Newark Coalition for Low Income Housing v. Newark Redevelopment Housing Authority Complaint for Injunctive Relief

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Newark Coalition for :
Low Income Housing,
Martha Stokes, Doris Singleton, :
Frances Blackwood, Queen Phillips 
on behalf of herself and her :
children, Kesha and Anthony;
Dorothy Holden, Laura Foster, :
Richard Smith, Carol Gordon,
Donald Houston, Theresa Williams on : 
behalf of herself and her children,
Mark, Jeremy, Corey, Francis; :
Regina Latirmore, Victoria Bowman,
Elaine Williams on behalf of :
herself and her children, Edward 
and Tyrone; Aida Guzman on behalf :
of herself and her chldren, Eliezer,
Nellie, and Jessie; Ernestine Betts,:
Carmen Olmo on behalf of herself 
and her children, Debrah, Ruth :
and Natalie; Oneida Soto,
Ulises Maldanado, Gloria Sutton, :
Fred Graham, James Goodwin,
Arthur Walton, :

Plaintiffs, : CIVIL ACTION

against : COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

The Newark Redevelopment Housing :
Authority (NHA), Jack Kemp,
Secretary of the Department of :
Housing and Urban Development, (HUD)

Defendants.

Plaintiffs by way of complaint state:



PRF1IMINARY STATEMENT

1. This action is brought to reverse years of public housing mismanagement 

by the Newark Housing Authority (NHA), to halt enormous, needless and illegal 

demolition of an important public housing resource, and to insure that any 

housing demolished is in fact replaced with other adequate new units, as required 

by law.

The complaint is prompted by a state of affairs which includes:

explicit NHA plans to demolish at least 5,752 of an original total 

of more than 13,000 units controlled by the authority, of which 816 

units at Scudder Homes have already been destroyed; in furtherance 

of these plans, demolition of 372 units in the Kretchmer Homes 

project and at least 1,506 units in Columbus Homes has been approved 

by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the 

NHA is proceeding with steps to carry it out;

approximately 4,300 out of the total of NHA public housing units held 

vacant and unoccupied as housing, including 1,400 units which by the 

NHA's own admission were available and suitable for occupancy as of 

August 1987;

abject deterioration and intolerable living conditions in many of 

the housing projects operated by the NHA;

thousands of homeless and inadequately housed people in Newark alone, 

and many more thousands in the surrounding area, the overwhelming 

majority of whom are Black or Hispanic;

not a single new unit yet completed, or even close to being 

completed, on any of the Scudder Homes sites at which public housing

2



was previously demolished by the NHA in 1987; 

countless and continuing violations of federal housing 

law by HUD, the agency responsible for overseeing the 

nation's public housing programs, by approving NHA 

proposals for demolition and furnishing other assistance 

without a legal and sufficient basis, and without 

insuring that the NHA had a valid one-for-one 

replacement plan; by allowing the NHA to take steps in 

furtherance of demolition in violation of federal law, 

and by acquiescing in and failing to stop the NHA from 

neglecting its projects, refusing to rent vacant units, 

and generally mismanaging its affairs, 

the absence of any realistic assurance that any housing 

units destroyed will in fact be promptly replaced with 

at least an equal number of decent, safe, sanitary, and 

affordable units;

the absence of any apparent NHA intention or strategy 

to preserve and rent out at least the same number of 

low-income public housing units that it previously 

operated, let alone to pursue reasonable steps to 

increase that number of units to help meet Newark s and 

the region's need for decent and affordable low-income

housing;

further racial segregation of NHA housing and the City 

of Newark by the relocation of tenants displaced by the 

planned demolitions, and the proposed placement of

3



replacement housing, in the racially segregated and 

economically impacted Central Ward area.

2. Plaintiffs are applicants for and tenants in Newark public housing, as 

well as a coalition of such individuals and organizations serving them. All 

individual named plaintiffs are Black or Hispanic. The defendants are the NHA, 

HUD, and the Secretary of HUD.

3. Plaintiffs seek first to halt the imminent demolition of portions of 

Columbus and Kretchmer, pending a determination of their claims that demolition 

would violate applicable law and that there is in any event no realistic plan 

insuring one-for-one replacement housing. They also seek to halt and reverse 

the NHA's pattern of causing or permitting housing conditions to deteriorate to 

the point where it is tantamount to demolition, including the NHA's failure to 

properly maintain and rehabilitate and to rent all available units. Finally, 

plaintiffs seek to bar permanently needless demolition of other NHA housing

units.

4. Plaintiffs claim violations of the United States Housing Act, 42 U.S..C_̂ 

1437 et seq., the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S,_C. 4331 et seg., 

Title VIII of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U . S ^  3601 et se^, Title VI of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000(d), and regulations and guidelines 

thereunder, and the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, 

as well as the New Jersey Constitution, the New Jersey enabling statute for 

public housing authorities, N.J.S.A, 55:14A-1 et sea., and the New Jersey Law

Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seg.

RASTS OF JURISDICTION

5. This action arises under the laws of the United States, including 

particularly the national housing acts from 1937 to 1987, 42 U ■ S_S .• 1437 et

4



sea.; Title VIII of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C., 3601 et seq._; Title 

IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000(d), as made enforceable by 

42 U.S.C. 1983; and the right of judicial review of federal agency actions, 5 

U.S.C. 702 et seq. Jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U.S.C., 1331 and 1343(3), 

and further by 28 U.S.C. 1361. Pendent jurisdiction is sought for claims 

arising under the laws and Constitution of the State of New Jersey.

STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM 

PARTIES

6. The Newark Coalition for Low Income Housing, c/o Vic DeLuca, 91 Darcey 

Street, Newark, New Jersey 07105, is a membership organization of individuals 

and groups. Individual members include the homeless, tenants residing in Newark 

public housing, tenants residing in overcrowded, unsafe, or other substandard 

privately owned housing, and people who have applied for but not been admitted 

to NHA public housing. Groups which are members of the Coalition include, among 

others: the Essex County Caucus of the New Jersey Black Issues Convention, the 

Ironbound Community Corporation, the Metropolitan Ecumenical Ministries, Right 

to Housing, Local 1081 of the Communications Workers of America, Apostles House 

and the Kretchmer Homes Tenants Association. The Coalition's purposes and 

activities on behalf of its individual tenant and applicant members include 

attempting to address the problems of homelessness and the lack of affordable 

housing in Newark. The Coalition seeks to end the NHA practices of allowing its 

public housing units to deteriorate and remain vacant, of planning and executing 

the needless demolition and disposition of public housing units that it has 

allowed to deteriorate, and of failing to have an effective and realistic plan 

to replace on a one-for-one basis any units which are in fact demolished. The 

Coalition's individual members and those similarly situated suffer from a lack

5



of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing, due in part to the practices 

of the NHA and HUD challenged in this litigation.

PURI TC HOUSING TENANT PLAINTIFFS

The names and addresses of the individual public housing tenant plaintiffs 

in this action are as follows:

7. Plaintiff Martha Stokes resides in the Hayes Homes public housing project

owned and operated by the NHA at 54 Boyd Street, Apt. 3F, Newark, New Jersey.

8. Plaintiff Doris Singleton resides at Hayes Homes at 322 Hunterdon Street, 

Apt. 2B, Newark, New Jersey.

9. Plaintiff Frances Blakewood resides at Hayes Homes at 322 Hunterdon 

Street, Apt. 4E, Newark, New Jersey.

10. Plaintiff Queen Phillips resides with her two children and a grandchild 

at Hayes Homes at 322 Hunterdon Street, Apt 9C, Newark, New Jersey.

11. Plaintiff Dorothy Holden resides at the Hayes Homes Project at 322 

Hunterdon Street, Apt. 9E, Newark, New Jersey.

12. Plaintiff Laura Foster resides at the Hayes Homes Housing Project at 322 

Hunterdon Street, Apt. 8D, Newark, New Jersey.

13. Plaintiff Richard Smith resides at Hayes Homes Housing Project at 326 

Hunterdon Street, Apt. 10D, Newark, New Jersey.

14. Plaintiff Carol Gordon resides at the Hayes Homes Housing Project with her 

son, at 322 Hunterdon Street, Apt. 3C, Newark, New Jersey.

15. Plaintiff Donald Houston resides at the Kretchmer Homes Housing Project 

at 101 Ludlow Street, Newark, New Jersey.

16. Plaintiff Theresa Williams resides at the Kretchmer Homes Housing Project, 

97 Ludlow Street, Apt. 2D, Newark, New Jersey, with her seven children. She has 

been told by the NHA that she has to move as they are going to close her

6



building down. She likes living there and does not want to move, having lived 

at Kretchmer Homes for 23 years.

17. Plaintiff Regina Latimore, resides in Kretchmer Homes at 314 Dayton

Street, Apt. 4 She is chairperson of the building captains at Kretchmer, and 

does not want to move.

18. Plaintiff Victoria Bowman resides with her two children in Kretchmer Homes 

at 314 Dayton Street, Apt. 8H, Newark, New Jersey.

PUBLIC HOUSING APPLICANT PLAINTIFFS

The following people have applied for Newark public housing, but have not 

been admitted:

19. Plaintiff Elaine Williams and her two children Edward and Tyrone are

homeless, and have resided at the Lincoln Motel in East Orange, New Jersey since 

June, 1987.

20. Plaintiff Aida Guzman resides with her three children at 86 Orchard

Street, Newark, New Jersey. Her health and that of her children is suffering 

because of the conditions in her apartment. Her doctor and her caseworker state 

that she needs a larger, more suitable apartment.

21. Plaintiff Nereida Varela resides at 603 Broadway in Newark with her three 

children.

22. Plaintiff Ernestine Betts resides with her two children, and her 

grandchild at 767 S. 17th Street, Newark, New Jersey.

23. Plaintiff Carmen Olmo resides at 163 Mt. Prospect Avenue, Newark with her 

three children.

24. Plaintiff Oneida Soto resides at 192 Ridge Street, Newark, New Jersey.

25. Ulises Maldanado resides at 680 North 6th Street, Newark, New Jersey.

26. Plaintiff Gloria Sutton, 59 years old, is currently living in an apartment

7



in the Stella Wright Housing Project, at 158 Spruce Sreet, Apt. 6A, Newark, New 

Jersey.

27. Plaintiff Fred Graham is disabled, homeless, and at last word sleeps at 

the Newark Airport.

28. Plaintiff James Goodwin is disabled and resides at the Carlton Motel.

29. Plaintiff Arthur Walton resides at the Bellevue Men's Shelter, 400 E. 30th 

Street, New York, New York. He has been there since January, 1988.

DEFENDANTS

30. The defendant Newark Redevelopment and Housing Authority (NHA) is a 

municipal corporation with offices located at 57 Sussex Avenue, Newark, New 

Jersey 07103. It owns and operates the low-income public housing projects in 

the city pursuant to the United States Housing Act. It was established pursuant 

to N.J.S.A.  5 5 : 1 4 A - 1 et seg., and by Newark municipal ordinance, and under 

N-J-S.A. 5 5 : 1 4 A - 7 it has the power to sue and be sued. At all times herein, 

defendant NHA has acted under the color of the laws, custom, and usage of the 

State of New Jersey.

31. Defendant Jack Kemp is the Secretary of HUD. The address of defendants 

Kemp and HUD is the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the 

Secretary, Washington, D.C. 20410.

32. The defendant Department of Housing and Development (HUD) is the agency 

of the United States government responsible for administering and supervising 

the national public housing program pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1437 et sea.

CLASS ACTION

33. Plaintiffs bring this as a class action pursuant to Fed. R.Civ. Proc. 23. 

There are three classes, as follows:

(a) all applicants to NHA public housing who have not yet

8



gained admission, and who need and seek decent, safe, 

sanitary, and affordable housing; and

(b) those tenants of NHA public housing projects, who (i) 

seek better housing conditions and maintenance than they 

now experience, (ii) oppose any needless or illegal 

demolition of public housing, and (i i i) seek decent, 

safe, sanitary, and affordable replacement housing of 

their own choice if they are relocated because of 

rehabilitation or demolition.

(c) all other homeless or inadequately housed people who 

seek admission to NHA public housing.

34. Plaintiffs contend that all of the requirements of Fed. R.Civ. Proc. 23 

are met, in that (i) the classes are so numerous that joinder of all members is 

impossible, (ii) the key questions of law and fact are common to all members of 

the classes, (iii) the claims of the representative parties are typical of those 

of the classes as a whole, and (iv) the representative parties will fairly and 

adequately protect the interests of the classes.

