## Facts

- Cramer Hill was a largely residential Camden neighborhood of modest, well-maintained single-family homes, primarily zoned for low-density use and described as having a suburban feel.
- Despite housing-cost pressures and demographic changes in other areas, Cramer Hill remained comparatively stable.
- In 2005, the City of Camden adopted an ordinance authorizing acquisition, including by eminent domain, of four sites within Cramer Hill for the construction or rehabilitation of low- or moderate-income housing.
- Camden asserted the ordinance was authorized by § 325 of the New Jersey Fair Housing Act (N.J.S.A. 52:27D-325), which addresses municipal authority to obtain property for affordable-housing purposes.
- The Cramer Hill Residents Association and individual residents sued the City and related municipal entities to invalidate the ordinance, contending that § 325 did not authorize the proposed condemnations and that the ordinance would reduce, not increase, affordable housing in Cramer Hill.
- The Law Division granted summary judgment for the City and dismissed the remaining count of plaintiffs’ action in lieu of prerogative writs, and plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether N.J.S.A. 52:27D-325 authorizes a municipality to use eminent domain, by ordinance, to acquire property for low- and moderate-income housing in the manner contemplated by Camden’s ordinance.
2. Whether plaintiffs’ claim that the ordinance would decrease affordable housing rendered the ordinance invalid under the New Jersey Fair Housing Act.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the Law Division’s dismissal of the remaining count and the grant of summary judgment to the City.
- The court held Camden could rely on N.J.S.A. 52:27D-325 as statutory authority for the ordinance authorizing acquisition (including condemnation) for low- and moderate-income housing.
- The court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that the ordinance was invalid on its face based on predictions about its downstream housing effects.

## Legal Principles

- A municipality may exercise eminent domain only when the Legislature has granted that authority; the grant may be specific to a defined public purpose, including affordable housing.
- N.J.S.A. 52:27D-325 supplies municipal authority to acquire property, including by condemnation, to facilitate low- and moderate-income housing, and is not limited to “blighted” areas identified under redevelopment statutes.
- Courts evaluating an ordinance in an action in lieu of prerogative writs focus on facial validity and statutory authorization; disputes about implementation and future outcomes generally do not invalidate an ordinance that is authorized and adopted for a lawful public purpose.
- In applying the Fair Housing Act, courts look to the statute’s text and structure, including the Act’s definitions and the framework for meeting affordable-housing obligations, rather than treating general neighborhood affordability concerns as controlling statutory limits.

## Conclusion

*Cramer Hill Residents Association, Inc. v. Primas* upheld Camden’s 2005 ordinance authorizing acquisition of four Cramer Hill sites for low- and moderate-income housing, concluding that N.J.S.A. 52:27D-325 provided statutory condemnation authority and that plaintiffs’ asserted adverse housing effects did not render the ordinance invalid on its face.


Cramer Hill Residents Association, Inc. v. Primas, 395 N.J. Super. 1, 928 A.2d