NJ warns landlords (again) about rejecting formerly incarcerated

New Jersey’s attorney general told dozens of landlords to stop violating the rights of formerly incarcerated rental applicants, but — as he did last year — stopped short of naming or penalizing them.

The office of Matthew Platkin issued 59 notices of violation to housing providers, NorthJersey.com reported. The indiscretions range from asking discriminatory questions on rental applications to running advertisements that discourage people with criminal records from applying.

Those actions were banned at the beginning of last year when New Jersey passed the Fair Chance in Housing Law. The legislation bars landlords from asking about criminal history until a conditional offer is made.

Once that offer is made, landlords can then consider specific historical information about the applicant, including convictions that are recent, involve serious crimes or require lifetime sex offender registration.

Landlords are also required to consider information that benefits an applicant, such as letters of recommendation. Landlords who withdraw an offer must explain why, and applicants can appeal.

The law was designed to make it easier for people who were once incarcerated to find housing, which reduces recidivism. Since its passage, however, landlords have been violating the statute in significant numbers, some of them quite openly.

In August, 30 notices were issued for violations but penalties were not imposed, although the legislation allows for them.

Penalties can be significant, particularly for smaller landlords: up to $1,000 for the first offense, $5,000 for the second and $10,000 for each additional one.

The attorney general appears to be stepping up his efforts to reduce housing discrimination in New Jersey. Just last week, the AG’s office announced enforcement actions in eight cases allegedly involving source-of-income discrimination — that is, rejecting applicants because they were using rental vouchers.

But the punishment appeared to be light. Only two involved money and the amounts were not disclosed. Additionally, the landlords weren’t named, sparing them from public scrutiny and backlash.

The effects of “ban the box” policies, which are also applied to employers weighing job applicants, are still being studied. But some analysis has found that when an applicant’s criminal history cannot be considered, discrimination shifts from individuals to a larger group — specifically young men of color.

— Holden Walter-Warner