New Jersey Public Advocate files brief to support low-income tenants’ access to market-rate housing

TRENTON -- The Department of the Public Advocate on Friday, August 7 filed a brief in the Appellate Division in support of a tenant who received a housing subsidy through the State Rental Assistance Program (S-RAP) but was denied housing because she did not meet the minimum income requirement that was imposed by the landlord.

Read the Public Advocate's brief

The Department argued that such minimum income requirements, when applied to S-RAP voucher holders, violate New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination and undermine the very purpose of the S-RAP voucher program – to provide New Jersey’s low-income tenants access to market-rate housing.

In November 2005, a woman who is disabled and receives federal Supplemental Security Income applied for a one-bedroom, $874-a-month apartment in Yardville.  The landlord refused to rent to her because her income did not meet their minimum income requirement of $28,000 per year.

According to the Public Advocate’s brief, the minimum income requirement may be appropriate for determining whether an individual can afford the entire rent. In this case, however, because the housing subsidy would cover a significant portion of the rent, the prospective tenant would have to pay only a small part of the bill.  As a result, her believed inability to pay the entire rent was irrelevant.

The individual now lives in Lawrenceville where she rents an apartment for $930 a month.

She sued the landlord in Mercer County Superior Court, but her claim was dismissed in December 2008.   

She appealed that dismissal to the state Appellate Division arguing that such an income test discriminates against her as an S-RAP voucher holder, a group protected by the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.  

In an Amicus Curiae brief filed Friday, the Public Advocate argues that the minimum-income requirement is discriminatory under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination because it would eliminate from consideration virtually anyone who participates in the S-RAP program. S-RAP vouchers are intended for the poorest in our state. Because of income eligibility requirements for the S-RAP program, nearly all such voucher holders would not have met the minimum income test imposed by the landlord in this case.

According to the Public Advocate’s brief: “This program (S-RAP) exists for the purpose of enabling low-income households to rent in the private market.  The methodology for calculating the amount of a housing voucher takes into account the recipient’s income and key expenses and tailors the subsidy to his or her needs.  The tenant pays what the State has determined he or she can afford; the State pays the remainder directly to the landlord.”

For this reason, “a blanket income disqualification is irrational as applied to voucher holders:  it excludes them for having too little income to pay rents they do not in fact owe because the State covers most of the monthly bill,” the brief states.

The Public Advocate is asking the court to reverse the trial court’s decision and send it back to the lower court with instructions for how to proceed.

Since being reinstated in 2006, the Department of the Public Advocate has advocated for the creation of, and access to, affordable housing for the state’s low- and moderate-income residents.

The Department issued a 2007 report that highlights the state’s persistent affordable housing crisis and has played a leading role in the last three years in advocating for the rights of low-income residents who are disadvantaged by municipal redevelopment, and in February 2009, filed a brief in support of amendments to the Fair Housing Act and new Council on Affordable Housing rules that ensure greater access to housing for lower income people.

The Public Advocate also advocates on behalf of tenants living in foreclosed properties to ensure that their right to remain in their home is protected.

###