COAH
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [http://cranbury.info] -> News | Events
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
COAH
Guest





PostPosted: Thu, Jul 10 2008, 10:10 am EDT    Post subject: COAH Reply with quote

Why dont we start a new post and voice all of our concerns on the COAH topic in Cranbury - When they have another meeting - and since we are all together on this - we can bring it to meetings or someone can keep a journal of all concerns. The other replies some seem off topic with the PNC building. Can we try to make all comments that have to deal with COAH on one post? It may be easier and if we all work together we may have better results. Lets work as a community and help each other out. Just a thought....
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu, Jul 10 2008, 10:28 am EDT    Post subject: Re: COAH Reply with quote

I would like to find out who are the people supporting COAH. My goal is to find connections and patterns among these people and see what is really driving this COAH thing.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu, Jul 10 2008, 12:14 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: COAH Reply with quote

Guest wrote:
I would like to find out who are the people supporting COAH. My goal is to find connections and patterns among these people and see what is really driving this COAH thing.


Unions who will get work from the new development and will consolidate their influence in the merger and larger townships that result.

Residential Developers with whom Townships will be forced to strike builders remedy deals with and who will benefit from all the currently protected land that will have to be re-zoned to accommodate it.

Mid-sized townships that are not the direct recipients of RCA's but have large percentages of less affluent workers to support that work in other communities.

Leaders of organizations associated with minority groups who can claim this is a victory for getting the state to provide subsidized services for their constituents.

Middle-class families who “work the system” and get subsidized housing despite not being impoverished. For example, a household making almost $100K could technically qualify for this housing, despite that being higher than the AVERAGE household income in “wealthy” Cranbury.

Transplanters who use this to move to a place like Cranbury from a more urban area to benefit from our schools at local taxpayer expense.

Politicians who can spin it as “socially progressive” legislation designed to fight the economic results of 200 years of racism (this is complete BS but that would be the claim) while really securing benefits and the gratitude of their patrons and thus securing their power.

Lawyers, consultants and lobbyists who will get paid millions-upon-millions over the next decade (at least) as people fight these rules, try to find loop holes or delays, etc

There will be thousands of families that legitimately benefit from this subsidized housing, no doubt. That is a given. The questions are is this justified, at what cost and impact, and was this the best way to help them?
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu, Jul 10 2008, 1:31 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: COAH Reply with quote

Quote:
Middle-class families who “work the system” and get subsidized housing despite not being impoverished. For example, a household making almost $100K could technically qualify for this housing, despite that being higher than the AVERAGE household income in “wealthy” Cranbury

I think we need to give up on the "Cranbury is not wealthy" angle -on paper, our median income (not mean, which is much, much higher) is close to double that of the rest of NJ, and our houses are worth close to double the median house value, too. Politicians really don't care that many, many families earn less - it's all about the census numbers.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu, Jul 10 2008, 2:14 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: COAH Reply with quote

For COAH, it seems "wealthy" is a dirty word!
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu, Jul 10 2008, 3:45 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: COAH Reply with quote

Guest wrote:
Quote:
Middle-class families who “work the system” and get subsidized housing despite not being impoverished. For example, a household making almost $100K could technically qualify for this housing, despite that being higher than the AVERAGE household income in “wealthy” Cranbury

I think we need to give up on the "Cranbury is not wealthy" angle -on paper, our median income (not mean, which is much, much higher) is close to double that of the rest of NJ, and our houses are worth close to double the median house value, too. Politicians really don't care that many, many families earn less - it's all about the census numbers.


The bottom line is Cranbury is middle class but middle class seems to be under a general attack. The truly wealthy are immune and somehow so far outside of most people's imaginations that they get a pass but the middle class gets the worst tax burden (I pay more taxes proportionately than my rich boss who is "corporation")and is constantly under attack because they aren't organized enough to have special interests representing them with politicians and are the target of less well-off (poor and working class) people because precisely because they are within reach and imagination and it galls them to see someone else slightly better off. Of course this ignores the fact that these working class people are eating out and buying boats, etc. while I splurge for the Americana Diner once a week and put all my savings into retirement and college savings accounts, but they just don't see it that way and we're easy political targets.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu, Jul 10 2008, 4:21 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: COAH Reply with quote

Fact is they now consider middle-class to be the poor. Why? Because over the last 20 years the middle class shrank as people moved upward through jobs and education. The other fact is that middle class in NJ is wealthy in Kansas yet we all pay the same federal taxes. So politicans confuse the issue. One commentator on CNBC stated that he never sees politicians cite the salaries they view as middle class because it would be easily used against them.
Back to top
Cranbury Press
Guest





PostPosted: Fri, Jul 11 2008, 12:09 pm EDT    Post subject: Cranbury joins second COAH lawsuit Reply with quote

Cranbury joins second COAH lawsuit
Thursday, July 10, 2008 4:52 PM EDT
By Maria Prato-Gaines, Staff Writer



CRANBURY — The township has joined a second lawsuit against the Council on Affordable Housing to fight the recently adopted third round rules.

