Those who attended the hearings could easily reach the opinion that Arohnson sold the Village out to the developers. He pushed for a a formula where the Village allowed land speculators and developers to build 85 regular market units for every 15 coah compliant units. Do the math – – under the Aronson Plan, if the Village was ordered by the Courts to build 150 units, then the developers would be allowed to build 1000 apartments in town. And because the Village may need to build as many as 500 coah units (or even 1,000 according to some attorneys) then under the Arohnson formula, the town would have to let the developers build 5,000 to 10,000 units in total. Think about it, that’s 5,000 to 10,000 new families moving into town. The developers were licking their chops over the stupidity of the Aronson formula and the opportunity to start to apply it to properties throughout the town.
The new council quickly moved to kill some of the enabling legislation behind the Aronson plan. But, frankly, its not clear they have done enough to prevent developers from continuing to buy up property and make the argument that they need to build, build, build in order to enable Ridgewood to meet its coah requirements. Our Council needs to take bold action to meet coah requirements while not allowing developers to re-make the Village.
A lot needs to be done and the process needs to be started quickly. The Council cannot ignore this issue. They need to starting acting now.
By MaryAnn Spoto | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
on January 18, 2017 at 1:50 PM, updated January 18, 2017 at 7:16 PM
TRENTON — New Jersey has to build thousands more units for its low-income residents to make up for the 16 years that the state didn’t address those needs, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
In a decision addressing New Jersey’s long-stalled regulations governing affordable housing, the state’s highest court said towns must take into consideration the need for housing that existed within their borders between 1999 and 2015. That’s the so-called gap period when the Council on Affordable Housing failed to adopt new rules.
The 6-0 decision, the latest in decades of Mount Laurel rulings governing affordable housing in New Jersey, rejects the assertion that only 37,000 units are needed and that the gap period calculations are not necessary because that need no longer exists.
“The decision says that the promise of the Mount Laurel decision is real for tens of thousands of families and people with disabilities and the New Jersey Supreme Court said our commitment to fight discrimination remains good law,” said Kevin Walsh, executive director of Fair Share Housing Center, the advocacy group that has taken the lead in enforcing Mount Laurel obligations.
Excellent but what is the next set of actions to ensure some real actions
Are taken before events and the Developers decend on Ridgewood ,Ho HoKus Glen Rock and other Bergen county communities.?
The developers should be targeted for negative aspects of Build and Run with the Cash tactics..what banks are financing these ruinous Multi family Neighborhood and School taxes blockbusters.Banks they to project community good citizens profiles but they are awash with cheap money for the Fed and lack of interest payments to the savers for a Decade now
“I implore our Senate President and Assembly Speaker to do everything in their power to move forward with bi-partisan legislation addressing this issue. The court rules on what is constitutional, not aggressively ruling what it thinks is best for the state. We cannot let the court legislate what is best for individual communities.”
The recent NJ Supreme court case pinning untold thousands of units of affordable housing obligations on “recalcitrant” municipalities who fought against them in court shows without any doubt that the judiciary in New Jersey has arrogated to itself governmental powers that, if they could be legitimately be exercised at all, should have been committed exclusively to the legislative branch. Heaven help us, because whatever real differences that exist between New Jersey and the average banana republic state are becoming very difficult to find. The unfortunate exodus of decent citizens from New Jersey can only increase from here on out.
These judges are like gods. They can take decisions without much worry about people’s lives in the name of “common good”. How is it possible to not take residents’ concerns into consideration but just shove it to them?!?! HoHoKus may be asked to build close to 300 affordable units. How crazy is this? A tiny , nice place right next door to Ridgewood. How can 300 units fit in there. If HHK is asked for 300 how many will Ridgewood be asked for? It has to be over 1000. There are plans to build where Granny’s attic is and also to take away the lower parking lot by the train station. Add to this the looming Valley building by N Maple and you don’t have a village anymore. In a few years if nobody does something about this (residents are all asleep or occupied with Trump’s upcoming “disasters”) we won’t have a village anymore but a city called Ridgehokus.
Westwood NJ, Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi released the following statement on the state Supreme Court decision requiring municipalities to provide affordable housing for the “gap period:”
“I am deeply disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision to enforce a gap-period. This ruling will devastate all 23 municipalities I represent and suburban municipalities throughout the state. The failure of the legislature to address the social engineering of the court should not result in changing communities forever.”
“I implore our Senate President and Assembly Speaker to do everything in their power to move forward with bi-partisan legislation addressing this issue. The court rules on what is constitutional, not aggressively ruling what it thinks is best for the state. We cannot let the court legislate what is best for individual communities.”
Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi goes on, “While ideologically I think our communities want to welcome all regardless of income levels the mandates of COAH have implications far beyond that. Many of our communities with populations under 10,000 people are facing the threat of population increases of 10 percent or more without the infrastructure, schools or services to support massive population increases. We currently receive virtually no money from the state to support our schools, our Municipalities, our infrastructure. Mandating massive building in our communities (many of which are done with PILOT agreements) without any financial help to do so will cause a significant financial burden on all. As an example the new 150 unit apartment complex with commercial components will be paying less than $1,750 per average unit per year (in property taxes and payments in lieu of taxes combined) for 30 years with slight increases based upon rental incomes received by the developers. Meanwhile every other home in the Borough is paying an average of about $12,000 per year in property taxes . That $12,000 figure is guaranteed to rise in order to make up for the shortfalls. Further, people have chosen to live in the suburbs for a reason. Prior to moving back to Bergen County I lived many years in cities including Washington, New York and London. I choose where we live today because of the open space, the small class sizes, the fact that there weren’t five or six story buildings around me. Why should the Courts be able to change the entire character of the community I live in?”
Jean Mikle and Russ Zimmer , Asbury Park PressPublished 11:10 a.m. ET Jan. 18, 2017 | Updated 13 hours ago
A housing advocacy group says “tens of thousands” of new units of affordable housing could be built in New Jersey as a result of a state Supreme Court decision Wednesday.
In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that municipalities must meet affordable housing needs that accumulated during the so-called “gap period” between 1999 and 2015, when the state’s Council on Affordable Housing failed to produce housing quotas for towns.
The ruling could have a dramatic impact on Monmouth County, where several affluent towns have fought increased affordable housing obligations. By contrast, most of Ocean County’s most populous towns won’t be affected because they have already agreed to court settlements providing thousands of affordable homes.
If you voted for Obama or any Democrat in New Jersey it is your Agenda
This is such bullshit. Why all of a sudden this hysteria of pushing for affordable housing. Whose agenda is this? Why stuff nice towns and villages with buildings that are out of character? Why force villages that people have worked very hard to build and live in to bring low income families who will certainly affect the quality of life? Why urbanize beautiful places that residents are so proud of and care so much about ? This will destroy these places and will provide no value to anyone. If you want affordable housing build in places that are already messed up such Hackensack, Rutheford etc. I am sure I am not the only who is stressed out about this nonsense.
Kala Kachmar , @NewsQuipPublished 3:03 p.m. ET Jan. 17, 2017 | Updated 14 hours ago
A Monmouth County judge has ruled in favor of a Howell resident who challenged the zoning for a controversial affordable housing complex, but the setback doesn’t necessarily spell the end of the venture.
Judge Jamie S. Perri ruled that the town didn’t give sufficient public notice for two key project ordinances, one creating the required affordable housing zone and the other applying that zone to the parcel where Howell Family Apartments would be built, at the intersection of West Farms and Fort Plans roads off Route 9.
The $21 million project would help the town fulfill its state-mandated affordable housing obligation.
Matthew Birchenough , Staff Writer, @MattBirchenough2:43 p.m. EST December 29, 2016
GLEN ROCK — The Zoning Board is scheduled to hear a proposal for a high-density housing project on Prospect Street next month.
The application by Glen Park Village LLC is on the agenda for discussion at the board’s Jan. 4 work session, and the company is scheduled to present its project to the board at its regular meeting on Jan. 12, commencing a new phase in a three-year effort by the developer to build on the property.
Tom Nobile , Staff Writer, @TomNobile5:16 p.m. EST December 23, 2016
The tribe has also been charged with moving soil without permission.
MAHWAH — The Ramapough Lenape Nation must go to court to fight summonses issued by the township alleging that the Native American tribe erected teepees and tents on a property off Halifax Road without permission.
Sarah Nolan , Staff Writer, @sarnolan5:59 p.m. EST December 22, 2016
The borough’s affordable housing obligation would be cut from 278 units to 30 under the proposed agreement.
HO-HO-KUS — The borough will build 13 homes for low- to moderate-income residents and a developer will reduce the number of houses it builds in town as part of proposed settlement agreements announced by borough officials this week.
