
Affordable housing divide: Judges to reconcile differing estimates of need in NJ
JANUARY 18, 2016, 11:25 PM LAST UPDATED: TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2016, 7:41 AM
BY MARINA VILLENEUVE
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
Last spring, a study commissioned by a housing-rights group found that New Jersey municipalities must collectively provide more than 200,000 units of low- and moderate-income housing by 2025. Now, a new report paid for by 230 towns has put the need at just under 37,000.
Which calculation is correct — or, as the case may be, more correct — will be up to state Superior Court judges in 15 regions. The state Supreme Court last spring tasked them with reviewing the plans of hundreds of New Jersey municipalities to provide housing for people of modest means.
Units of measurement
There’s a wide disparity in estimates of how many more affordable-housing units are needed in New Jersey over the next 10 years. Here’s what a housing advocacy group and a consultant working for 230 municipalities suggest:
Fair Share Housing Center: 200,000+
Econsult Solutions: fewer than 37,000
Which calculation is correct — or, as the case may be, more correct — will be up to state Superior Court judges in 15 regions. The state Supreme Court last spring tasked them with reviewing the plans of hundreds of New Jersey municipalities to provide housing for people of modest means.
The Supreme Court’s ruling effectively disbanded the state Council on Affordable Housing, which for 15 years failed to implement affordable-housing guidelines that furthered decades-old state Supreme Court mandates.
The difference between the two reports stems from disagreements over how to interpret the Supreme Court’s action, the future of the state economy and whether to count any housing need that went unfulfilled during those 15 years. Those issues are likely to be hashed out over the next several months in court.
Meanwhile, civil rights groups in New Jersey are lambasting the municipalities’ report, saying it severely undercounts tens of thousands of working families, seniors and people with disabilities.
“If mayors across New Jersey refuse to do the right thing, we are going to have to force them to through the courts,” Frank Argote-Freyre, the president of the Latino Action Network, said in a statement last week. “New Jersey can be better than this and is better than this — but it is going to take continued work to overcome their discrimination.”
It is not clear how the matter will be resolved, said Joe Burgis, whom the courts have selected as a “special master” to review the housing plans of five Passaic County municipalities.
Will the 15 judges “be getting together to come up with a definitive set of numbers, or will the individual judges go out on their own and make their own individual determinations for their region as to what their numbers should be?” said Burgis, whose Westwood-based firm, Burgis Associates, represents municipalities in North Jersey, including Bergen County. “We still don’t know the answer to that question yet.”
Depending on what happens, some municipalities might also file new affordable-housing plans or amendments based on the report that Econsult Solutions, a Philadelphia-based consulting firm, prepared at the behest of the 230 municipalities, Burgis said.
It’s the latest head-scratcher in decades of debate over how much affordable housing New Jersey municipalities must provide under the terms of a series of state Supreme Court decisions. Those rulings, which are collectively called the Mount Laurel doctrine, established that a municipality’s land-use regulations must “affirmatively afford a reasonable opportunity” to fill its “fair share” of its region’s affordable-housing obligation.
Municipalities that met a court deadline last year were granted five months of immunity from “builder’s remedy” lawsuits, which allow developers to successfully argue that their multifamily housing projects could help satisfy a municipality’s affordable-housing obligation.