Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. v. Township of Mount Holly
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18840
3rd Cir.2011Background
- Gardens neighborhood in Mount Holly, a poor, minority-predominant area, faces demolition and replacement with market-rate housing.
- Residents allege redevelopment plans violate FHA, Title VIII, 1866 statute, and Equal Protection by discriminatory impact on minorities.
- Redevelopment plans evolved from 2003 GARP to 2005 West Rancocas to 2008 Revised West Rancocas, expanding demolition and restricting affordable units.
- Relocation plans (WRAP) offered limited funds, with substantial affordability gaps for Gardens residents, particularly minorities and renters.
- Demolitions and mass displacement began in the mid-2000s, leaving many homes vacant and the neighborhood decimated, affecting pricing and feasibility of rehabilitation.
- District Court granted summary judgment for the Township; the Residents appeal seeking relief and remand for a fuller factual record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Residents establish prima facie disparate impact under FHA | Residents show minority burden via pre-plan census data (African-American/Hispanic impact). | Township contends no disproportionate impact or proper accounting of alternatives. | Yes; prima facie disparate impact shown requiring further analysis. |
| Whether District Court erred in rejecting residents' statistics | Statistical evidence shows minorities disproportionately affected. | Statistics too broad/narrow and improperly analyzed. | District Court erred; statistics supported a disparate impact finding. |
| Whether there exists a viable, less discriminatory alternative | Rehabilitation-focused plan could achieve objectives with less impact on minorities. | Rehabilitation cost and feasibility justify demolition; no viable alternative presented. | Questions of material fact remain; remand to assess alternatives and feasibility. |
| Whether there is evidence of intentional discrimination | Intentional bias underlying plan evidenced by displacement patterns. | No proof of purposeful discrimination. | No error in district court; intentional discrimination claim affirmed as not shown. |
| Remand and remedies considerations | Remand for a fuller record to craft appropriate remedies; development needed. | Existing record should be sufficient for judgment on liability. | Remand for further proceedings to develop remedies and record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Resident Advisory Bd. v. Rizzo, 564 F.2d 126 (3d Cir. 1977) (disparate impact concept; denial of housing can violate FHA via disproportionate effects)
- Huntington Branch, NAACP v. Town of Huntington, 844 F.2d 926 (2d Cir. 1988) (statistical analysis for disparate impact; affordability context)
- Lapid-Laurel, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Twp. of Scotch Plains, 284 F.3d 442 (3d Cir. 2002) (test for reasonable accommodation/alternative in disparate impact context)
- Hazelwood School District v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1977) (disparate impact framework and remedial purpose of housing law)
- City of Memphis v. Greene, 451 U.S. 100 (U.S. 1981) (discussion on discrimination standards and stigma within remedies context)
- Doe v. City of Butler, 892 F.2d 315 (3d Cir. 1989) (minority burden can establish discriminatory impact)
- Smith v. Anchor Building Corp., 536 F.2d 231 (8th Cir. 1976) (factor to consider whether housing practice affects minorities disproportionately)
- Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp. v. Arlington Heights, 558 F.2d 1283 (7th Cir. 1977) (disparate impact framework and integration goals)
- Rizzo, 564 F.2d 126; United States v. Starrett City Assocs., 840 F.2d 1096 (2d Cir. 1988) (disparate impact, effect over motivation; housing discrimination analysis)
- Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467 (9th Cir. 1988) (disparity in impact supports FHA violation)
- Arthur v. City of Toledo, 782 F.2d 565 (6th Cir. 1986) (discussion of equal protection and housing discrimination)