35. Prosecutions of separate actions by the class members would create a risk 

of inconsistent and varying adjudications which would establish incompatible 

standards of conduct for the parties opposing the classes. In addition, 

adjudications with respect to individual members of the classes would as a 

practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other members not 

parties to the adjudications, or substantially impair or impede their ability 

to protect their interests. The party opposing the classes has acted and 

refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the classes, thereby making 

appropriate final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with

9



respect to the classes as a whole.

CAUSES OF ACTION 

BACKGROUND

The Need for Public Housing and the Lack of Affordable 
Housing in Newark

36. The defendant NHA owns more than 12,000 units of public housing in the 

city, constructed pursuant to federal and state legislation to provide decent 

and safe low-income housing for the poor.

37. There is a substantial need and demand for public housing units in Newark, 

evidenced by an enormous waiting list of families seeking admission. This list 

was found to be as high as 13,000 by HUD in 1986, and recently conceded by the 

NHA itself to include over 7,000. Moreover, based on the information and 

experience of plaintiffs, for at least two years the NHA has been refusing to 

take new applications for public housing, except for elderly units.

38. Newark's homeless population is further evidence of the severe need for 

public housing. A reported recent estimate by a Newark city agency cites some 

16,000 homeless people in the city, up from an estimated 8,500 in 1984.

39. The critical shortage of housing for the poor in Newark is further 

indicated by the large number of people living in dilapidated, substandard, 

unhealthy and hazardous conditions, or in oppressively overcrowded situations. 

The 1988-1991 Housing Assistance Plan for Newark states that there are 14,055 

occupied substandard units of housing in the city.

40. There has been a steady and marked decline in Newark's affordable and 

decent housing stock for many years, due to speculation, demolition, 

abandonment, redevelopment, gentrification, construction of freeways, housing

10



code enforcement, building fires, and other factors. According to one expert: 

"Newark's housing stock is old, rapidly diminishing, and is in so poor a 

condition that it clearly qualifies as being one of the worst in the nation."

41. The vast majority of persons who are eligible for and need public housing 

are welfare recipients. In Newark and Essex County, as well as the rest of New 

Jersey, the fair market values of private rentals exceed the basic welfare grant 

levels. As a result, many families live in apartments for which rents and 

utilities constitute a disproportionate share of their income, preventing them 

from having necessary funds for other essentials such as food, clothing, and 

transportation. In sum, welfare recipients and the poor in general simply 

cannot afford housing in the private market and still have resources for the 

other basic necessities of life. In contrast, under federal law public housing 

tenants cannot be required to pay more than 30% of their income for rent and 

utilities. See 42 U.S.C. 1437a(I). This protection makes public housing 

affordable to the poor, and for many it is the only housing they can afford.

The Racial Impact of Defendants' Conduct

42. A disproportionate number of the classes represented by plaintiffs are 

minority, predominantly Black and Hispanic. Defendants' actions therefore have 

a disproportionate and deleterious effect on racial and ethnic minorities, whose 

opportunities for adequate housing in the private market are already restricted 

due to persistent racial discrimination.

43. Defendants' actions, and particularly the Columbus and Kretchmer 

demolitions, will have a devastating impact on racial minorities in several 

ways. This conduct will reduce the supply of scarce low-income housing 

resources to thousands of desperately needy, overwhelmingly minority homeless 

and inadequately housed persons. It will remove thousands of apartment units

11



from housing sites with particular social and functional value to low-income 

minority households. Finally, these plans will increase segregation in the city 

and the NHA by relocating displaced tenants and placing new replacement housing 

in the racially segregated and economically impacted Central Ward, and by 

removing thousands of units from more integrated areas.

The NHA's Other Activities to Reduce Low-Income Public Housing

44. In the face of this huge need for safe and decent low-income housing in 

Newark, the NHA has taken and continues to take numerous steps to reduce the 

public housing supply. Specifically, the NHA has taken the following actions.

(a) It has undertaken an extensive plan for demolishing 

existing NHA housing units in 39 mid-and high-rise 

buildings, targeting the eventual destruction or 

disposition of at least 5,752 out of an original 13,133 

units, without any provision to create at least one new 

unit for each unit destroyed; current plans call for 

replacement of only a fraction of the units which have 

been or will be destroyed. This is the most sweeping 

demolition plan of its kind in the country.

(b) The NHA has actually demolished 816 units.

(c) The NHA has actively taken steps to prepare the way for 

more demolitions by vacating still other buildings, 

which could be utilized to provide public housing. Such 

steps include (i) relocating tenants; (ii) refusing to 

rent units in targeted buildings that become vacant and 

available; (iii) holding units in buildings not targeted 

for demolition vacant, to be used to relocate tenants

12



from buildings that it hopes to demolish, instead of 

renting them to Newark's homeless or inadequately housed 

people who have applied for public housing; (iv) failing 

to properly maintain, rehabilitate, and manage 

individual units, buildings and entire projects in a 

decent, safe, and sanitary fashion, creating intolerable 

living conditions which discourage existing tenants and 

encourage them to leave, in turn creating more 

vacancies; and (v) failing to properly secure vacated 

buildings, causing conditions to further deteriorate.

(d) The NHA has actively planned for and pursued the sale 

of project sites, thereby reducing the supply of 

available land and housing, without an equivalent gain 

in land, units, or compensation.

45. The specific history of the NHA's demolition applications, approvals, and

actual destruction is as follows:

(a) Scudder Homes: In September, 1985, HUD approved the 

demolition of 816 out of the project's 1,428 units.

Pursuant to this approval, these units were demolished 

during the period May through November, 1987.

In August, 1987, the NHA applied for permission to 

demolish an additional 612 units. HUD returned this 

application unapproved because it failed to comply with 

the provisions of the Housing and Community Development 

Act (hereafter the 1987), which included, inter alia, 

important additions to the federal statutory

13



requirements concerning the demolition and disposition 

of property. 42 U.S.C. 1437p.

(b) Hayes Homes: In September, 1985, HUD approved the

partial demolition of four buildings, an elimination of 

328 out that project's 1,458 units. There has been no 

demolition pursuant to this approval.

In August, 1987, the NHA abandoned the above plan, and 

applied for permission to totally demolish all ten

buildings at Hayes Homes, combining it with the second 

Scudder application described in (a) above: As

indicated, HUD returned this application unapproved.

(c) Kretchmer Homes: In September, 1985, HUD approved the

demolition of three buildings containing 372 units. 

