, 2015

For the past five years, the Christie Administration has, at every turn, tried to undermine New Jersey’s Fair Housing Act, which guarantees that communities cannot use unfair land-use laws to keep out lower-income families, seniors and people with special needs. It is clear Gov. Chris Christie is opposed to this law. He called the original lawsuit that led to it, brought by two local chapters of the NAACP against Mount Laurel Township, an “abomination.” The NAACP acted, at that time, to prevent the displacement of a vibrant African-American community with a long history in the region.

It is unfortunate the Governor believes this lawsuit was inappropriate. The Christie Administration has gone so far as to obstruct and refuse to enforce laws emanating from that original civil rights decision. This is a dangerous precedent. Christie appears deeply committed to undermining the principles of the law and circumventing the legal system. First, he went to the Legislature and tried to change the law, but they refused to undercut basic civil rights protections. Then he went to the courts and tried to argue he did not have to comply with the law. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in September 2013 that he did. So now the Governor is attempting to defy both the Legislature and the courts by simply not acting in accordance with existing laws.

The Supreme Court heard arguments on the issue on Jan. 6. The Court thus should move forward with the only realistic option in front of it – allow the courts to directly hear fair housing challenges, instead of having them stalled in an administrative process going nowhere.

In its September 2013 decision, the Supreme Court ordered the Christie Administration to "eliminate the limbo in which municipalities, New Jersey citizens, developers, and affordable housing interest groups have lived for too long.” It required the Christie Administration to develop new rules to implement the Fair Housing Act within five months.

Christie appears deeply committed to undermining the principles of the law and circumventing the legal system.

On the last day of that five-month period, the Christie Administration asked for an indefinite extension to develop rules. The Supreme Court granted an extension, but put a time limit on it, saying that if rules were not finalized by Nov. 17, then the Court would consider taking steps to enforce the law through the court system directly.

The Christie Administration next proposed rules that were transparently ridiculous. Towns' fair housing obligations would be based on a spreadsheet that was supposedly “lost.” Land in Monmouth County was mislabeled as being in Ocean County. The State disregarded its own official growth projections to manipulate housing requirements so they were as low as possible. The state also assumed that growth would only occur and lower-income people would only live on undeveloped farms or forests, when in recent years the majority of development in New Jersey has been redevelopment of existing land in places like Montclair, Summit and Red Bank.

After public hearings drew angry responses and the Christie Administration received more than 3,000 comments, they refused to make changes to correct these flaws. But fortunately, half the members of the Council on Affordable Housing, which had ultimate authority over the proposed rules, refused to go along with such an obvious attempt to undermine the Fair Housing Act. As such, no rules were adopted by the Nov. 17 deadline, and the State failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s deadline even after the extension.

Now, the Supreme Court is considering what to do next. There must be no more extensions or delays. Tens of thousands of people waiting for a decent place to live - a number made significantly bigger after Superstorm Sandy - have waited long enough. The Christie Administration’s process is a dead end, and the regulations that were proposed were not a good faith response. It is time for the courts to ensure that their decisions are followed, and directly enforce the state’s fair housing laws since the Christie Administration apparently refuses to do so.

Frank Argote-Freyre is president of the Latino Action Network and Richard T. Smith is president of the NAACP New Jersey State Conference.

The original article can be found at:

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/01/nj_must_stop_gov_christies_defiance_states_fair_housing_act_opinion.html

Latino Action Network and Coalition Partners Reach Agreement with Christie Administration to Set Aside Additional Sandy Relief Funds for Working Poor Families

Latino Action Network and Coalition Partners Reach Agreement with Christie Administration to Set Aside Additional Sandy Relief Funds for Working Poor Families

For Immediate Release: May 30, 2014

Contacts:

Frank Argote-Freyre, President – 908-670-0552

Christian Estevez, Executive Vice President – 973-418-7012

The Latino Action Network announced today that it has settled a fair housing complaint that it jointly filed with the NJ NAACP and Fair Share Housing Center challenging the State of New Jersey’s distribution of federal disaster recovery funds. The agreement reached with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the State of New Jersey requires significant changes to the use of federal funds for Hurricane Sandy recovery. The agreement is available on the Latino Action Network’s website here : LAN Hurricane Sandy Agreement

“This settlement will help Spanish-speaking New Jerseyans and others who are still out of their homes get information that wasn’t provided to them before, said Frank Argote-Freyre, President of the Latino Action Network.  “Spanish-speaking staff will be available at every recovery center and homeowners and renters will be given the chance to live in or closer to their homes that were damaged. We have one more chance to get this right, and I am hopeful that this agreement will help the state do a better job.” 

The agreement requires changes to the recovery effort which address the needs of Latinos, African-American and working poor families impacted by Sandy that have not been addressed to date. In response to erroneous information on the State’s website that had incorrect deadlines, the State is required to make its Sandy website fully bilingual, and provide equal access for people whose primary language is not English from the first day of applications for new programs. In response to findings that Latinos and African-Americans were rejected from the State’s main homeowner rebuilding program, the Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, Elevation, and Mitigation [RREM] program, significantly more often than white non-Latino applicants, the State will reexamine all applications to make sure that applicants were not unfairly rejected. In response to a lower share of resources to renters displaced by Sandy, who are disproportionately Latino and African-American, the State will dedicate at least $240 million in additional immediate help and longer-term rebuilding funds to renters impacted by Sandy.

“Working poor families impacted by Sandy should have the same rights as everyone else to rebuild their homes and lives,” said Christian Estevez, Executive Vice-President of the Latino Action Network. “This agreement will help make the Sandy recovery more fair and inclusive.”

Key terms of the agreement include:

• Provides a minimum of $215 million in addition to $379 million previously allocated to build replacement homes for people impacted by Sandy, and for the first time sets firm targets for prioritizing the most impacted communities in New Jersey, especially the three most impacted counties, Ocean, Monmouth, and Atlantic, to ensure that people are not forced to leave their communities permanently as a result of the storm;
• Establishes a $15 million pool for immediate help for renters who are still displaced from Sandy, which can be used for up to two years while replacement homes are being built;
• Requires a re-review of the applications of everyone rejected from the RREM program, responding to information that nearly 80 percent of rejected applicants whose applications were reviewed were incorrectly rejected, with rejection rates 2.5x higher for African-Americans and 1.5x higher for Latinos;
•  Requires the State to provide equal access to non-English speakers for all programs funded with HUD’s disaster recovery funds and to build a bilingual website for all programs;
• Provides that as new programs open, there must be equal access for applicants whose primary language is not English from day one;
• Requires compliance with Section 3 requirements, which provide a preference for local contractors to do federally funded work and access the job opportunities over out of state contractors;
• Provides an additional $10 million in addition to $50 million previously allocated to help people with special needs impacted by Sandy;
• Provides enhanced outreach to low- and moderate-income communities that have been underserved by the recovery to date, including enhanced partnerships with community groups and housing counseling to help people who are facing financial distress in recovering from Sandy, and integrates outreach to Spanish and Portuguese speaking communities into this outreach process;
• Provides a minimum of $10 million to help people in manufactured homes recover from Sandy and rebuild or replace their homes, including the heavily Latino portions of Moonachie impacted by Sandy;
• Allows applicants to get funds without a substantial damage letter previously required by the state, which has been a particular problem for Latinos in the Ironbound section of Newark and elsewhere, and allows both renters and owners to show concrete proof of damage through other means such as home inspections if FEMA calculated damage incorrectly;  
• Requires the State to comply with the Open Public Records Requests related to Sandy in a timely fashion and to provide more public information to make sure Sandy funds are being distributed fairly.

The Latino Action Network and other complainants were represented by Kevin D. Walsh and Adam M. Gordon of Fair Share Housing Center based in Cherry Hill, NJ and Michael Allen of the civil rights firm Relman, Dane & Colfax, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C.