Monmouth County health official urges assessment, compassion over strict enforcement in hoarding cases

Larry Kaska, chief registered environmental health specialist and head of consumer health inspection services for the Monmouth County Health Department, told an audience the county’s response to hoarding should prioritize assessment and coordinated services rather than punitive enforcement. "You can't help somebody who doesn't wanna be helped," Kaska said, arguing that litigation and fines frequently do not address the underlying disorder.

Kaska, who said he has worked in public health for nearly 50 years and has led Monmouth County's consumer health inspections unit for the past 16 months, outlined the standard enforcement progression: intake of complaints, site visits and assessments, listing violations, issuance of abatement notices with timeframes and, if necessary, summonses and municipal-court proceedings. He cautioned that the Department of Health’s housing regulations are narrow — generally limited to potable water, approved sewage or septic systems and heat in winter — which restricts the remedies available to health inspectors.

Kaska highlighted legal and practical constraints that complicate enforcement. He noted the New Jersey Relocation Assistance Act limits the ability of authorities to displace tenants without triggering relocation obligations. He also distinguished condemnation and eviction, observing that eviction is a landlord–tenant matter and that Health Department staff lack the authority to order tenant removals. Seeking remedies in municipal court can produce tools — such as fines or suspended penalties used to motivate compliance — but judges and prosecutors often have limited options and enforcement can be stressful and counterproductive for vulnerable residents.

Using a recent example, Kaska described arriving at a known hoarding residence where a basement had flooded up to bilco doors, electrical meters were "spinning," and outlets and utility lines were submerged — conditions he called "immediately dangerous to life and health." In those situations, Kaska said, life-safety responses and involvement of code and subcode officials are essential.

Kaska urged municipal coordination to avoid conflicting directives. "Don't act unilaterally whenever possible," he said, warning that different agencies issuing overlapping abatement notices with differing deadlines can confuse residents and undermine compliance. He said multifamily or senior housing settings frequently allow easier intervention because on-site services and oversight exist, while isolated single-family homes often lack those supports.

Rather than rely solely on code enforcement, Kaska recommended assessments by professionals trained to evaluate short- and long-term assistance needs. He said REHS and code officers are often not qualified to provide clinical assessments but may be the first on the scene and therefore should gather careful intake information. He urged asking whether the issue is inside or outside the home, how long the condition has existed, whether the occupant lives alone, utility status, garbage service, and whether the occupant leaves the home — facts that help determine appropriate referrals.

Kaska pointed to Monmouth ACTS as a local resource for coordinated assessment and assistance while stressing that people must accept help voluntarily: "We can't force it on them," he said. He also listed public-health concerns that can stem from hoarding — insects, rodents, vermin, food safety risks and possible rabies exposures — and said those secondary hazards may compel broader public-health responses.

He closed by reiterating that enforcement alone is time-consuming, can appear punitive to complainants who expect immediate action, and does not resolve the clinical causes of hoarding. Kaska's parting recommendation was consistent: emphasize assessment, interagency coordination and compassionate engagement to protect life and public health while avoiding contradictory orders that hinder remedy.