There has been no demolition pursuant to this approval, 

but the NHA is taking steps to carry out the demolition, 

including securing the necessary approvals from HUD and 

bidding and executing contracts for the work.

(d) Columbus Homes: In November, 1988, HUD approved the

demolition of 1,506 units at Columbus Homes. It also 

approved NHA's "plan" for replacement housing.

(e) Summary - planned demolition for Scudder, Haves,
Kretchmer, Columbus:

The NHA has received approval to demolish 3,022 units, 

(including the 816 already demolished). It also sought 

approval to demolish an additional 1,742 at Hayes and

Scudder, for a total planned demolition of 4,764, in

14



the application that was returned to the NHA by HUD. In 

contrast, the NHA has received a firm commitment of 

funding for only 519 units of new construction. Of 

these, 101 are at the site of the Hayes/Scudder 

demolition, 124 originally scheduled for the 

Hayes/Scudder and currently have no site, 100 are 

located at other sites in the Central Ward, and 194 

represent HUD's commitment as a part of the first year 

of one-for-one replacement for Columbus Homes.

Further, in response to the NHA "replacement plan for 

the Columbus demolition, HUD has also agreed to commit 

funding for an additional 1,312 units, subject to 

appropriations."

The net loss of units., in these few projects alone, even 

if the additional 1,312 units were realized,1 will be 

2,919, a staggering loss of housing capacity.

(f) Additional contemplated demolition and disposition.

In June, 1987 the NHA filed a "Comprehensive 

Modernization" plan. This announced that "five family 

high-rise projects comprised of thirty-nine buildings 

should be demolished and replaced by townhouses or sold 

to private developers." In March, 1988, a second such 

comprehensive modernization plan proposed elimination

1 The commitment of 1,506 replacement units for Columbus Homes over a six 
year period, is "subject to appropriations." Given the fact that no replacement 
units are included in the FY 1990 Bush budget, and given the budget deficit, 
the reality of these replacement units is tenuous.

15



of at least 5,252 units, representing several hundred 

units at Kretchmer and Walsh in addition to those noted 

above. The comprehensive plans also suggest the 

possibility of losing still more units, through a 

possible disposition (i.e., sale) of all of Walsh. The 

number of lost and unreplaced units would thus rise to 

at least 3,421. As noted, this is the most sweeping plan 

of its kind in the history of public housing in this 

country.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - COLUMBUS HOMES DEMOLITION

46. On July 25, 1988, the NHA applied to HUD for approval to demolish all 

eight buildings at Columbus Homes, comprising 1,506 units. On October 28, 1988, 

the Secretary of HUD approved this application. This approval violated 

42 U .S .C . 1437p and other applicable law in the following respects.

(a) Based upon the information before the Secretary in the 

Columbus Homes demolition application, there was not 

sufficient evidence that Columbus Homes is so obsolete 

as to physical condition, location or other factors as 

to make it totally unusable for any housing purposes (42 

U.S.C. 1437p(a)(1)); in fact part of Columbus is 

currently being used for housing, and housing experts 

have formulated plans under which other portions of 

Columbus could be used again for housing as well.

(b) There are reasonable programs of modifications which are 

feasible to return Columbus Homes or portions thereof

16



to useful life as housing (42 U.S.C. 1437p(a)(1)).

(c) The application from the NHA for the demolition of

Columbus Homes was not developed "in consultation with" 

affected Columbus tenants or tenant groups, as required 

by 42 U.S.C. 1437p(b)(1), but rather was developed by 

the NHA, and was first disclosed to said tenants only 

after the application was submitted to HUD. The 

substance of the application was not changed in any way 

after the subsequent disclosure and a meeting with 

tenants, despite their presentation of a petition in 

opposition to the demolition signed by many of the 

tenants.

(d) Not all tenants to be displaced as a result of the

demolition are in fact being relocated to other decent, 

safe, sanitary, and affordable housing of their own 

choice, as required by 42 U.S.C. 1437p(b)(2); the 

choices are defined and limited by the NHA.

(e) The one-for-one housing replacement plan developed by

the NHA and approved by HUD is defective and fails to

meet the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 1437p(c), and 

regulations, guidelines and other rules promulgated 

thereunder. The plan's failings include but are not 

limited to the following:

(i) It fails to specify any of the sites upon 

which the replacement housing will be built, 

as required by HUD Notice PIH 88-5(b)(5) and

17



53 Fed. Reg. 30,989, to be codified at 24 

C.F.R. 970.11(h).

(ii) It fails to assess the suitability of the 

replacement sites, as required by 24 C.F.R. 

970.11(h), and specifically does not contain 

an assessment as to whether or how these 

undescribed replacement sites comply with 

applicable HUD Site and Neighborhood 

standards relating to full compliance with 

applicable non-discrimination laws, 

including not being in areas of minority 

concentration (unless certain exceptions 

apply), promoting greater choice of housing 

opportunities, and avoiding concentration 

of tenants in areas with a high proportion 

of low-income people, as required by 24 

C.F.R. 941.202(b), (c), and (d), and 53 Fed. 

Reg. 30,989, made applicable by 24 C.F.R. 

970.11(h).

(iii) It fails to include the required reserved 

percentage of units accessible to 

handicapped people, as required by HUD 

Notice PIH 88-5(e), and 24 C.F.R. 970.11(i) 

and 8.25.

(iv) Its schedule fails to include a provision 

that construction of all replacement units

18



will in fact be completed within six years 

of demolition, as required by 42 U.S.C.

1437p(b)(3)(D) and 24 C.F.R. 970.11 (d). In 

fact, there is not even a date specified for 

the beginning of implementation, as required 

by the regulation. Both HUD's own 

construction standards (setting out a norm 

of 30 months from date of funding to start 

of construction and made a matter of statute 

in Section 5(k) of the 1987 Act 42 U.S.C. 

1437c(k)), and even more importantly the 

NHA's own abysmal construction history, 

suggest that these replacement units cannot 

possibly be completed during the six-year 

period set by statute. HUD data shows that 

NHA has taken on average an astonishing ten 

years to complete what little new 

construction it has undertaken since 1977.

(v) It depends on a commitment by the Secretary 

of HUD to provide replacement units. This 

commitment must be considered inadequate as 

a matter of law since HUD itself proposes 

no funds specifically for new construction 

in the latest FY 1990 budget, indicating 

impossibility if not outright bad faith. 

