PNC is dead; now let’s address the real issues (Issue #1 COAH…)

[Cranbury Conservative]

It was nice to see the turn out last night for the town meeting regarding the PNC purchase and to see many people from the community there to be involved in the political process. I for one enjoyed hearing all of the many opinions which were given both for and against the PNC purchase. As for the final decision to not move forward I believe the grass roots efforts which started on Cranbury. Info were a critical part in helping put the PNC issue to rest.

As we move forward we must not forget the actions of two (2) of our township committee members Mr. Wittman and Mr. Panconi, each of whom had the clarity to realize the real issue for the town of Cranbury is COAH and that we should not be wasting time and money on the PNC acquisition.

On the other hand we also need to remember that Mayor Stout, and Township Committee Members Pari Stave and Richard Stannard were for the PNC purchase and have taken their eye off of COAH. Hopefully everyone in town will remember this when each of their terms are up for re-election.

As I see it we have three (3) issues which the town of Cranbury faces, each of which are critical to the survival of the unique community that we all love.

Issue #1 COAH
As I said when I spoke at last nights meeting COAH needs to be issue #1 for this community and the primary focus of the Township Committee. Fortunately for us Mr. Wittman and Mr. Panconi agreed that COAH is issue #1. Hopefully we will be able to bring the other members of the Township Committee to their senses and help them focus on the COAH issue as well. Further I believe it is our job to call on the Township Committee to focus on COAH and update us the citizens of Cranbury on a regular basis as to our status regarding COAH. We can challenge the Township Committee to do so via cranbury.info as well as by attending Township Committee meetings and regularly questioning them as to the current status.

Issue # 2 Consolidation:
As was said to me last night by another member of our community, consolidation is right behind COAH in fact the two issues may even go hand in hand. We have to be aware that we are under attack from Trenton and that the politicians in Trenton want municipalities of less then 5000 people such as Cranbury to consolidate with other towns and communities. The politicians in Trenton are pursuing this action even though our community, Cranbury which already has next to nothing in state aid can run independently and effectively without intervention from the State Government. The fight against consolidation could potentially be just as long and as expensive as our opposition to COAH.

Issue # 3 Taxes (Property Taxes):
The third issue we need to be concerned with is our rising property taxes. We have seen over the last few years property taxes for homeowners increase anywhere from 20% to 70%. An argument can be made that the reevaluation did not need to happen and the Township Committee did not think thru all of its options before agreeing to the reevaluation, much like select members of the Township Committee did not think thru the possible PNC acquisition before they tried to take action.

The bottom line is that this is a very important time in Cranbury’s history. It is time for us as a community and more importantly for the Township Committee to be focused on COAH, ready to take action regarding consolidation, and think clearly and conservatively when it comes to our finances.

[Guest]

FYI: Activists: COAH's dragging its feet
Housing group asks court for special master


http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-10/121030780869890.xml&coll=1

[Frugality In Cranbury]

" . . . The deadline for towns to submit affordable housing plans was extended from June 30 to Dec. 3. The amendments would also put more land off limits in places like the northern Highlands, a vital watershed for northern New Jersey. But by leaving the long-term housing goals intact, more units would be built in all kinds of towns. The COAH plan estimates roughly 1 million acres, about 20 percent of the state's land mass, remains vacant and developable.

The Cherry Hill-based Fair Share Housing Center complained about the amendments to Judges Mary Catherine Cuff, Linda Baxter and Michael Winkelstein.

"The Council on Affordable Housing has not met and cannot meet the deadline of June 2, 2008, for the adoption of compliant Third ... Round regulations," Kevin Walsh, Fair Share's lawyer, said in papers filed with the court. "Instead, COAH adopted regulations that it has no plan to implement and has started another rule-making process of uncertain duration, without any guarantee, of course, that the newest rule-making will lead to a conclusion of this nine-year odyssey. The need for a special master is greater than ever to finally obtain rules that can be implemented instead of waiting through another cycle of rule-making and potential appeals."

State Department of Community Affairs officials did not respond to a request for comment yesterday, but on Tuesday Commissioner Joseph V. Doria said the amendments are in response to 4,800 public comments on potential rules. He said the amendments should be approved by October and should not cause a major delay in moving the affordable housing effort along. "

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-10/121030780869890.xml&coll=1

Apparently, this is the response to all our letter that our Cranbury Residents sent into COAH. So, they are fighting over deadlines - This is bad for us and not a victory on the letter writing movement. Now they will want us to build 400 NEW COAH homes. Where do we go from here?