The Township Committee approved a resolution Monday authorizing an interlocal agreement that will allow it to join Clinton Township, the municipality spearheading the suit, and Hunterdon County’s Union and Montgomery townships and Warren County’s Greenwich Township.

The townships are taking issue with new affordable housing rules that more than double the statewide obligation from 52,000 to 115,000 and increase Cranbury’s obligations from 160 to 469 affordable housing units.

The township will pay $8,000 to join the lawsuit.

The township signed on to this second lawsuit in May after pledging $500 to the League of Municipalities for a broader lawsuit involving dozens of municipalities.
*
The league recently sent a bill for the pledge, signaling to township officials that lawsuit is on the verge of being filed, said Township Administrator Christine Smeltzer.

”I believe the Township Committee agrees that entering into (the Clinton) challenge will help Cranbury because the suit can list more specific items that are problems for Cranbury,” said Ms. Smeltzer. “We can fine-tune it a little bit more.”

Township officials also are concerned about legislation that would eliminate regional contribution agreements retroactively. The bill was passed by the General Assembly and Senate in June and is awaiting Gov. Jon Corzine’s signature.

To meet its round-one and round-two obligations, the township had to build or plan for 223 income-restricted units. Cranbury met those obligations by negotiating RCAs, which allowed a municipality to transfer up to half of its state-mandated affordable housing obligations to other communities in its region at an increased cost per unit. If the bill passes, an agreement between Cranbury and Perth Amboy for Perth Amboy to build 81 units would be void.

Cranbury also disagrees with new rules that stipulate one job per every 1,000 square feet of warehouse and one affordable housing unit for every 16 jobs created.

Cranbury professionals have said that the ratio for workers to warehouse space is inaccurate with respect to the township’s own industrial district.

Like a number of municipalities throughout the state, although township professionals haven’t calculated the exact numbers, Cranbury residents and officials are arguing that the obligations are a burden for local taxpayers and the township’s infrastructure.

As for the other towns that have joined the Clinton suit, most are signing onto the suit because their current water and sewer infrastructure would be insufficient to support the increase, Ms. Smeltzer said.

Township Committee members said Monday that this may not be the last time the subject of a lawsuit concerning COAH is brought to the public forum.

”This is by no means our only shot, but it is our first shot,” said Councilman Richard Stannard. “We could be a party to any number of challenges. We could go it alone, but that would be very expensive.”

The committee will discuss the most recent COAH developments July 28 meeting.

http://www.packetonline.com/articles/2008/07/11/cranbury_press/news/doc48764d12abfb9629929034.txt
Back to top
Chris Myers blasts NJgov
Guest





PostPosted: Sun, Jul 13 2008, 12:36 pm EDT    Post subject: Myers savages Adler-backed affordable housing plan Reply with quote

Myers savages Adler-backed affordable housing plan
By max
Category: House
Tags: Pat Delany, John Drinkard, John Adler, Jim Saxton, Chris Myers
Medford Mayor Chris Myers, foreground, stands with Lumberton Mayor Pat Delany: Politicker photo


MOUNT LAUREL - Standing in the middle of 153 acres of preserved open space, Republican Chris Myers upbraided his 3rd Congressional District opponent today for voting in favor of changing New Jersey’s affordable housing guidelines.

"I’m for affordable housing," said the Medford Mayor, who’s running against state Sen. John Adler (D-Camden) for the right to succeed retiring U.S. Rep. Jim Saxton (R-3), "I’m just not for Trenton affordable housing."

The rule changes for the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) in the successfully passed S-1783 last month include the government imposition of fees on non-residential development in order to build an affordable housing fund.

Medford Mayor Chris Myers, foreground, stands with Lumberton Mayor Pat Delany: Politicker photo


MOUNT LAUREL - Standing in the middle of 153 acres of preserved open space, Republican Chris Myers upbraided his 3rd Congressional District opponent today for voting in favor of changing New Jersey’s affordable housing guidelines.

"I’m for affordable housing," said the Medford Mayor, who’s running against state Sen. John Adler (D-Camden) for the right to succeed retiring U.S. Rep. Jim Saxton (R-3), "I’m just not for Trenton affordable housing."