Further, the "commitment" is fatally vague:

19



there is no indication of what specific 

dollar amount is actually "committed," what 

would actually be spent by HUD for this 

project at various appropriation levels, 

what priority would be assigned the Newark 

project as compared with other proposals, 

or even when the money would become 

available.

(vi) It fails to include any specifics as to how 

the same number of individuals and families 

will be provided housing after demolition, 

as required by law. (42 LKS_X.

1437p(b)(3)(E))

(vii) It fails to include specifics as to the 

requisite provision for payment of actual 

tenant relocation expenses, or assurances 

that (A) the new rents paid by tenants will 

be within allowable amounts (42 U .S .C_̂  

1437p(b)(3)(F)) (the Brooke Amendment), or 

that (B) no unit will be demolished until 

the tenant of that unit is in fact relocated 

to a unit which is decent, safe, sanitary, 

affordable, and to the extent practicable 

of that tenant's own choice.

(viii) It fails in general to provide any 

description or detail sufficient to support

20



a conclusion that the plan is credible or

realistic, as required by 42 U.S.C.

1437p(b)(3); among the omissions are (A) 

any mention of the number, source and amount 

of any rent supplements to be applied to the 

units, (B) any indication of the state of 

working drawings or other palpable plans 

for the new construction, (C) any indication 

as to what approvals and permits are 

required, which have been obtained, and when 

the remainder may be expected, (D) what 

specific contingency plans for alternative 

funding exist if HUD is unable to meet its 

commitment in any year, and (E) specifically 

how the NHA plans, to overcome past 

difficulties, whether caused by management 

problems or other factors, which have 

prevented it from constructing or 

rehabilitating units in a timely fashion.

47. As the Columbus demolition application makes clear, the destruction of the 

buildings is just the first step in a planned disposition of the property. The 

demolition is simply designed to clear the land so that it is more attractive 

for private developers. Indeed, before NHA had even filed its demolition 

application for Columbus, it had already entered into a contract with a private 

party (a firm led by former Mayor Kenneth Gibson and Peter Macco) to sell the 

cleared site. Nonetheless, the planned disposition was not part of the

21



demolition application, even though both the statute and HUD regulations have 

distinct criteria guiding the Secretary's consideration of whether to approve 

the proposed disposition of a public housing site.

48. There is no indication that the planned disposition would meet the 

requirements of 42 U.S.C. 1437p(a)(2), nor did the Secretary of HUD so find. For 

defendant HUD to have approved a demolition of a project when it was expressly 

part and parcel of a planned disposition of that project, without any 

consideration or decision whether the integrally-related disposition itself 

satisfied the statute and regulations thereunder, was a serious abuse of 

discretion and violation of applicable law. Without evaluating the demolition 

and disposition as an integrated scheme, there is no basis to judge, inter al ia, 

the effect on overall availability of public housing land and units in Newark, 

just one part of the evaluation required by law.

SFCOND CAUSE OF ACTION - KRETCHMER HOMES DEMOLITION

49. Demolition of three buildings at the Kretchmer Homes housing project of 

the NHA was approved by the Secretary of HUD on September 20, 1985. These 

buildings have not been demolished. This approval violated 42 U.S.C. 1437p(a), 

as it existed at the time of the approval, in that the Kretchmer Homes buildings 

were not obsolete, reasonable modifications would return the buildings to useful 

life as housing, and the other statutory criteria were not met.

50. No plan of one-for-one replacement of the housing units to be destroyed 

was submitted with or was a part of this application, nor has such a plan ever 

been submitted.

51. Subsequent to HUD's approval, the 1987 Act became law. This statute 

strengthened part (a) of the prior law by requiring that a showing of both

22



obsolescence and non-feasibility of modification or repairs was necessary before 

the Secretary could approve a demolition or disposition; the prior statute 

required a showing of either obsolescence or non-feasibility. Neither 

obsolescence nor non-feasibility is present in the case of Kretchmer Homes. 

Furthermore, the 1985 application was approved partly on the basis that 

demolition of a portion of Kretchmer would help preserve the rest of the 

project. In fact, as revealed in the NHA'a most recent plans, all of Kretchmer 

is slated for demolition, no portion is to be preserved, and this ground for 

approval is invalid.

52. Among the 1987 Act's other provisions is a prohibition against HUD 

furnishing assistance to or approving an application for demolition unless there 

is a one-for-one replacement plan which meets the requirements of the law. 42 

U.S.C. 1437p(b). Since the effective date of the Act in February 1988, HUD has 

issued a number of approvals of contracts and actions concerning the planned 

demolition of the three Kretchmer buildings, and authorized the expenditure of 

funds in connection with demolition, without requiring a one-for-one replacement 

plan, in violation of the 1987 Act.

53. The 1987 Act also bars housing authorities from taking any action in 

furtherance of demolition or disposition without obtaining the approval of the 

Secretary and satisfying the newly amended 1437p(a) and (b), the one-for-one 

replacement plan provision. The NHA has taken numerous actions since the 

effective date of the 1987 Act in furtherance of the planned demolition at 

Kretchmer, without having satisfied the one-for-one replacement requirement, in 

violation of 42 U.S.C. 1437p(d).

54. At the time of the Kretchmer demolition approval in 1985, HUD had in 

effect a regulation requiring one-for-one replacement of any demolished units,

23



which it arbitrarily and improperly purported to "waive". The regulation 

originally appeared at 44 Fed. Reg. 65368, codified at 24 C .F.R,_ 970.6. The 

one-for-one requirement then applicable must be applied to Kretchmer, as the

"waiver" was without legal basis.

THIRD FOUNT - ACTIONS IN FURTHERANCE OF 

DFMOI TTTON AT OTHER PROJECTS

55. Since the effective date of the 1937 Act, the defendant NHA has taken, and 

continues to take, numerous steps in furtherance of demolition at other high- 

rise buildings that it operates, including the remaining buildings at Kretchmer, 

Scudder, and Hayes not covered by the NHA's 1985 demolition application, as well 

as buildings at Walsh Homes.

55. There has been no HUD approval of demolition or disposition for any of 

these other buildings, nor are any of these buildings the subject of a pending 

demolition application.

57. NHA's actions in furtherance of demolition without HUD approval include 

preparing the way for more demolitions by vacating these other targeted 

buildings, which could and should be utilized to provide public housing, by 

taking the actions described in paragraph 44(c) above. For example, the NHA has 

recently begun wholesale relocation of tenants from the Kretchmer Homes building 

at 97-101 Ludlow Street in Newark, to empty the building for demolition, even 

though there is no HUD approval and no one-for-one replacement plan.