Borough Administrator William Jones shared overviews of the proposed agreements with the Fair Share Housing Center and Chamberlain Developers at a Borough Council meeting Tuesday “in the hopes of ending what has been a year of speculation and wild rumors that have carried on,” he said.
Salvador Rizzo , State House Bureau, @rizzoTK6:19 p.m. EST December 1, 2016
During a tense hearing Wednesday, the state Supreme Court appeared ready to reject an argument by several towns seeking to tamp down their affordable-housing obligations.
In a series of landmark rulings dating to the 1970s, the Supreme Court said that New Jersey’s low- and moderate-income residents have a right to affordable homes in their communities, and that towns must allow their development.
In a case that could reshape the look and feel of many New Jersey towns, the state Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on whether municipalities must zone for the many thousands of affordable-housing units that they did not zone for during the last 16 years.
If the high court rules that an obligation for that “gap period” exists, it could double or triple the number of affordable-housing units that some towns and cities must zone for by 2025.
In some of their questioning, justices seemed to be skeptical that the obligation could be avoided.
“Are you saying these people [in need of affordable housing] disappeared for 16 years?” asked Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina.
Below are two articles, from today’s WSJ and Bergen Record, on Monday’simportant NJ Appeals Court ruling on Affordable Housing (AH) that will: (1) substantially lower the overall number of AH units required by municipalities under AH laws, and (2) may cause further delay in defining the actual obligations of municipalities under AH laws. In the Record article, even Kevin Walsh, the Fair Share Housing advocate (whose threatening of “hearsay” letter was wrongly permitted to be read into the Planning Board’s record by attorney, Gail Price – as if it represented a legal determination – scaring some Board Members and improperly influencing votes) indicated the forthcoming delays from this ruling, saying: “it requires further studies.”
In short, this ruling and these articles support what I, and other members of CBR, tried to convey to the Planning Board and Village Council during the past couple of years of overstated AH ‘threats’ proffered by Mrs. Price: that the Affordable Housing/COAH matter is, despite her puzzling advice, very unsettled and will continue to lack real clarity, potentially for years to come. It’s been that way since the 80s. No Legislature wants to fully effect the laws because they recognize their often impossible demands on NJ’s municipalities. However, conversely, no legislature, or legislator (other than Christie), has effectively sought to rework them or strike them down due to the obvious political implications.
These laws are just too flawed, resulting in the tumult and dysfunction of the past several decades. Fact is: there are no clearly defined AH numbers for Ridgewood right now. And there’s a chance there may never be. Given this, our representatives need to govern planning based on “what is right for Ridgewood now and in the future” and not “what minimizes builder’s remedy lawsuits.”
I firmly believe Mrs. Price wrongly influenced the Planning Board decision on the Multifamily Ordinances by alleging that a “Yes” vote was needed on the Master Plan changes, enabling development at the excessive levels sought by developers, to avoid potential developer lawsuits based on recent AH court rulings. As many anticipated, these rulings have now been lessened, and to some degree, called into question. Unfortunately, Mrs. Price never properly educated the Board on how dysfunctional the AH/COAH laws and politics have been (and very well will be), and that until such time as an unlikely final verdict is delivered, they should be wary reacting too quickly to threats from developers.
The implications of Monday’s ruling serves to underscore the unwise, biased and, unacceptable for Ridgewood, process undertaken by the prior Planning Board and Council. While we can and should promote fitting and proper development (and proper “development process”) in Ridgewood, which does add affordable units to our housing base, we should never have done this in the manner – fraught with bias and influence – that occurred over the past four years.
Beyond this, I believe there are certainly other ways Ridgewood can more properly and proactively plan to meet future AF/COAH requirements. These ways may be more creative and better for both Ridgewood and those truly needing AH than those put forth by the developers. I look forward to discussing my thoughts on them with you. I have been in the multifamily business for two decades, have managed many properties with affordable and moderately priced units, and am happy to share my experience.
Lastly, it is important to note that if members of the prior Planning Board and Village Council voted out of fear of lawsuits, they already got one: and sadly it’s from their own Residents, the very people they were elected or selected to properly represent. It’s a suit that alleges decisions based upon conflict of interest, outside influence, and improper representation and, most importantly, seeks to correct the serious mistakes in planning, representation and judgement made by the prior Council and Planning Board.