[Michael]

As has been said in other posts, we already are consolidated in many ways. Our Police, Fire and EMS are dispatched from Hightstown, our court is in Plainsboro, and our children go to Princeton High School. We have done a good job of balancing good service with efficiency.

[Guest]

COAH will impact our current consolidation we have already in place. Consolidation is mainly aimed at the school systems of small towns under a population of 5000. The idea is to consolidate within our own county regardless of current agreements. Not only that, more homes will directly affect our school system. This will affect our agreement with Princeton High School.

The Consolidation will eventually affect the school relationship West Windsor and Plainsboro already take part in since they are in different counties. We might be forced to consolidate more with Plainsboro especially since Hightstown is in Mercer County too.

[Guest]

i think consolidation is a long shot. the idea for this consolidation thing is purely based on the concept that it will reduce property tax. if the most people in the towns are willing to pay their current taxes, it is hard to be forced to be consolidated. COAH is the most significant issue for cranbury and many other towns.

[Cranbury Conservative]

Agreed COAH is the Number 1 issue.

Below is a good article which outlines some proposed legislation which might be a good start.

The full article can be found at:

http://www.politickernj.com/mysak/19845/doherty-introduces-common-sense-affordable-housing-legislation

Doherty Introduces 'Common Sense' Affordable Housing

Legislation By scmysak - May 19, 2008 - 2:01pm

Release Date: May 19 2008

Doherty Introduces 'Common Sense' Affordable Housing LegislationAssemblyman Michael Doherty introduced legislation today designed to offset the impact, costs and burdens of the Council on Affordable Housing’s (COAH) new rules governing the number of affordable housing units a municipality is required to offer.

“The state’s attempt to provide low-income residents with affordable housing is a laudable goal that has turned into a misguided package of regulations that have lost sight of reality and practicality,” stated Doherty, R-Warren and Hunterdon. “These new regulations will result in added costs and place inequitable burdens on municipalities, businesses and our taxpayers.”

Two weeks ago, COAH adopted new affordable housing rules calling for more than 115,000 new affordable housing units to be constructed throughout the state. The new formula requires an affordable home be built for every four market-priced homes, with an affordable home required for every 16 jobs in a municipality. The new units would be funded by fees that will be added to new residential and commercial construction.

Doherty introduced three bills today that he said “brings common sense back into the COAH equation.” The first proposed bill would defer to any regional planning authority the obligation to satisfy any alleged COAH obligations, and would exempt municipalities within that planning area’s jurisdiction, such as the Highlands, Pinelands, or Meadowlands, from exposure to “builder’s remedy” lawsuits.

The second bill provides protection from “builder’s remedy” lawsuits for any municipality that has less than 10 percent remaining developable land mass, or 20 percent remaining if all residential zones within those lands have densities of at least four units per acre.

The third piece of legislation challenges the Holmdel court case where the court validated the charging of COAH fees on commercial development.

Doherty said that Mount Laurel and the “Fair Housing Act” were implemented to eliminate discriminatory zoning, not to be a funding source for the building of affordable housing on the back of the commercial development that employs residents and gives them the earnings to have affordable housing.

“This new round of draconian rules throw long established environmental and planning goals aside to make way for affordable housing, but will result in no affordable housing in New Jersey,” said Doherty, adding that costly building permits will create unemployment in the building trades forcing new businesses to look outside of New Jersey due to expensive start up costs.

“So assuming that we do build all of these new affordable houses, there won’t be enough employment to keep them affordable to the residents, unless the goal is to totally subsidize the housing for the new unemployed. More important, if total subsidization is the goal, who is going to pay for it?”

He also noted that if a municipality has its land use policy dictated by a regional authority, such as the Highlands Council, it makes no sense to burden that municipality with the costs of COAH compliance when “developable land” is determined by a regional planning authority and enhanced environmental regulations.

Doherty called “ridiculous” the assessment of COAH fees on new commercial development.

“The key to affordable housing is employment, and until we have no unemployment, and there is no commuting to work from outside of the municipality where an employer is located, COAH fees on commercial development are inappropriate, unfair, and just plain bad for New Jersey.”

[Guest]

[wcody]

I agree that it is time to focus on COAH, it is an issue with serious consequences to the town. I am glad this is being taken very seriously.

The revised rulings did not do too much to help Cranbury. The main issue was a slight improvement of the jobs estimates for warehouses. It was an improvement but still far overstated reality. Nothing was addressed about the total new housing needed and retroactive nature of the rules. