Affordable Housing Fight Goes Back to the Courts

Housing advocate and municipalities try to prevent the state from taking their funds.

The battle between the Christie administration and the Fair Share Housing Center continues.

This time, the two sides are going to court Friday over as much as $200 million in local affordable housing trust funds.

So far, the Appellate Division of Superior Court has been kind to the Cherry Hill-based housing advocates, but this case could be a different story.

To help balance the budget, Gov. Chris Christie recommended the state use the trust fund money. The administration appears to be within its legal right to do so, as the law creating the funds—and the developer fees that municipalities levy to subsidize them—specified municipalities had to “commit to spend” the money within four years. The clock strikes midnight on July 17.

But as always, there are caveats.

Last Friday, the New Jersey State League of Municipalities filed a brief in support of the Fair Share case, averring that the state has never defined what “commit to spend” means.

“It is patently unfair to take this money from towns without first giving them the rules of the game,” League Executive Director Bill Dressel said. “Towns have asked the state time and again what they need to do to protect these funds that are dedicated to affordable housing. The state has consistently refused to tell them.”

That statement gets to the bigger problem: With the abolition of the state Council on Affordable Housing—ruled improper by the court—affordable housing is at a standstill.

Christie has made no bones about his feelings for COAH. Neither have just about every other municipal official and state legislator.

The state Supreme Court’s Mount Laurel decisions, which led to the creation of COAH in 1985 to oversee the process by which all municipalities would provide their “fair share” of affordable housing for the state, continue to be politically unpopular.

Some communities refused to buy into the COAH process and took their chances in the courts, often winding up having to take huge housing developments with smaller amounts of low- and moderate-income units under the so-called “builder’s remedy.”

But more than 300 did follow the council’s process and were in various stages of conformance when COAH went kaput.

Christie sought early on to stop COAH for 90 days through an executive order, but Fair Share went to court. The appellate division ruled the governor isn’t that powerful and Christie withdrew his order.

A year later, the governor issued a reorganization plan abolishing COAH. That drew the same court action from Fair Share and met the same reaction from the appellate division.

The Legislature feels the same way as the governor and passed legislation getting rid of COAH and setting up different housing rules, but Christie conditionally vetoed it and Democratic lawmakers did not agree with his terms.

So while COAH should exist, it remains division non grata.

Much of the problem was politically created, driven by municipalities that did not want to let affordable housing into their communities. The Legislature created COAH in reaction to the court’s rulings, and at one time or another, its rules included all sorts of work-arounds, including provisions for municipalities to pay other communities to take their low-income housing obligations.

With new rules proposed, and challenged in court, twice since its creation, COAH’s regulations rival those of the IRS. Chatham’s last housing plan filed with the council totaled 79 pages.

It’s hard to argue with the language in Christie’s first, rescinded, executive order: “the burdensome procedures governing the provision of affordable housing in New Jersey for those with low and moderate income developed by COAH are excessively complex and unworkable, resulting in delays, inefficiencies, litigation and unreasonable costs to municipalities and the private sector without appreciable progress being made for our citizens.”

But it’s also hard to argue that there is a critical need for affordable housing in a state with a high cost of living, high cost of housing and the high property taxes.

Taking away municipal affordable housing funds without a statewide plan to spend the money to build low-cost housing is not going to solve the problem.

Colleen O'Dea is a writer, editor, researcher, data analyst, web page designer and mapper with nearly three decades in the news business. Her column appears weekly.

Lori Barton July 09, 2012 at 11:35 PM
I still don't get why communities that have pre-existing affordable housing and have little or no land left to be developed must still find a way to build more affordable housing. Why aren't older properties grandfathered in? Many communities have significant developments that should qualify but don't because they were built prior to the Mount Laurel decision.
Gary Rabinowitz July 10, 2012 at 07:02 PM
@ AML -- thanks for the kind words. If there's a New Milford SOD website, please let me know, I would like to check it out. LIke you, I wish our local & state officials would provide more competent adult supervision of commercial & residential RE development interests. I won't hold my breath though -- the best we can do for now is hold accountable the folks who wish to directly or indirectly benefit from their relationships with RE interests though (I'm looking at you, appliance retailers, bank directors, Hackensack area RE agents, lawyers who do work with big NJ companies, tree cutters......) I laugh that many of these folks would profess to be "conservative" -- really, what are they trying to "conserve"? Keep fighting the good fight, AML. Cheers! GXR
AML July 10, 2012 at 07:50 PM
Hi GXR... We are currently working on a SOD website, & hope to have it running soon! We do have a FaceBook Page as follows: S-O-D (Stop Over Development) of New Milford | Facebook www.facebook.com/SODofNewMilford We welcome you to check us out! When the website is ready, I will let you know. Thanks for your encouragement. Perhaps, I will run into you one day at the Board of Adjustment meeting in Wyckoff. I did go to the last one, as I wanted to see Bryan Hekemian, and Larry Inserra, Jr., but both were not there. I planned on stopping them after the meeting to say my piece, but the meeting was adjourned to another date. Tonight, we have our Zoning Board meeting in NM, and the very "Special Hekemian meeting" will be on July 30. We really have our work cut out for us, but we have the determination to see this through to the very end! Have a great day! AML
Chris Peters July 18, 2012 at 01:59 AM
AML - Orchard Commons in Allendale is not individualized care, it is supportive housing, which is much different. most developmentally disabled people can thrive with proper supports and contribute within their community, not all people need individualized care. also Orchard Commons was built by United Way, who does not answer to COAH or DDD but works directly with the town. The mayor and council of Allendale loved the project so much, they are building a second unit. COAH could be one of many vehicles used to build affordable housing for disabled people, if properly organized to do so. and I have attended many meetings of this nature, since I worked for the local press for the past 8 years.
John Davidson October 31, 2012 at 11:48 AM
This might not be the ideal place to request this, but I’m trying to find a FREE House Plans online and have no method to find out who is the very best. I uncovered this website which is I find reliable and wanted to see if any person has any reviews on them. SDS CAD. http://www.100freehouseplans.com/ Please help me with this as my wife and I have been struggling to find a good/reliable site to obtain affordable and even FREE house designs


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »