Here's how we can fix COAH

[wcody]

Interesting commentary from Ray Lesniak on S-1. It has gone through some ammendments recently, passed by the Senate but still under consideration by the Assembly. I would be interested in hearing any opinions on the new S-1 bill.

copy of bill is here:

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/S0500/1_R1.HTM

Win Cody

Here's how we can fix COAH

By RAY LESNIAK • April 18, 2010

New Jersey municipalities have a court mandate as well as a moral obligation to provide affordable housing for their citizens. The Mount Laurel decision by the state Supreme Court guaranteed that municipalities could not discriminate against potential residents based on race, creed or economic status. It was a game-changer in that it meant that no longer could "exclusive" municipalities refuse to build housing for people who "belonged on the other side of the tracks."

However, the history of affordable housing in New Jersey, under the Council of Affordable Housing bureaucracy, has been one of abysmal and abject failure.

The bill, S-1, will change that, and allow the promise of real affordable housing to be achieved for New Jersey residents who, for far too long, only had the hope of mandates to cling to, rather than actual housing stock.

As the president of the Camden County NAACP, Colandus "Kelly" Francis, stated in testimony before the Senate Economic Growth Committee during one of the hearings on the bill, the Mount Laurel decision stated a simple concept: every municipality had to provide a realistic opportunity for affordable housing for lower-income families. It was government that made this simple concept complex. S-1 makes it simple again.

By working with the free market — rather than futilely trying to force the free market to react in a manner that runs contrary to the basic laws of economics — S-1 will produce more affordable housing than COAH without wasting tax dollars and without inhibiting job creation.

If S-1 had been in place during COAH's 25-year history of failure, it would have produced nearly twice as many affordable-housing units as COAH without putting a tax on job growth and would have saved the state millions of tax dollars wasted by COAH's byzantine policies and regulations.

S-1 unravels the multifaceted layers of COAH and replaces them with three fundamental building blocks to practical affordable housing:

1. A definition of housing mixes within a municipality that complies with the spirit of the Mount Laurel doctrine. Critics of S-1 have complained that the definition we use isn't as precise as they'd like, but S-1, as well as the original two Mount Laurel decisions it seeks to fulfill, were meant to be reasonable, not blindingly precise. It includes a smart and economically feasible mix of single-family homes, multiple-family dwellings and attached homes designed to meet the housing needs of lower-income families. The bill also includes price-restricted housing, and allows the State Planning Board to have the final say on what constitutes affordable housing, so as to avoid including luxury rentals in our final affordable housing estimate.


2. An opportunity for all municipalities to come into compliance with the Mount Laurel doctrine and be recognized as "inclusionary." Many municipalities throughout the state have already done their part and provided reasonable housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income families. Through S-1, those municipalities that are not yet in compliance by having met the housing mix threshold would have the chance to zone 20 percent of their vacant land for market-rate housing development.

3. A requirement that all new residential developments in all municipalities — inclusionary as well as not inclusionary — will have to produce some measure of affordable housing. Under the bill, housing developments of five units or more would have to produce at least 20 percent of their units for low- and moderate-income families. Housing developments of four units or less would have to make a payment in lieu of contributing actual units to a town's affordable-housing trust fund.

The payment would be 2.5 percent of the cost of construction, and would help to encourage other affordable-housing developers to build by providing low-interest loans and other incentives. Finally, the bill requires municipalities to work with housing developers to make inclusionary development as economically feasible as possible, and requires the state to provide, when appropriate, surplus property for the development of affordable housing.

That's it. It's simple. It's enforceable. It's productive. It will break through the bureaucracy, save tax dollars, allow for job creation and produce more affordable housing. It doesn't get any better than that.

Ray Lesniak, a Democrat, is a state senator from Union County

[Guest]

Mr. Cody,

Before offering commentary perhaps you could explain where Cranbury sits on the 20% and whether preserved land is considered vacant.

[LaLa Land]

[Guest]

[Guest]

Win asked for feedback on the bill. I have no idea how this bill takes into account preserved farmland since it is vacant land. Nor do I know where we stand relative to the 20% number. If we have met it the obligations than I support S-1. If they count preserved farmland of which we have a lot and if the 20% adds another 300 homes then I oppose it. However, I can't say yes or no until I know how Cranbury is affected specific to this bill.

I don't have the details to offer Mr. Cody an informed opinion of which he has asked.

I don't see how asking a question is nasty when it comes to being able to answer a question posed. I think it's sad that one must jump to that conclusion instead of having a conversation.

[Guest]

[Dan Mulligan]

The key affordable housing advocate lobbyist group we need to worry about is the fair share housing center from Cherry Hill. They are the group who contested our affordable housing plan as well as just about every other municipalities in NJ. With that below is an item from their blog which questions S-1. More then anything it is critical we know what the advocates are pushing for so we can then use that knowledge to help us in our efforts stop the unfair affordable housing rules and regulations which negatively impact towns such as ours.



Questions for Senator Lesniak on S-1
Posted by Kevin Walsh on March 8th 2010

Today, the Senate Economic Growth Committee was scheduled to vote on an amended version of S-1, Senator Ray Lesniak’s bill that would fundamentally undermine New Jersey’s affordable housing policies. On Friday afternoon, however, Senator Lesniak announced that the committee hearing would be postponed and that instead he would meet with the media at 11 a.m.

As we have previously stated, the new version of S-1 is a bizarre bill that simply does not make sense, let alone meet the state’s constitutional obligations for a fair and effective system of delivering a wide range of housing choices. We had hoped, along with civil rights and religious leaders that Sen. Lesniak has not allowed to testify at his previous two hearings on the bill, to speak before the committee and have an open public dialogue. We are disappointed that Sen. Lesniak has turned a committee hearing with public testimony into a one-sided press event.

To date, Senator Lesniak has said little about the details of S-1. When he has spoken, his statements have been contradictory and confusing, and the revised bill he has produced undermines many of his stated goals. Indeed, at this point, especially given the strange proposals in the revised bill, it is not clear what Senator Lesniak’s goals are. We hope he sheds light on what he hopes to accomplish at this morning’s meeting with the media. In particular, we urge the media to ask Senator Lesniak to address the following issues:

Senator Lesniak has said that “COAH has had 25 years of failure, producing an average of 2,000 affordable housing units a year.” (Hudson Reporter, Feb. 11. 2010). In a January 20, 2010 press release he said S-1’s ”market driven approach – free from complex, confusing and costly state requirements – will produce more affordable housing.” In a meeting with the Star Ledger editorial board, however, the senator said that S-1 is not designed to produce more housing. (Star Ledger, March 3, 2010). Is S-1 intended to produce more, less, or the same amount of housing per year as New Jersey has produced historically? If it is designed to produce more homes, how will it do so?

Senator Lesniak has acknowledged that the amended S-1 would exempt half of New Jersey’s municipalities from further obligations. Many of these municipalities have produced little, if any, affordable housing, such as Far Hills, Roseland, and Parsippany-Troy Hills. On what basis does he justify that towns such as Far Hills and Roseland have done enough affordable housing?

In municipalities not exempted in the bill, S-1 would permit a developer on a site with sewer service to force a zoning board to accept its proposed development anywhere in the town. This would remove the ability of municipalities to plan and zone for housing and would expose half of the municipalities in the state to the equivalent of builder’s remedy litigation with no defined end. Why does the senator think this is a good idea?

Senator Lesniak has said that he wants a “smart-growth” plan for new homes in New Jersey. Yet S-1 would move development away from transit and thus encourage sprawl. Some 55 percent of municipalities in New Jersey with a train station would not have to do anything at all. The very municipalities in which our state policies focus growth would have no obligation to provide opportunities for a range ofhousing ever again. Why does the senator think this is a good idea?

S-1 would also contradict smart growth by moving development away from jobs. Approximately 63 percent of jobs in New Jersey are in municipalities that would have no further obligation under S-1. Why does the senator think this is a good idea?

S-1 would redefine homes costing $350,000 to $400,000 as “affordable,” allowing developers to get special incentives and bonuses for building such homes. Why does the senator think this is a good idea?

S-1 would exclude virtually all New Jersey families earning less than $40,000 a year from any new homes built. Why has Senator Lesniak proposed a bill that excludes many working families?

S-1 would eliminate incentives to include non-profit organizations such as Habitat for Humanity in municipal fair share plans, and instead allow for-profit developers only to take advantage of its provisions. Why does Senator Lesniak exclude non-profit organizations?

To our knowledge, Senator Lesniak has not consulted with affordable housing advocates regarding S-1. Who is advising him regarding this legislation?

Why has Senator Lesniak failed to allow the NAACP and several religious leaders, among others, to testify on this bill despite two public hearings? Why did he cancel a public hearing which would have included public testimony and discussion today in favor of a press conference?

Fair Share Housing Center, founded in 1975, is the only public interest organization devoted entirely to defending the housing rights of New Jersey’s poor through implementing the Mount Laurel doctrine.

http://fairsharehousing.org/blog/entry/questions-for-senator-lesniak-on-s-1/