BERKELEY – After a groundswell of resistance, a bill that would codify a lot of how senior communities are run was changed by the senator who introduced it.
Local seniors worried that the language would open up 55+ communities to people underage. Those promoting the bill said it’s a misconception. Regardless of who is right, the senator who introduced the bill said that references age discrimination will be removed.
This bill does not stand alone, said Berkeley Councilwoman Judy Noonan, who organized the resistance against it. There’s a history of state bills that have tried to micromanage senior communities. In the past, bills have tried to create another level of bureaucracy to oversee communities – this bureaucracy would be funded by a fee paid by residents.
If passed, this would be the first bill in many that would slowly erode the control that seniors have in governing themselves and keeping the communities age restricted, she said.
The bill, S-2425, was crafted to create a set of definitions so that all community housing would conform to an overall set of regulations. It wasn’t just about senior communities, but all communities.
[adrotate banner="278"]In a recent town hall-like hearing, Sen. Christopher Connors (R-9th) told a packed house of hundreds of people at the Holiday City South clubhouse why he is against the bill.
If the state regulates anything, there will be another level of bureaucracy to regulate the regulators “and you will be charged for that bureaucracy,” he said.
Connors said that on its face, it’s a fairly harmless bill. So much so that the senators voting for it probably don’t realize the potential impact it can have. The bill, by itself, doesn’t open senior communities to underaged people. It simply sets the groundwork where it could happen. Additionally, there are other bills in the works that could expand on the powers of Trenton to further impact the senior community.
In summary, the bill wouldn’t eliminate the age restriction, but it would create a situation where underaged people may be able to move in and then they’re hard to get out, he said.
While some people might feel that the resistance to this bill is overreacting, he said it’s not. Lawmakers excel at introducing a small change that seems like a good idea and then it grows out of control.
“The time to stop it is now. The time to let Trenton know they are being watched is now,” he said.
Noonan has been at the forefront of fighting the bill. There have been petitions with more than 5,000 signatures. Connors suggested getting friends and family members who live in other districts to contact their state representatives to educate them on the bill. They can also reach out to the Senate President, Speaker of the House, and governor who have the ultimate decisions.
Noonan spoke to association leaders throughout the state; many were unaware of this bill.
“No one should be discriminated against based on race” or other status, but senior communities have been the legal exception for decades. The “discrimination” part of the bill needs to either be taken out or clarified to include 55 and older communities.
She said that as soon as it passed in the Senate, real estate agents looked at it as an opportunity to expand the market.
Most senior associations accept a younger person buying a home for their parents, and for legal reasons having the younger person’s name on the lease, she said. However, some people take advantage of this, put their parent’s name on the lease and then rent it out to someone else.
“These are adult communities and they should remain adult communities,” Berkeley Councilwoman Sophia Gingrich said in an interview prior to the town hall. “We cannot let them come in and tell us how to live,”
JerseyShoreOnline.com reached out to the New Jersey Realtors board. A representative there said the group has no position on the bill and are still reviewing it.
“We did not ask for this legislation to be introduced,” the spokesman said.
The Senate version of the bill, S-2425, passed in June. The only senators who voted no were Connors and James Holzapfel, both of whom serve Ocean County. In order for a bill to become a law, the Assembly has to pass their version (A-3851). Then, the governor has to sign it. The Assembly version has not been up for a vote yet. The seniors have been mounting a resistance against it.
Is The Bill Harmless?
The bill was introduced by Sen. Troy Singleton (D-7th), who has been responding to questions about the bill by pointing out some “misinformation” that is being circulated.
He said that the legislation was based on recommendations from a New Jersey Law Review Commission report. He noted that an estimated one in seven residences in the state are in common interest communities and would be affected. On a broader scope, the bill cleans up a lot of the current laws governing these homes.
He stated that the bill would not create a level of bureaucracy to oversee developments, nor would Trenton interfere with governing.
Perhaps most importantly, he said the bill would not impact the age restriction. The Law Against Discrimination was modified in 2003 to exclude senior communities.
“However, to avoid any confusion on this particular point, I have asked my Assembly colleagues to delete the reference to the (Law Against Discrimination) from the bill,” he said.
