HARP was set up to help folks repair or rebuild homes damaged by Hurricane Ida and relies on federal Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery funds. This isn’t just a cash grant; the funds come with a host of rules around eligibility, environmental and historic reviews, costs and other areas.
For their part, New Jersey needs to prove that the projects meet the necessary requirements and anyone benefiting from the program must commit to owning and living in the home afterwards – the part the Department of Community Affairs handles.
This brings us to Annarella, a Princeton homeowner actively working through the HARP process almost five years after Hurricane Ida hit New Jersey.
In a December 9, 2025 communication to Annarella, DCA wrote that the project likely did not meet historic-preservation and environmental review requirements and could have negative effects under federal Section 106 review. As a result, the department said it couldn’t use HARP funds for the project “as currently conceived.” DCA said it could still help with restoring the structure in place while keeping or replacing historic features and also mentioned a possible state purchase of the property as an alternative.
From there, Annarella found herself in the State-led redesign phase – an April 10th, 2026 communication from the DCA indicated that the scope for the historically eligible restoration was done and the contract was out for bids with proposals due by the end of the month. The Department also expected to select and hire a design firm soon.
Before you get too excited, that same letter mentioned that construction could take three to five years due to complexity and the likelihood of a multi-layered review process that included the Historic Preservation Office and Princeton Historic Preservation Office, among others. It also confirmed that Annarella’s rental assistance ended on May 31 after hitting the 24-month limit and the DCA had no other programs for rental assistance beyond that date.
A few weeks later (May 5, 2026) Annarella received an email from the DCA stating that they had received at least one proposal by the deadline, evaluation was ongoing and they expected to announce a selection in June.
The records we reviewed don’t show that a notice of award was given, a design firm was assigned or a project schedule was provided and by late June, according to Annarella, that had not changed.
Then another wrench was thrown into the mix when Annarella mentioned her Princeton property was listed for sale. She was clear that the listing was a loss-mitigation step due to mortgage and housing instability, the lack of rental assistance and unresolved HARP timeline – this appeared to raise concerns within DCA.
In a June 24, 2026 email, DCA mentioned that they noticed the property was listed for sale on multiple platforms which goes against HARP policies. They reiterated the program terms – HARP participants need to keep ownership of the property, prove both ability and intent to maintain ownership through completion and reoccupy the home after the project completion.
Annarella replied that she didn’t sell the property, transfer the title, withdraw from HARP or abandon her application; she explained the listing was a loss-mitigation step – she had no intention of leaving the program.
In July, DCA clarified that the June 24 email wasn’t an eligibility determination, confirmed the HARP application remained active and acknowledged that the listing was part of her efforts to address potential foreclosure and loss mitigation.
They also stated that the program is waiting on more information from Chase and Fannie Mae about the mortgage’s current status which the program needs to determine if the property can stay under the homeowner’s ownership during the project and before any more resources were committed.
DCA’s July 1 email indicated that if a lis pendens, a public notice tied to pending litigation related to the property, is filed against the property, the application may be paused while HARP conducts a review. If ownership changes through a sheriff’s sale or voluntary sale, the property would no longer meet HARP’s ownership requirements. Any determination would come in writing along with instructions on how to appeal. The department also referred the homeowner to Navicore through its Housing Counseling Program for foreclosure prevention and debt management services.
And this is where things stand now – a place Annarella describes as the eligibility trap.
When you look at the timeline, it’s reasonable to question how a homeowner can go about proving their ability to hold onto a house through a three to five-year process when housing assistance stops years short of the finish line, construction hasn’t started and the next major step is delayed because of a pending mortgage-status review?
The financial drill down is on top of the emotional impact of living one place for five years while managing the repair of another place as emails follow a stop-go-stop-go roller coaster.
In her response, Annarella stated that her ability to keep the home depends directly on factors controlled by the program, that the uncertainty and delays aren’t separate from the risk of ownership; they are a significant part of it. In order for the mortgage and housing situation to stabilize, she needed HARP to move forward with assigning a firm and putting a project schedule on the board.
Annarella has requested DCA to provide a written list of all remaining documents needed from her, confirm what’s been requested from Chase and Fannie Mae, give an anticipated date for design-firm assignment once the needed documents are submitted and clarify whether her file is on hold or if review activities are still moving forward.
She also sought an updated factual status letter confirming that the HARP application is active, that the home is uninhabitable and that the property is in an active State-administered Hurricane Ida recovery process.
NJ21st contacted DCA on June 29 with specific questions about the case.
In reply, DCA confirmed that Annarella’s HARP application is still active and progressing through the early review process.
“HARP is intended to restore storm-damaged, owner-occupied primary residences for continued owner occupancy,” DCA stated. “Federal cost principles require DCA to make sure that disaster recovery funds are used only for necessary and reasonable costs.”
According to DCA, “challenges like a mortgage in default, foreclosure proceedings, and/or listing the property for sale, are indicators of a potential change in ownership.”
They also indicated that properties in historic districts go through multiple federal, state and local review processes.
The email from the DCA did not answer several of our other questions…
Has a design firm been assigned?
Is the three to five year timeline still accurate?
Is there a project specific schedule?
Does the department keep track of how many HARP applicants have run out of rental assistance before construction starts?
In addition to the questions, NJ21st also sent an OPRA request for more information including the number of active HARP applications, those without a construction start date, those whose rental assistance has expired and applicants facing foreclosure, default, loss mitigation or forced sale situations, if applicable.
On July 13, DCA sent Annarella another letter that confirmed her HARP application is “funded and active” but also indicated that the design firm assignment is “on hold pending updated mortgage documentation confirming the status of the loan.” DCA wrote that HARP is ready to award the firm immediately if the loan is current.
Annarella’s case raises a larger question about whether New Jersey’s Ida recovery system can effectively handle complex situations that may take years to review while temporary housing assistance ends before construction begins.
It’s important to acknowledge that the DCA is in a sort of middle man position bound by federal guidelines – a facilitator in a process where the rules come from above and not everything exists in the state’s locus of control. You can point to the Feds as the issue but they could easily argue that they aren’t the boots on the ground administering the program, they just oversee the framework.
This structure creates an accountability gray zone as one entity can point to another in a game of ping pong that’s led Annarella through what many homeowners would consider a nightmare.
So it’s fair and necessary to ask ‘What does active mean?’ when someone who is relying on the program is still displaced, their rental assistance ended, the construction schedule isn’t on paper and the next steps might rely on the very stability the delays have made harder to achieve.
Annarella’s Full Statement to NJ21st
Video of Damage:
Related Articles
NJ Regional Inflation Outpaces the Nation as Luxury Housing Boom Fails to Deliver
NJ Supreme Court Gives Town Zoning Plans More Weight in Development Decisions