The rule changes for the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) in the successfully passed S-1783 last month include the government imposition of fees on non-residential development in order to build an affordable housing fund.

The new rules also include a proviso banning regional community agreements (RCAs), which traditionally have enabled suburban communities to transfer state-required affordable housing - one unit per four market units - to urban areas.

The provision is aimed at stimulating affordable housing in the suburbs, but Myers worries it would create a glut of over-development in the suburbs and destroy residents’ quality of life.

"This is a bad bill by typical Trenton politicians, which is why John Adler’s bad for Washington," Myers said.

The Republican argued that the fees the government wants to impose on developers would not generate sufficient funds to pay for the minimum requirement of 11,397 units spread among the 3rd districts’s 52 municipalities. Myers said at an average of $237,471 in COAH region V, the new units would cost more than $2.7 billion.

He dreads the slack taxpayers would have to pick up to offset a measure he says is bound to fail.

"This is a multi-billion dollar tax increase that is being jammed down out throats," complained Myers, who used the backdrop of Trotter’s Mill Crossing as an illustration of open space preservation that would be under siege if the affordable housing changes backed by Adler go into effect.

Mount Laurel Mayor John Drinkard and Lumberton Mayor Pat Delany flanked Myers and took turns condemning the new changes to COAH.

"It’s just a God awful piece of legislation," said Delaney. "Let’s be very clear. This is big city politicians doing a money grab into the suburbs to pay for the failed cities in this state. It’s a sham."

"It’s a threat to open space," said Drinkard.

http://politicker.com/myers-savages-adler-backed-affordable-housing-plan
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Sun, Jul 13 2008, 8:37 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: COAH Reply with quote

Mount Laurel:
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
BY STEPHEN H. O'CONNOR

As we await the governor's signature to approve the most sweeping changes in the history of New Jersey's Fair Housing Act, it's hard not to quote Yogi Berra, the state's most notable resident philosopher. This time around, however, the reaction to the latest Mount Laurel controversy is completely unjustified. Not because the number is too high, which it is, but because the number is irrelevant.

Let's remember what everybody seems to forget about the state Supreme Court's Mount Laurel decisions, which is that the Mount Laurel process is completely voluntary. No municipality in the state of New Jersey is required by law to do anything, much less build affordable housing. That's because Mount Laurel has never been a housing production program. Nor has Mount Laurel ever been endowed with a funding mechanism sufficient to subsidize housing of any scale. Plain and simple, Mount Laurel has always been about zoning. It is about the municipal obligation to eliminate barriers in an effort to facilitate the supply of affordable housing in every New Jersey community.

Despite the reality of Mount Laurel, it is always the number that becomes the focus of the debate. For housing advocates, it is always too low, for municipalities, too high. So, to the credit of the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH), it changed the way the obligation is calculated and switched to a new methodology known as "growth share." This change in process produced a very simple model and an even simpler calculation. In essence, it said that for every eight units of market-rate housing approved by a municipality (with "approved" being the operative word), one affordable unit must be provided. In addition, and for the first time, commercial builders were now on the hook, requiring a similar obligation based upon the size and type of facility constructed and the number of new jobs created. Simply put, if a town chooses to grow, then it must grow in a way that accommodates those who want and need to live in the community, regardless of income. This is the legal essence of Mount Laurel.

When first proposed in 2004, the initial reaction to the growth-share approach was unprecedented. Housing advocates had been pushing for exactly this new strategy while the State League of Municipalities actually praised COAH for finally constructing a process that everyone could understand. In
addition to its simplicity, the League naturally favored the greater level of control that each municipality would now have to determine its future growth. Based upon the historical growth rates of each municipality, COAH calculated a total statewide housing need of roughly 56,000 units over the next 10 years. But then, true to historical form, the focus completely shifted to the "number."

With the exception of providing affordable housing to those residents already living within a community, the growth-share formula works only when there's actual growth. The claim, however unrealistic, that towns would choose not to grow simply to avoid the creation of any affordable housing was nevertheless raised by the advocacy community. At the same time, advocates also argued that the number of new units estimated by the growth-share formula was absurdly low. On the day the new rules were released, they filed a lawsuit against COAH.

As a result of the most recent lawsuit, COAH has restated its projections of need from 56,000 units to 115,000 units of affordable housing. But in the 33 years since the enactment of the 1985 Fair Housing Act, COAH estimates that roughly 60,000 units of affordable housing have been either built or approved as a result of Mount Laurel. For some, this represents an unequivocal failure, but within the context of the national affordable housing experience, in the most densely populated, expensive and regulated state in the country it is a truly remarkable accomplishment.

A cynic would claim that the new, higher COAH number and the governor's pledge to build or rehabilitate 100,000 affordable units over the next 10 years is no coincidence. Plain and simple, however, with no new dedicated funding source or significant regulatory change, the state's goal will never be realized. And that's a shame, for had the initial COAH rules and regulations not been challenged, New Jersey would have been at least three years into meeting its initial and more realistic third-round obligations.

Although there was no political resistance initially, the New Jersey League of Municipalities is now building a war chest to challenge the new legislation in court. Others will follow and join the suit and in the process, nothing will get done. Unfortunately, this is the sad but real legacy of Mount Laurel. For in the end, it always seems to boil down to the numbers. And once again, Yogi was right.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu, Jul 17 2008, 2:01 am EDT    Post subject: Corzine to ban RCAs and sign bill ammendments Reply with quote

Quote:

New Jersey Regional Coalition wins historic housing victory
Posted by John Atlas July 16, 2008 12:45PM
Categories: Hot Topics, Policy Watch
On Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 2 p.m., Governor Jon Corzine will sign one of the most important changes to New Jersey's affordable housing laws since the Fair Housing Act was passed in 1985.

The centerpiece of the recent legislation is the abolition of regional contribution agreements (RCA), which have allowed wealthy municipalities to pay poor municipalities to accept their affordable housing obligation. This law helped perpetuate segregation and increased the concentration of poverty in our inner-cities.

Under the new law, RCAs are prohibited. The bill also requires every municipality to include "very low income" housing for families earning less than 30 percent of median income and provides a new funding stream for the development of affordable housing.

The bill's sponsor, Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts, deserves a lot of credit for steering this housing reform law through the legislature. Assembly Majority Leader Bonnie Watson-Coleman made sure the bill reached very-low-income households.

But the group that deserves most of the credit is the New Jersey Regional Coalition, a faith-based community organizing group, founded by Marty Johnson, the founder of Isles and other statewide friends in 2003. The NJRC is affiliated with the Gamaliel Foundation, a national organizing network that also happened to hire and train Barack Obama in Chicago.

For five years, this grassroots group fought for this bill. Tomorrow's signing is a testament to the power of faith-based community organizing. The group faced fierce opposition from the League of Municipalities, which consistently championed the viewpoint of the wealthier communities that wanted to avoid their responsibility for building affordable housing.

To win, NJRC had mobilized the religious and business community, the labor movement, mayors of older suburbs, and housing developers. A key moment occurred on Nov. 4, 2007, when NJRC organized over 1,500 grassroots leaders from congregations and civic organizations at the First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens in Somerset, hosted by Rev. DeForest "Buster" Soaries, calling for abolition of RCAs.

DCA Commissioner Joe Doria pushed Corzine to support the bill. Doria's appointment last year has turned out to be a stark contrast to his predecessor, Susan Bass Levin, who had done everything she could to block affordable housing in the state. Doria recognized the importance of the bill and could be seen testifying at nearly every legislative hearing that considered the bill.

NJRC orchestrated the turnout of hundreds of its members to come legislative hearings and demonstrations to make sure our representatives to punctuate the importance of taking steps to end laws that continue segregation and poverty. New Jersey is the most economically segregated and fifth most racially segregated state in the nation.

The bill will force wealthier municipalities to build their fair share of affordable housing instead of shipping out their obligation to cities like Newark or Paterson. Now a private developer, who gets government assistance and approvals to build an upscale residential project, will be forced to build an integrated, mixed income, residential community, where residents who pay market prices will live side by side with lower income families.

The bill also creates a new statewide funding source through a fee charged on non-residential development that will also lead to more affordable housing. Finally, it's not just about more affordable housing - it's also about who that housing reaches.

For the first time, the bill requires that 13% of all affordable housing in the state reach very-low-income households - families earning less than $23,000 a year. These families have the most serious housing needs in the state but have been ignored up to this point in implementing Mount Laurel, the New Jersey Supreme Court case that said under New Jersey's constitution, all our residents have a right to live in decent affordable housing and all municipalities must help make that a reality.

Now, housing programs in New Jersey will help everyone from the poor to the middle class.

Another hero in this effort is the extraordinary Peter O'Connor, one of the attorneys responsible for the Mount Laurel decision. He has worked tirelessly since 1975 to implement the Mount Laurel doctrine. His group, the Fair Share Housing Center, along with the Housing and Community Development Network, contributed many of the ideas that went into the new fair housing bill.