While the AH/COAH laws truly lack clarity, what is clear is that Ridgewood’s Residents demand proper planning and process. There is a much better route than the one taken by the prior Planning Board and Council.
Best Regards,
Dave Slomin, Resident
Follow up _________________________________________________________________
July 13,2016
Dear Mayor, Council and Village Attorney Rogers,
My July 12th email provoked feedback from a good number of fellow Residents and representatives various Ridgewood citizen groups, including responses to my letter and the linked articles with concern that pro-development attorneys may contend the appellate decision does not “change anything.” As the agenda indicates tonight’s Council meeting will address litigation in closed session, I wanted to make sure my comments were placed in the proper context, asMonday’s ruling does impact things here in Ridgewood.
My point is that the ruling exemplifies the significant dysfunction and lack of clarity that continues to exist (as it has for several decades) in the Affordable Housing definitions and determinations at the State level. This highlights the Planning Board attorney’s failure to properly advise the Board on how to address these issues. Mrs. Price, as a professional land use attorney, was well aware of this dysfunction and should never have counseled our Planning Board as she did. By proceeding as if the now reversed lower court decision was new “scripture,” and by either misunderstanding and/or misapplying other standards, the Planning Board attorney wrongly influenced the public debate and Board members’ votes. Necessarily, therefore, the Village Council proceeded under a flawed process and construct.
I do understand that whether State rulings ultimately determine that Ridgewood owes 50, or 100, or 500, or 1,000, or 100,000,000 affordable units, we are well short of that number and need to provide some additional AH units. From that singular perspective the ruling has a more limited impact. However, that is not the issue at hand. Rather, the issue is the defective and conflicted process in our municipal governance effecting the passage of recent pro-development ordinances. As such, what the appellate court’s decision signifies to me – as a multifamily real estate professional, with several decades of experience – is that the law has been and will be in a state of flux for some time to come. That no one can predict with certainty what will happen should definitely have been strongly conveyed to the Planning Board and Village Council prior to their votes. It was not. That is why the willingness of the prior majorities on the Council and Planning Board to side with those speculating with our downtown is so particularly egregious. Rather than react and surrender to an imagined obligations, or cave to the potential of developer lawsuits, Ridgewood should have performed correct and proper master planning with proper construct and counsel. There were so many things wrong and biased in their failed excuse for “planning.” You have the opportunity to begin the process of correcting this and protect Ridgewood from reckless overbuilding now and in the future.
Thus, I urge the newly constituted Council to address all pending litigation in view of the voters’ mandate. And you do have a clear cut mandate. Mayor Knudsen and Deputy Mayor Sedon both won their council seats in a landslide two years ago. And in the recent election, not only did Councilmembers Voigt, Hache and Walsh win in another landslide, but they routed the candidates heavily promoted by Aronsohn, Pucciarelli and Hauck to promote furtherance of development at the excessive scale and density recently passed. Then, subsequent to these elections, Residents next defeated the oversized garage by a vote of 2 to 1. These were not just victories. They were repudiations. They represent the voices and the clarity with which Ridgewood Residents speak and vote once we know the truth. Residents have spoken. You know very well what your constituents want. The recent votes leave no questions whatsoever. Your actions need to reflect the mandate we gave you.
Now is the perfect opportunity for the Village to move forward in acknowledgement of the serious issues raised by litigation in the housing and hospital lawsuits. With these suits, along with the garage referendum matter, you need to rectify Ridgewood’s core problems. Let’s show progress by first openly acknowledging that serious mistakes were made by the prior Council and Board Members. We all know it… our votes showed it. A perfect starting point for that is to recognize the legitimacy of the issues raised by our fellow citizens’ lawsuits, and settle those lawsuits as strong representatives of your constituents and not as officials fearful of outside interests. Then, let’s redirect the Village’s resources to focus on the developers with either settlement talks or continuing litigation, whatever is required to do what is truly right for Ridgewood. If you do what’s right, you will have our endless support. If any shortcuts are taken, Ridgewood’s divisions will sadly remain. And it’s time to end our divisions.
Lastly, please note I am including Mayor Knudsen in this email, as I entered her email incorrectly in my email of 7/12.
New Jersey’s suburban towns got a big break Monday in the number of affordable housing units that must be built over the next decade, as a state appeals panel overturned a court order that could have added thousands of units to developers’ plans.
State law continues to mandate that cities and suburbs allow the development of low-income housing.
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_riaIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 165
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_inhaIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 166
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_mastodonIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 177
