Social Policy through Land Reform: New Jersey's Mount Laurel Controversy

In 1975 and again in 1983 the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in a suit brought by the local chapter of the NAACP that Mount Laurel Township, located ten miles from Philadelphia at the edge of the metropolitan area, unconstitutionally excluded low-income housing within its borders through its zoning policies that allowed only detached single-family houses and industrial uses. The court not only ruled that there are severe limits on the right of suburban communities to restrict the entry of lower-income households but also set in motion the most fundamental redistribution of property rights ever attempted by a state government in the United States. The court insisted that the state's municipalities have an affirmative obligation to redistribute lowand moderate-income households more evenly across the state.I The rulings have generated heated controversy, for Americans have enormous wealth tied up in land markets. Supporters claim that the Mount Laurel rulings merely extend the well-established regulatory powers of the state regarding the use of land. Furthermore, the geographical redistribution of lower-income households