So, it is appropriate that the signing ceremony will take place at the Ethel R. Lawrence Homes in Mount Laurel and O'Connor's Fair Share Housing Center will host the bill-signing event.


http://blog.nj.com/njv_john_atlas/2008/07/new_jersey_regional_coalition.html


Religious Special interests partner with Corzine to ban RCAs because of Racial Equality - I wonder if they calculated NJ racial ranking the same way COAH figures out its affordable house demands?? All flawed

Funny how just yesterday Mt Laurel started a lawsuit against COAH the day before this signing.

Over 170 municipalities across the NJ state are fighting this, not because its a Race issue, Affordable Housing should be for all people in NJ shouldn’t it?? Why does the hard working NJ taxpayer get stiffed again by taxes because if you are not in the COAH system then you are paying for the system and only 15,000 out of 8.4mil will be lucky enough each year to get a COAH HOME. The rest of us will be helping them buy that home with our tax dollars.

Is that fair to the hard working taxpayers in NJ?

Is that fair to reward a few on the backs of the rest? not just the Rich, but mostly middle class and poor in NJ too?

Is that righteous to us RACE as the driving issue for COAH Affordable Housing? it should be affordable to all in NJ

Is that honorable for the NJ Gov to sign this Bill without addressing the growth problems from over 170 different Mayors/municipalities? Are they all racists for fighting this?

Are faith-based community special interests really driving the NJ Democrats now? NJ is 1st in Density today, and 3rd highest overall Taxs (fed/st/local) and 1st highest property taxes. This decision today supports even higher property taxes for over 8.4mil NJ taxpayers of all races/colors/and income brackets alike.
Back to top
ed k
Guest





PostPosted: Tue, Jul 22 2008, 10:47 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: COAH Reply with quote

Although the Mount Laurel doctrine mandating affordable housing opportunities in every municipality in New Jersey has been in force for over 20 years, a number of municipalities in Bergen and Hudson Counties have, up until now, been able to avoid compliance with the doctrine because they have the peculiar distinction of being located within a special district controlled by the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission (NJMC). Why dont COAH job growth rules apply to the NJ Sport Authority ?

"Referencing Senate President Dick Codey’s recently published statements that he will introduce legislation to exempt the New Jersey Sports Authority from COAH mandates, Tanelli asked:

“Does Mr. Doria think Sen. Codey is grandstanding too? Obviously he and Sen. Paul Sarlo (who offered to cosponsor the legislation) see a downside to COAH-3. So do a lot of others. I think Mr. Doria needs to hear what we have to say.”

Tanelli said Doria should come to a borough meeting to explain to the taxpayers and residents the true impacts that COAH-3 will have on their taxes and our economy.

“I am willing to hold a special meeting in the high school gym if necessary so Mr. Doria and his staff can come down to North Arlington and tell us how this overreaching plan helps my community,” said Tanelli."

I restate the facts that the prior poor planning of northern municipalities are dumping COAH burden onto smaller south jersey municipalities like Cranbury and Clinton townships. And Dick Codey is supporting legislation to reduce or eliminate their fair share in the north. Is that fair?? Why is he and other NJ government officials working so hard to help the Meadowlands, but not a peep about Cranbury? And what about our one to one tax burden in 2012? We have the most unfair and biggest COAH burden of any NJ municipality, but not a word in the press about that either.


The NJMC was created by the New Jersey Legislature in 1968 to oversee the protection of environmentally sensitive areas, and the promotion of economic development, within a 30.4 square mile area including portions of 14 municipalities (Carlstadt, East Rutherford, Little Ferry, Lyndhurst, Moonachie, North Arlington, Ridgefield, Rutherford, South Hackensack, Teterboro, Jersey City, Kearny, North Bergen and Secaucus). In contrast to the rest of the state, there has been almost no affordable housing built within the NJMC district since the mid 1980’s, when the New Jersey Supreme Court and Legislature implemented the Mount Laurel doctrine. In large part, the lack of affordable housing was attributable to the fact that zoning authority within the district rested with the NJMC, which had not adopted any regulations mandating the provision of affordable housing. Over the years, municipalities relied upon such NJMC control to avoid affirmatively complying with their affordable housing obligations, as determined by the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (COAH).