58. These actions in furtherance of demolition, without an approved demolition 

application satisfying legal requirements, constitute continuing violations by 

the NHA of 42 U.S.C. 1437p(d), to the great injury of plaintiffs and members of 

their classes that they represent. By taking units and entire buildings out of 

public housing rental, these actions also constitute de facto or constructive

24



demolition without HUD approval, and thereby violate 42 U-S.C. 1437p.

59. Defendant HUD has refused to halt these illegal NHA actions in furtherance 

of demolition, thereby violating its responsibilities under the 1987 Act.

60. Within the past two years the NHA has embarked on a substantial 

modernization program at 97-101 Ludlow Street of the Kretchmer Homes. There has 

been substantial modernization of the apartments and common areas of those 

buildings. 24. C.F.R. 968.6 requires that for each modernization program there 

must be an amendment to the Annual Contributions Contract (ACC). It further 

provides that the amendment shall require the low-income use of modernized 

housing for at least 20 years from the date of the modernization. The 

plaintiffs are third party beneficiaries of the ACC. The NHA's plans to 

demolish the modernized buildings, and the emptying out of those buildings 

within less than a year of the modernization, and indeed before it has been 

completed, denies plaintiffs their rights under the ACC, and under 24 C.F._R... 

968.6.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION- MISMANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC HOUSING

61. The defendant NHA has mismanaged in a most serious and fundamental fashion

the public housing under its control. A 1984 HUD audit stated:

The NHA has not developed adequate management procedures for 
overseeing its maintenance program, has not made maximum use of 
available resources, and has not operated its maintenance programs 
in an efficient and economical manner. As a result, the housing 
stock continues to deteriorate, leaving 4,355 unoccupied units which 
represent 34 percent of the 12,904 units.

62. This mismanagement includes but is not limited to the actions and failures 

set forth below.

25



(a) The NHA has caused or allowed conditions in the high-

rise buildings to deteriorate over a long period, and 

consequently a large number of units are not decent, 

safe, or sanitary, as required by the United States 

Housing Act, regulations thereunder, and the Annual

Contribution Contact between the NHA and HUD.

(b) The NHA has not kept the buildings secure, and in most 

there is the constant threat of crime and physical harm.

(c) Thousands of apartments have been held vacant for

several years, when they could and should have been

rented, denying needed housing to low-income people in 

Newark. The 1984 HUD audit found:

The... percentage of increased vacant units indicate 
that instead of making decent, safe and sanitary housing 
units available to low-income families, as required by 
the ACC, the NHA has continually allowed units to become 
unavailable for occupancy. In fact, they have 
intentionally kept them out of service.

(d) As of December 1, 1987, there were at least 4,302

vacancies, a vacancy rate of at least 37%.

(e) Because of the NHA's inability to manage public housing 

properly, and its deliberate strategy of creating 

vacancies in high-rise public housing as a prelude to 

demolition, vacancies in Newark's public housing have 

risen dramatically since 1979. According to a variety 

of NHA statistical reports over the years, the vacancies 

have risen from 587 in 1978 to 5,547 in 1987, a rise of

26



945 percent.2 The NHA vacancy rate is the highest of 

any major public housing authority in the United States.

(f) Notwithstanding these vacancies, the NHA has continued 

to seek and receive operating subsidies from HUD for 

such vacant units, thereby building up excessive 

operating reserves, while also allocating excessive 

amounts to central administration, instead of utilizing 

the money to repair and maintain some of the vacant 

units so that they would be decent, safe, and sanitary 

and in proper condition for re-renting. Furthermore HUD 

has found that the NHA ran up excessive administrative 

expenses for modernization projects, while failing to 

carry out the modernization itself.

(g) HUD audits and reviews during the 1980's have detailed 

a long list of continued deficiencies in NHA management, 

and it also has been designated an "Operationally

2 Fiscal Year Total Vacancies Percentage Increase Since 1978

1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984 
1986

6/30/1987
9/30/1987
12/1/1987

* (After the demoliti

587 
762 

1,030 
2,180 
2,943 
3,790 
4,355 
5,285 
5,381 
5,547 
4,302

i of 813 vacant units

30%
75%

271%
401%
546%
642%
900%
917%
945%
732%*

in the Fall of 1987)

27



Troubled" housing authority by HUD.

(h) The NHA has proceeded with plans to dispose of NHA-owned 

property, such as the Columbus Homes site, even though the 

land is badly needed for low-income housing, the reasons for 

the sale are not related to the goals of the NHA in preserving 

and expanding low-income housing, and an equivalent or greater 

amount of low-income housing will not in fact result from the 

sal e.

(i) The NHA has taken an astonishing average of nearly ten 

years from approval and funding by HUD just to start 

badly needed construction of the new housing units.

(j) As repeatedly documented by HUD, the NHA has failed to 

utilize modernization funds awarded to it for existing 

units in a timely manner, frequently exceeding HUD's 

three-year guideline for completion of modernization 

projects, and leading to the recapture by HUD of at 

least $5 million of unexpended funds. In 1984, a HUD 

audit found that since the federal modernization program 

began in 1974, HUD had authorized NHA expenditures of 

$145 million, but the NHA had spent only $76 million, 

leaving $69 million unspent. More recent reviews by HUD 

echo the same theme. This money, if spent, could have 

had an enormously beneficial effect on the deplorable 

conditions in NHA housing projects.

(k) The NHA's practices concerning admissions and the 

required maintenance of waiting lists have been

28



criticized by HUD. Combined with a recent reported 

practice of refusing to take applications from families, 

these practices illegally harm people seeking admission 

to public housing.

(l) The NHA has failed to seek or obtain from HUD permission 

to use high-rise units that the NHA deems unsuitable for 

families as housing for single individuals. Such 

single-person usage would be permissible if approved by 

HUD.

(m) NHA's failings as cited above have in turn made it less 

able to secure other federal funding that might have 

been available.

63. The 1984 HUD audit concluded:

[T]he NHRA's primary responsibility is to provide decent, safe and 
sanitary housing in an efficient and economic manner. We believe 
that the NRHA has failed in this regard and has not, considering the 
conditions found, demonstrated the capacity to effectively maintain 
the projects, implement its long-range plans and market the units 
accordingly.

