Redevelopment agencies are left to ponder how to eliminate “blight” without facing a disparate-impact claim now that Mount Holly and residents of the Gardens neighborhood have reached a settlement. In Twp. of Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, property owners and amicus argued that Mount Holly engaged in discriminatory housing practices that sought to remove minority property owners from the township through redevelopment.
Practically, what would redevelopment look like if the disparate impact theory applies to the Fair Housing Act (FHA)? What would redevelopment agencies need to consider as part of the planning process in future redevelopment projects? Under a “disparate impact” theory as applied to the FHA, 42 U.S.C. §3604(a), plaintiffs must show that otherwise neutral practices have a disproportionate effect on some racial group. Whether the FHA applies to such claims appears to be a priority for the Roberts court, as the Mount Holly case, along with Gallagher v. Magner, 636 F.3d 380 (8th Cir. Minn. 2010), last year, is the second matter scheduled for argument at the Supreme Court in as many terms.
History of Redevelopment
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