As I learn more about COAH, the more I see unfair practices and poor COAH legislation unfairly taxing our citizens in Cranbury NJ. Is it fair that strong growth in Carlstadt, East Rutherford, Little Ferry, Lyndhurst, Moonachie, North Arlington, Ridgefield, Rutherford, South Hackensack, Teterboro, Jersey City, Kearny, North Bergen and Secaucus all send their Affordable housing to Cranbury just to protect the NJ Sporting Business? Is it fair that these northern municipalities had over 30yrs of rapid growth that was unchecked and now they all get a free pass for causing the very problem that COAH is trying to fix? Meanwhile Cranbury has been slowly growing for 311yrs, with a detailed plan of how to support our infrastructure and share resources with our neighboring townships. We have planed sooo well our taxes were the lowest in Middlesex. Is that a reason to now dump our NJ problems onto Cranbury? Hell No, let's make COAH 3rd round fair, let's fix it for Cranbury NJ. Let's see some progress in NJ government and some planning starting NOW. Who will champion this in Trenton for Cranbury, will it be Codey, Greenstein, or Roberts? I think they all have an obligation to make this fair for us Cranbury taxpayers.

http://www.njba.org/a4174-03-a3107-04.pdf

http://www.hillwallack.com/web-content/news/article_abc07_07.html
Back to top
Chatham Courier Editor
Guest





PostPosted: Sun, Jul 27 2008, 11:43 am EDT    Post subject: Always money for litigation but not for housing Reply with quote

Always money for litigation but not for housing
Published: Friday, July 25, 2008 7:27 AM EDT
As municipalities, builders and state agencies appear headed for yet another round of litigation on low-to-moderate-income housing, it occurs to us we may have misunderstood the mission of the N.J. Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) all these years.

Maybe its mission isn’t to ensure that housing is available for people of modest means in New Jersey, as the state Supreme Court required in its 1983 Mount Laurel II ruling.

Maybe its mission is to provide ski lodges in Tahoe, condos in Florida and vacation homes outside New Jersey for all the attorneys who have been making a handsome living from builders, municipalities and assorted nonprofit housing advocates engaged in a virtual non-stop merry-go-round of lawsuits since COAH was created, in 1985.
Most recently, the New Jersey League of Municipalities has sought a $500 pledge from its members to help fund its legal challenge to COAH’s third round of housing numbers. This is the agency’s latest attempt to define the obligation of every town in New Jersey to make reasonable provisions for low-to-moderate-income housing. “Late,” it is. “Reasonable,” it isn’t.

Municipal officials across Morris County and beyond have reacted with anger and disbelief to the new round of numbers, which were due back in 1999, but not released until December of last year. Since then, they’ve already been revised once, and we doubt that’s the end of it.

The number of units many towns have been told they would have to provide under COAH’s latest figures are substantially higher and, municipal officials across Morris County object, based on “facts” that are just plain wrong.

The inaccuracies are blamed in part on an open land survey by an outside consultant for COAH. Municipal officials county-wide were outraged to discover the survey must have been performed with ancient data - since it counted already developed tracts, churches, highway medians, detention basins, people’s homes, roads, and parking lots as “open land.”

Seeing open land that does not exist, COAH mandated higher low-to-moderate-income housing obligations for communities.

COAH also has upped the number of low-cost housing units communities must build to offset non-residential development. Worse, COAH wants to do away with Regional Contribution Agreements (RCAs), which have allowed suburban towns to meet part of their housing obligations by funding the construction and rehabilitation of low-cost units in urban centers.

Among all the gross errors in the latest round of COAH mandates, we find the proposed elimination of RCAs the most wrong-headed and the most troubling. RCAs, and RCAs only, provide a framework for New Jersey towns with relatively stable tax bases to work with willing, even eager tax-poor urban neighbors to subsidize modern, decent housing desperately needed by people who already live there. These arrangements make it possible for cash-strapped urban communities to reverse blight and take positive action to improve the lives of their citizens. RCAs are fair, smart, humane and effective – something that can’t be said for many of COAH’s weirdly hallucinatory policies – and the state Legislature must order COAH decisively to not only preserve them, but facilitate more of them: The more the better. Municipal officials also point to the state’s own Highlands Act, which aims to limit development in the Highlands region of northern New Jersey to protect public drinking water resources, and a tanking economy, as two more indications that COAH and its projections of massive future development are badly out of touch.

We agree, and we add: Is COAH unaware that our state is locked in a grim battle against sprawl, which is sapping our resources and degrading our quality of life? Has COAH never heard of the State Plan, which directs development to population centers with the infrastructure to handle it, and whose tax bases urgently need it?

This latest round of litigation is shaping up as yet another expensive, wasteful battle for towns, builders and the state that will not produce a single unit of affordable housing. Like enlightened leadership at the state level, serious plans to provide an adequate stock of affordable housing in New Jersey are nowhere in sight.
Back to top
Cranbury Conservative



Joined: Tue, Apr 29 2008, 9:26 am EDT
Posts: 287
Location: Old Cranbury Road

PostPosted: Wed, Jul 30 2008, 9:33 am EDT    Post subject: Re: COAH Reply with quote

Here is what I have found so far in regard to New Jersey's COAH Rules and Affordable Housing Legislation (A-500 / S-1783) Facts...


Council On Affordable Housing (COAH) Rules which went into effect on June 2, 2008 ( Source http://www.state.nj.us/dca/coah/):

The rules call for 115,000 units of affordable housing through 2018 (up from 52,000 in the previous rules)

All of the amendments will be published in the June 16 NJ Register and will be open for a 60-day public comment period, which will end on August 15

The rules establish a new growth share ratio of 1 affordable unit among 5 units and 1 affordable unit for every 16 jobs (previous ratios were 1 among and 1 for every 25 jobs)

Regional Contribution Agreement (RCA) amounts increase from $35,000 per unit to $67,000 to $80,000 per unit (depending upon region)

The rules return to the previous age-restricted cap of 25% of a municipality’s total obligation
The revisions are the result of a January 25, 2007 New Jersey Appellate Court decision affirming many aspects of COAH’s third round rules, invalidating others, and remanding certain issues to COAH for rule making

COAH unveiled the revised rules in December of 2007. During a 60 day public comment period, which ended on March 22, 2008, over 4,800 comments from 600 individuals and groups were submitted to COAH

Municipalities that approved affordable housing projects between 2004 and 2008 will receive a one-for-one bonus for each affordable housing unit approved

Municipalities that include affordable housing units in smart growth areas near transit or those that include affordable housing units in redevelopment areas will receive a one-third bonus for every affordable unit approved

The number of jobs generated by warehouse construction will be reduced from 1.5 to 1 job per 1,000 square feet

COAH’s vacant land analysis will be revised to incorporate new DEP spatial data to expand the definition of C-1 streams, remove environmentally sensitive lands from current sewer service areas and recompute the development capacity of lands supported by septic systems pursuant the pending DEP Water Quality Management Act Rule

The use of recently released Highlands spatial and other data to recompute the development capacity of lands in the Highlands Planning Area. The revisions in vacant land analysis will result in a revised estimate of 1,012,692 acres of unconstrained vacant land in New Jersey

The deadline for municipalities to submit affordable housing plans to COAH has been amended to December 31, 2008

New Affordable Housing Legislation A-500/S-1783 Signed into law by Governor Corzine July 17, 2008 (Source http://www.njslom.org/COAH_Resources.html

Elimination of Regional Contribution Agreements (RCAs)RCAs have provided over $216 million in funding for new and rehabilitated housing, proving to be a reliable funding source. A-500 proposes to eliminate RCA funding and replace it with $20 million of State revenues generated by the realty transfer fee. In the current budget environment, in which both the State and local governments confront very difficult choices, we believe it is not in the public interest to eliminate a source of funding that is generated by developers and not taxpayers, and divert resources from the State Budget. The $20 million figure is arrived at by calculating the average annual amount of RCA funding since 1985. For the majority of this time, the funding has averaged about $25,000 per unit transferred. But A-500 does not take into account the increase to $35,000 per unit as implemented in 2004, or the proposed increase to a range between $67,000 and $80,000 in the proposed “third round” regulations. In other words, the $20 million figure is not inflation adjusted and is insufficient for the future need, based on the very figures put forth by COAH. The League is also concerned that the replacement funding could be diverted to other budgetary purposes at some future date. If the State Legislature takes away a permanent source of funding for housing, then it is incumbent for the Legislature to replace it with a permanent source of funding.

Establishment of a statewide 2.5% Commercial Development FeeA-500 would implement a 2.5% commercial development fee. While the League does not dismiss, by any means, the implementation of such a fee, the revenues generated by such a fee will not even pay for half of the projected housing obligation generated by the commercial component. COAH projects that 46,000 affordable housing units are to be created as a result commercial development through 2018. Based on our discussions with the Department of Community Affairs, it is estimated that upper end of what can be raised through a 2.5% fee assessed on non-residential development is $125 million annually. It is further estimated that this amount will pay for approximately 19,200 units through 2018. That means that over this period of time, funding for remaining units generated by commercial development (which would be 26,000, according to the COAH estimates) would fall to property taxpayers.

Middle Income HouseholdsA-500 creates the new category of “middle income” households, in addition to the existing, defined categories of low and moderate income households. This will require COAH to recalculate the statewide need. As part of its proposed third round regulations, COAH calculated a need of 115,000 for the low and moderate income housing. This calculation, however, has been widely disputed by many local governments who contend that the consultants retained by the agency relied on out-of-date and inaccurate data. Further, considering the very strong possibility that the COAH need figures will be challenged, we do not think it is advisable to ask the agency to now add a new category and recalculate, at least until the status of COAH’s third round regulations is known

Forfeiture of Municipal Trust Fund DollarsA-500 would establish that funds collected by a municipality into its local trust fund must be expended within four years. Such funding is intended to be expended for the provision of affordable housing within the current housing cycle. There are already very tight controls on the use of funds collected by municipalities through development fees and payments-in-lieu of construction. At a minimum, a municipality should not forfeit funding collected for the provision of housing during the third round until the third round is over.

State Housing CommissionA-500 creates a new “State Housing Commission.” The League has long supported a top to bottom review of the Fair Housing Act, as well as the creation of a “blue ribbon” study panel. We do have concerns, however, about creating another State bureaucracy to interact with local governments. We believe A-500 needs clarification as to how this new office will interact with COAH, the Office of Smart Growth, the Department of Environmental Protection and other relevant state agencies.

Provision for planning for affordable housing opportunities based on infrastructure and transportation within 5 regions regulated by planning entities (Highlands, Meadowlands, Pinelands, Fort Monmouth, and Atlantic County)

Requirement for 13% of a municipal fair share obligation, and 13% of all units funded by Balanced Housing and the statewide Affordable Housing Trust Fund, to be restricted to very-low income households (30% or less of median income)

Other Concerns and thoughts:

All of New Jerseys COAH and Affordable Housing numbers can be questioned thanks to a state formula which used an outdated map to assess town lands that could be used for low- and moderate-income housing. The statewide space available for Affordable Housing inventory based on these flawed projections included locations such as cemeteries, Community and State Colleges, Highway Medians, Already Protected Open Space, existing residents front and back yards

The new Affordable Housing obligations are also based on projections of residential and commercial growth that are also outdated. Those include projected residential rates which are already invalid due to the slumping real estate market and downturn in the economy

New Jersey Related Affordable Housing Web Web Sites:

Department of Community Affairs (COAH fall under this department)
http://www.state.nj.us/dca/

State of New Jersey COAH Web site
http://www.state.nj.us/dca/coah/

Rutgers-Newark School of Law Library COAH decisions 1986 to present
http://njlegallib.rutgers.edu/coah/

Rutgers School of Law Mount Laureldecision
http://njlegallib.rutgers.edu/mtlaurel/aboutmtlaurel.php

WikipediA Mount Laurel Decision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Laurel_Doctrine2001

NY Time Article Regarding Mount Laurel (West Windsor)http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E0DF173AF936A15752C1A9679C8B63

New Jersey State Supreme Court Upholds Eminent Domain in Mount Laurel vs. MiPro Homes
http://www.njslom.org/press_release_12-07-06.html

New Jersey League of Municipalities Seven Fatal Flaws of COAH:
http://www.njslom.org/COAH-7-fatal-flaws.pdf

Pro A-500/S-1783 Affordable Housing Politicians and Organizations:

Assembly Speakers Joseph Roberts
http://www.assemblydems.com/memberindex.asp?RosterKey=16

Housing and Community Development Network
http://hcdnnj.org/

Community Investment Strategies
http://www.cisnj.com/

Coalition for Affordable Housing and the Environment
http://www.cahenj.org/

Fair Share Housing Center
http://newark-law.rutgers.edu/mtlaurel/docs/b00002b.pdf

Homes for New Jersey
http://www.homesfornj.com/

Apartment Association
http://www.njaa.com/scriptcontent/index.cfm

New Jersey Chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties
http://www.njnaiop.org/home/

New Jersey Manufactured Housing Association
http://www.njmha.org/

Department of Community Affairs
http://www.nj.gov/dca/index.shtml

Also Available At:
http://cranburyconservative.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-jersey-coah-rules-and-affordable.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Guest






PostPosted: Wed, Jul 30 2008, 10:01 am EDT    Post subject: Re: COAH Reply with quote

West Windsor mulls rezoning for COAH
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
BY JOYCE J. PERSICO
WEST WINDSOR -- A massive rezoning of all undeveloped nonresidential, commercial and office properties along Route 1 is being weighed by the township to meet the spiraling demands of state-im posed affordable housing obliga tions


http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1217391337251120.xml&coll=5
Back to top
guest1
Guest





PostPosted: Thu, Jul 31 2008, 11:53 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Property Tax has been increased again Reply with quote

I've received a note that the property tax has been increased abount 4-5% starting from the 3rd qtr this year. I thought the township doesn't increase the property tax anymore, or at lease keep the same rate for another 5 years. Sad
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [http://cranbury.info] -> News | Events All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6