64. All of the foregoing constitute serious mismanagement of the NHA and its 

resources, thereby needlessly denying potential housing opportunities to low- 

income people in violation of the letter and spirit of the United States Housing 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 1437 et seg-> and regulations thereunder, as well as the 

obligations of the NHA under the Annual Contributions Contract with HUD, of 

which plaintiff tenants and applicants are third-party beneficiaries, and the 

duties and responsibilities of public housing authorities under the letter and 

spirit of the New Jersey housing authority enabling statute, N.J._S,/L 55:14A-1

et seq.

29



65. Notwithstanding NHA's continued severe problems, defendant HUD has failed 

to take sufficient affirmative remedial measures, continued to grant 

unconditioned operating subsidies and other funds, and granted various other 

approvals. In thus allowing NHA to carry on with its mismanagement and the 

resulting loss of low-income housing opportunity in Newark, HUD has abused its 

discretion and failed to meet its responsibilities of regulation and supervision 

of public housing authorities, thereby violating its duties under the United

States Housing Act.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

DISCRIMINATORY RACIAL EFFECT OF NHA AND HUD ACTIONS

66. A disproportionate share of the plaintiff classes -- Newark s homeless 

and inadequately housed applicants for public housing, on the one hand, and 

Newark's public housing tenants, on the other -- are members of racial and 

ethnic minority groups. Many are disabled. The share of racial and ethnic 

minorities, and disabled people, is significantly higher in the plaintiff 

classes than in Newark's population as a whole.

67. As a result of this disproportionate representation, the entire range of 

defendants' actions described in this complaint, which deny plaintiffs and their 

class members decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing, have an adverse 

and disproportionate impact on these racial and ethnic minorities and the 

di sabled.

68. The NHA's proposed demolition of Columbus and Kretchmer will result in the 

relocation of Black and Hispanic tenants into more racially segregated, 

virtually all minority-occupied public housing in Newark's virtually all­

minority Central Ward. Over 70% of the units provided for the relocation of

30



tenants displaced by the demolitions are in the Central Ward.

69. The NHA's proposed demolitions also will result in the placement of new 

replacement housing in the Central Ward. While noted the Columbus replacement 

"plan" mentions nothing about sites for replacement units, the City of Newark's 

most recent Housing Assistance Plan indicates that 32 of the approximately 44 

acres of land listed as available for the placement of replacement housing units 

are in the Central Ward.

70. The NHA proposed demolitions of Columbus Homes and Kretchmer Homes will 

results in further racial segregation in the city and in the NHA's housing.

71. The NHA has knowledge of the segregative impact of its proposed 

demolitions, as well as of the effect that its failure to fill vacant units has 

on racial minorities.

72. The NHA's conduct violates plaintiffs' rights under Title VII of the Fair 

Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seg^ and 24 C.F.R., 941.202(c)(1); Title 

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seg, and 24 C ^ R ^  

1.4(b)(2)(i); the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United 

States Constitution; and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J .S.A^ 

10:5-1 et seq.

73. Defendants Secretary of HUD and HUD, in approving the demolitions of 

Columbus and Kretchmer, have failed to properly weigh the question of racial 

impact, investigate and determine the social factors involved in the approved 

housing choice, or weigh appropriate and less discriminatory alternatives.

74. The conduct of the federal defendants violates HUD's affirmative 

obligation to further the purposes of Title VIII of the Fair Housing Act of 

1968, 42 U.S.C. 3608(e)(5), as well as its obligations under Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seg., and the Fifth Amendment to

31



the United States Constitution.

75. Furthermore, defendants conduct, which has the effect of making low-income 

housing resources unavailable to a plaintiff class disproportionately consisting 

of disabled and handicapped people violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, and regulations promulgated thereunder, and the New 

Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seg.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION - FAILURE TO 

ASSFSS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

76. The NHA has embarked on a course of demolition and disposition which, if

completed, will result in the destruction of more than 5,000 public housing 

units. Despite its awareness of the full scope of this destruction, HUD

approved the demolition proposals for Kretchmer and Columbus Homes without HUD 

and NHA preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS), or indeed, as far as 

plaintiffs are aware, without HUD preparing or publishing locally a finding of 

no significant [environmental] impact (F0NSI).

77. For all of its projects not categorically excluded by applicable

regulations, HUD must perform an initial environmental assessment to determine 

whether the project will have a significant environmental impact. This

requirement is imposed on HUD by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

42 U.S.C. 4331 seg.

78. Demolition or disposition of public housing is plainly a major federal 

action under NEPA. Given the scope of the proposed NHA demolition and 

disposition, well over 2,500 units, those actions are presumed to have a 

significant environmental impact under 24 C.F.R. 50.42, and in fact will have 

such an impact. Failure to prepare, publish, and receive comment on an EIS 

violates 24 C.F.R. 50.47.

32



79. This required environmental assessment must include determination of the 

effect of the proposed demolition on the quality of urban life, including the 

effect on the low-income housing supply.

80. HUD approval of the demolition of Kretchmer and Columbus must therefore 

be set aside, and any steps toward demolition enjoined, until a satisfactory 

environmental assessment is made, an EIS prepared, and public comment received 

and considered.

SFVFNTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

FAILURE TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO 

PRFSFRVE AND EXPAND THE SUPPLY OF LOW-INCOME HOUSING

81. Defendant NHA's cumulative actions as set forth in this complaint have 

reduced significantly the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable low- 

income housing in Newark, compounding the desperate shortage of such housing in 

the private market.

82. Defendant NHA has also failed to take all reasonable steps within its 

power to preserve and increase the supply of such housing, such as securing and 

utilizing in a timely fashion all available federal new construction and 

modernization funding.

83. As a result, thousands of Newark residents have been and are denied a 

housing opportunity that would otherwise be available, and that the NHA was 

created to provide.

84. Individually and collectively these actions and failures to act constitute 

a pattern and practice of reduction and destruction of the supply of affordable 

housing for low-income people, and violate the duties and responsibilities of 

the NHA as set forth in the public housing authority enabling legislation,

33



N.J.S.A. 55:14A-1 et se^. Any municipal public housing authority draws its sole 

power to act from this enabling statute. A municipal public housing authority 

is an instrumentality of municipal government, a public entity exercising 

governmental functions. As a governmental entity, the NHA must conduct itself 

in a way that is consistent with and furthers the purposes of that legislation.

