BettyLou DeCroce
Campaign website
Campaign Facebook
Campaign Twitter
Campaign LinkedIn
QUESTION 2: Since the collapse of the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH), towns across NJ26 have lost control of affordable housing issues to the courts and have spent tens of thousands of dollars on plans and remedies. Should oversight of affordable housing return to the state, and if so, how?
Elected leaders in New Jersey lost control of affordable housing issues long ago, shortly after the state Supreme Court first waded into the matter with the first Mount Laurel ruling in 1975.
Few people would disagree the intent behind the affordable housing battle and the first Mount Laurel ruling was noble: To insure that moderate-to-low income families, the poor and minorities had equal access to live in all regions of the state. The goal was to break down the barriers by which some communities would use zoning to create exclusionary townships.
But the application of a patchwork of solutions over the decades has made a mess of the situation. The costs to towns and taxpayers has not been merely tens of thousands, but millions of dollars in planning costs and defending against lawsuits.
Certainly, no serious open-space advocate or environmentalist can be satisfied with the sprawl that court-sanctioned “builder’s remedies” have caused throughout once-forested lands.
For years, under these “builder’s remedies,” developers have been free to file expensive lawsuits against towns knowing the courts will enable the builders to justify constructing large market-value housing and condominium tracts with a mere promise of setting aside 20 percent of their units as “affordable housing.”
Only relatively small amounts of affordable housing units, sporadically located around the state, have actually materialized under these plans. But the resulting sprawl and traffic congestion have ruined once-tranquil communities, detracting from the quality of life that the fight for affordable housing was designed to offer all people, no matter what their income range, throughout New Jersey.
The resulting mess has left taxpayers facing huge tax hikes over the years as their towns work to accommodate the massive, market-priced housing developments that promise to build some “affordable housing” units. The taxes are linked to an explosion in financial obligations to maintain infrastructure, expand the local first-responder and police apparatus, and deal with growing educational systems triggered by the large housing tacts.
Yes, the state needs to take back control and all affordable housing obligations must be calculated and administered at the state level, which is why I co-sponsored and signed onto a series of bills in this legislative session to bring the matter under state guidance.
One bill eliminates the continuation of builder remedies, and the main piece of legislation, A1645, restores the Council on Affordable Housing as the central state agency with the necessary statewide policy perspective and technical expertise to address the issue in a fair and cost-effective manner.
However, under another measure I co-sponsored, A1649, the state’s old “Fair Housing Act” would be changed to prohibit any categorical exemption of affordable housing obligation for those towns and cities that are eligible for the Municipal (Urban) Aid Program. As the legislation notes, prior rules of the Council on Affordable Housing excluded these municipalities from providing any contribution toward a region’s affordable housing need. The old theory was that these urban locales would be pushed to take on the bulk of the affordable housing, therefore defeating the goal of creating affordable homes throughout the state.
Those exemptions, however, can lead to undue development burdens on other towns surrounding the urban-aid towns that are given an exemption. Additionally, as the legislation states, directing more affordable housing development to urban municipalities would help to minimize urban sprawl and would direct development to areas that already have extensive infrastructure in place, allowing for more cost-effective accommodation of new development. A lot has changed in our demographics and society since the first Mount Laurel ruling, with people — particularly young people — preferring the lure of urban hubs that offer easy access to mass transit, shopping and services.
Certainly, low-to-moderate income families are not served well when so-called affordable housing units are built in areas with no easy access to mass transit or the employment opportunities needed for them to sustain their families.
Under another measure I co-sponsored, a concurrent resolution, A-CR79, we would amend the constitution to prohibit municipalities from engaging in the type of exclusionary zoning we have been working to eliminate for the past 40 years. While the initial Mount Laurel court ruling would seem to have established that public policy, the amendment would give courts the unchallenged authority to strike down any zoning they find to be exclusionary without resorting to the troubling “builders remedies” that have been perpetuated for decades.
We shouldn’t have to wait another 40 years to solve this problem. We can do it soon with bi-partisan agreements and support on moving this legislation. I will continue to work toward a solution.
