Editorial: COAH rules penalize towns and taxpayers

[CP]

Editorial: COAH rules penalize towns and taxpayers

Posted: Friday, March 21, 2008 1:47 PM EDT

The state Council on Affordable Housing needs to go back to the drawing board.

The third-round rules it issued in December would require far more housing than most towns could comfortably provide, creating the likelihood of a backlash against the agency and its objective of ensuring that housing for low- and moderate-income residents throughout the state.

The new rules, if they are approved by COAH after the public comment period ends Saturday, will create real costs to local taxpayers, in terms of local services and infrastructure and the need to pay for the construction of the housing.

The new regulations were issued in response to a January 2007 decision by a state appellate panel that invalidated a previous set of third-round rules. The court said the rules, which allowed municipalities to determine their own housing obligation and allowed half their units to be age-restricted, were inadequate and that they underestimated the number of units needed.

The rules now under consideration are based on a “growth-share approach” that measures the need for affordable housing based on the amount of residential and commercial development expected to take place between 2004 and 2014.

COAH says the rules would more than double the number of required units statewide from 52,000 to 115,000, but municipalities around the state are estimating a far greater impact on their housing mandate. Cranbury, for instance, had been required to provide 160 units under the original guidelines, but now estimates that the township would have to account for 469 new units to account for residential and commercial development built between 2004 and 2008 — a figure that is equivalent to almost 50 percent of Cranbury’s total housing stock and does not take into account the next 10 years.

South Brunswick and Monroe, both of which were estimating a need for about 600 or so units, anticipate their obligation to at least double. (A greater percentage of Cranbury’s growth has, and is expected to be, in warehouses.)
...
http://www.packetonline.com/articles/2008/03/21/cranbury_press/opinions/doc47e3f496a93f2772931044.prt