85. Under the New Jersey Constitution, public housing authorities, just as 

municipalities themselves, must utilize their delegated powers in a fashion that 

is consistent with and furthers the general welfare. The NHA's actions to 

reduce the housing supply affordable to low-income people, to fail to rent and 

utilize available vacant units, and to fail to take reasonable steps to increase 

the supply of public housing are in derogation of the general welfare, and 

therefore violate the NHA's constitutional responsibilities. The actions of the 

NHA also constitute a pattern of arbitrary and capricious behavior by a public 

body.

85. All of the foregoing violations arise out of the same actions and, 

failures to act which give rise to plaintiffs' federal claims, and therefore 

support and require the exercise of pendent jurisdiction, intervention and 

remedial action by this Court.

PLAINTIFFS' IRREPARABLE HARM AND HARDSHIP 

87. Because of their homelessness, or being trapped in unsafe, substandard, 

overcrowded or other inadequate housing conditions, plaintiffs and the classes 

they represent are suffering irreparable harm and hardship for which there is 

no adequate remedy at law. Defendants actions, as described above, have 

significantly reduced the supply of affordable housing in Newark, and thereby 

caused irreparable harm and hardship to plaintiffs and the members of their 

cl asses.

34



Specifically, this harm and hardship has at least the following aspect

(a) Homelessness is an unbearable situation, and subjects 

people to life-threatening conditions, with severe 

adverse effects on their physical and mental health.

(b) Homelessness has been identified by the Governor's 

Committee on Children's Services Planning as a major 

cause of family break-up, resulting in DYFS placement 

of children in foster care.

(c) People are forced to live on the streets, or in 

abandoned buildings, seriously overcrowded or 

substandard housing, dangerous homelessness shelters, 

or crowded, squalid welfare hotels.

(d) Many families who are able to maintain their own private 

apartments are forced to spend an inordinate amount of 

their income on rent, and therefore do not have money 

to meet other vital needs, such as food for their 

children. This inadequacy of resources is the major 

cause of the widespread hunger in New Jersey, and a 

resulting "new phenomenon of children who are growing 

up chronically hungry," according to the Governor's 

Committee. Chronic malnutrition, in turn, retards 

physical and mental development.

(e) This homelessness and inadequacy of housing adversely 

affect the physical and mental health of adults and 

children, as well as the ability of children to develop 

and perform in school, thus limiting their opportunities

35



for the rest of their lives.

(f) The proposed and imminent demolition of Columbus and 

Kretchmer would remove for many years a potential and 

essential housing resource that could be made available 

to individual plaintiffs and members of their classes.

PRAYFR FOR RELIEF

Wherefore plaintiffs request that this Court:

A. Issue an immediate temporary order

restraining defendants from taking any 

additional action in furtherance of the 

demolition of Columbus and Kretchmer Homes 

pending final judgment in this action.

B. Certify this matter as a class action;

C. Order the NHA to rent immediately all 

available vacant units;

D. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction 

barring the NHA from taking any further 

steps in anticipation of or to carry out 

demolition or disposition of publ ic housing, 

unless and until all legal obligations under 

federal and state law have been satisfied.

Such prohibited steps include but are not 

limited to:

1. Relocating tenants from 

buildings which the NHA hopes 

to demol ish or otherwise dispose

36



2.

of;

Taking any additional steps to 

vacate buildings, including but 

not limited to actions such as 

(i) refusing to rent units that 

become vacant and available in 

buildings targeted for 

demolition; (ii) holding units 

vacant to serve as a source of 

relocation for buildings that 

it hopes to demolish; (iii) 

failing to properly maintain and 

manage individual units and 

buildings and projects as a 

whole, creating a dangerous 

situation for existing tenants, 

and leaving many otherwise 

vacant and available units in 

an uninhabitable state;

3. Taking any steps to sell or 

dispose of public housing 

buildings or land to private 

developers, including but not 

limited to taking bids, or 

entering contracts, at all 

projects, including Columbus and

37



Kretchmer Homes;

E. Declare HUD's approvals of the demolition 

of Columbus and Kretchmer Homes to be in 

violation of federal law, and issue a 

preliminary and permanent injunction (i) 

setting aside these approvals, (ii) 

compel ling HUD to fol 1 ow appl i cabl e 1 aw, and 

particularly the provisions of the 1987 Act, 

in its review of any future demolition or 

disposition applications, including 

requiring NHA to prepare replacement and 

relocation plans which comply in all 

respects with the legal requirements set 

forth in this complaint, and (iii) ordering 

NHA to prepare such plans;

F. Order the NHA to immediately take all 

feasible steps to rehabilitate and utilize 

existing public housing units, restoring 

them to the required decent, safe, and 

sanitary state, including improving safety, 

security, and conditions in all projects and 

the utilization of tenant management and 

private management where appropriate;

G. Order HUD to oversee these steps and insure 

that they are carried out, including the 

appointment of HUD or other appropriate

38



outside personnel as may be necessary to 

supervise programs of new construction, 

modernization, reconfigurration, and other 

remedial action related to public housing 

in Newark;

H. Order HUD and the NHA to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) and 

otherwise comply in all respects with the 

National Environmental Policy Act and all 

regulations and rules thereunder, in 

connection with any building or site 

considered for demolition or disposition;

I. Order HUD to insure that in any future 

review of NHA demolition or disposition 

plans and activities the alternative with 

the least discriminatory impact on 

minorities is pursued by the NHA;

J. Order the NHA to proceed promptly with the 

construction at the Scudder site, where it 

has already demolished housing, and to 

commence construction of the other 224 

townhouses for which it has received 

funding; order the NHA to utilize the vacant 

land now owned by the NHA or available from 

the City of Newark for said construction, 

and for all other new construction that it

39



plans or undertakes, instead of using land 

now occupied by existing public housing 

units; and order the NHA to take all 

possible steps within its power to plan for 

and achieve the expansion of the supply of 

safe and decent low-income housing in 

Newark;

K. Order the NHA to immediately request from 

HUD permission to rent units to single non- 

elderly individuals up to the statutory and 

federal regulatory limits.

L. Restore plaintiffs and the members of their 

class to their rightful place on the NHA 

waiting list where appropriate.

M. Grant such other relief as the court deems 

just and equitable, including the 

appointment of such experts, receivers or 

masters, as may be appropriate to aid in a 

resolution of this matter; and

N. Award plaintiffs and their counsel costs and 

attorneys' fees.

40