A press release from the Community Associations Institute, New Jersey Chapter stated that the opposition to this bill is misguided. The CAI describes itself as a nonprofit that provides education and resources to communities. The release was written by George Greatrex, the chair of the New Jersey Legislative Action Committee.
He said that the allegations that Trenton will meddle in age-restricted communities and impose fees are false and fear-mongering.
The bill handles more mundane issues that all communities face, he said.
“The (bill) does not permit the state to ‘meddle’ in the affairs of private homeowner associations, as alleged,” he said. “It does not permit taxation of common property or adding the value of common property to individual owner’s property. In fact, it specifically prohibits it. The bill’s reference to New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD) does not affect the ability of New Jersey’s senior communities to continue to be age-restricted. The LAD, which has banned discrimination based on age and has existed since 1977, was amended in 2003 to explicitly exclude valid age-restricted communities from the age-discrimination provisions of LAD.”
[adrotate banner="277"]Federal Vs. State Law
The Housing For Older Persons Act, signed into law in 1995, allows senior communities to be one of the few – if perhaps only – situations where people can choose who can live in a neighborhood. There are caveats, though. At least 80 percent of the homes must have one or more person of 55 years of age or older. The management must do everything they can to maintain this percentage.
Seniors are worried that the state bill will allow people younger than 55 in their communities. If less than 80 percent of homes have a senior in them, then the community might lose its protected status.
So, for example, if enough renters and house flippers start encroaching on the community, it will eventually be less than 80 percent seniors.
Generally speaking, federal law overpowers state law. In fact, the attorney for Brick Township, Kevin Starkey, stated during a Township Council meeting that the state bill would not turn over the federal protections. An article about this, published first in The Brick Times, was brought up during the town hall. Connors, an attorney, had a different opinion.
“If you have two attorneys, you can have two different opinions. If you have three attorneys, you can have three different opinions,” Connors said. Therefore, it could give someone legal ground to circumvent the federal law.
The language in the bill, however, references state law. As Judy Noonan pointed out, the part of the bill is 46:8E-16. This reads “Limitations on restraints on alienation shall only defeat provisions of the declaration restricting sales or leasing of units if they violate the “Law Against Discrimination,” P.L.1945, c.169 (C.10:5-1 et seq.).” The “Law Against Discrimination” that is noted is a state law. Therefore, it could be a loophole for buyers to dodge the age requirement.
A Coalition of Berkeley senior communities, overseen by Noonan, stated that a 55+ restriction is consistent with HOPA and the Fair Housing Act.
Going back to the beginning, the State Department of Community Affairs allowed the developer Hovsons to create several senior communities decades ago, the Coalition stated. The DCA had no objection to a 55+ community back then.
The Coalition was also concerned that the bill doesn’t expressly take into account the history of senior communities governing themselves and operating as age-restricted communities.
Local Opposition
Many local elected officials spoke against the bill, often drafting resolutions in opposition of it.
The Ocean County Freeholders were one of these governing bodies.
“Our seniors chose to move into these communities in part because they would have a strong voice in making local decisions,” Freeholder Joseph H. Vicari said. “They do not want, nor do they need, Trenton’s interference in how their neighborhoods are governed.”
As stated earlier, only two senators voted against this measure, Connors and Holzapfel.
The 9th District delegation requested that the bill die in committee. They received petitions with more than 5,000 signatures of people vehemently opposed to the bill.
Assemblyman Brian Rumpf and Assemblywoman DiAnne Gove have vowed to vote against it if it comes to an Assembly vote.
Berkeley Township Council passed a resolution against the bill as well.
“We stand united with our 55 plus communities, in strong opposition to Trenton’s over-reach to govern and adopt a policy in homeowner associations and condo complexes,” said Mayor Carmen Amato. “Our homeowner associations in our age-restricted communities are all well run, by highly qualified and dedicated volunteers. They all serve their prospective communities very well. They understand the needs of the residents they serve and govern accordingly.
“We are deeply concerned that if this legislation is signed into law, Trenton will no doubt force its will on and meddle in association business. That is completely wrong. Trenton should focus its efforts and energies on getting its own house in order, before meddling in our homeowner’s associations,” Amato said.
Toms River and Brick Township Councils also opposed the bill.
