In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

45 This chapter tells the story of the landmark Mount Laurel case, primarily from the perspective of those who were plaintiffs.1 Because of the plaintiffs’ ethnic makeup, race theorists and civil rights advocates have argued that “at its core, the Mount Laurel doctrine targets residential segregation as a key factor in the perpetuation of racial inequality in New Jersey.”2 According to those commentators , Mount Laurel correctly recognized that exclusionary zoning exacerbates racial segregation and that full implementation of the law must include an ongoing attack on racial segregation anywhere it is found in the state.3 Those who have interpreted the Mount Laurel doctrine differently insist that its focus is to cure economic, not racial or ethnic, discrimination.4 One of my main challenges in writing this chapter was to consider these competing views as I described and evaluated how the New Jersey Supreme Court approached Mount Laurel. More specifically, I had to try to understand and explain why the New Jersey Supreme Court, at least on the surface, appeared to focus only on economic discrimination and not on racial segregation and racial injustice in spite of the racial composition of the plaintiff group, the racially taut environment of the time, and the obvious relevance of race to the issues before the justices. My exploration of this puzzling aspect of the case led me to conclude that both sides of the debate have merit. Whatever the court’s intentions were regarding this central aspect of the litigation, it would be a mistake to ignore other important elements, such as regional planning, smart growth, and regional equity, that framed the court’s consideration. 3 Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel (1975) Establishing a Right to Affordable Housing Throughout the State by Confronting the Inequality Demon ROBERT C. HOLMES 46 ROBERT C. HOLMES The Story Begins In 1975, New Jersey was politically charged by the aftermath of the late 1960s civil uprisings in its deteriorating, racially segregated cities. There was growing impatience and frustration among both those who saw themselves as being forced to live in dysfunctional and dangerous urban ghettos and those who saw themselves as bankrolling the high cost of ineffective programs intended to improve conditions in America’s cities. Against this backdrop, the New Jersey Supreme Court made a passionate and bold attempt to provide a national model for resolving the most pressing societal problem of the time—America’s failure to deliver on its promise of equal opportunity for a safe and decent quality of life for all of its citizens. Citing the critical importance of housing to this lofty American ideal, and the interrelationship of housing choices and other aspects of life such as education, employment, health, and happiness, the court seized an opportunity presented by the appeal of an exclusionary zoning case to advance a doctrine intended to level life’s playing field for all New Jersey residents regardless of their financial status. Court action was met by local resistance. After it became alarmingly clear that the state supreme court’s 1975 rulings, popularly known as Mount Laurel I,5 were not being followed by New Jersey municipalities, the court considered the matter again in 1983 in a case that came to be known as Mount Laurel II.6 Chief Justice Robert Wilentz began the majority opinion in that case with the following words: “[We] believe that there is widespread non-compliance with the constitutional mandate of our original opinion in this case. . . . To the best of our ability we will not let it continue. This court is more firmly committed to the original Mount Laurel doctrine than ever, and we are determined to make it work.”7 Chief Justice Wilentz’s passionate words embody the court’s willingness to test the limits of judicial review and step deep into the breach between law and politics. The justices’ commitment to promoting the American ideal of economic integration, the boldness of their approach, and the national importance of the issue resulted in Mount Laurel receiving wide attention across the country. Beyond doubt, it deserves to be called a landmark case. Love it or hate it, Mount Laurel could not be ignored; it has been widely celebrated, studied, and emulated , and widely reviled. However, because the judiciary’s ability to bring about social change is ultimately dependent upon the elected branches’ cooperation and enforcement, the considerable promise of the court’s bold rulings in Mount Laurel remains largely unfulfilled. In part, at least...

Share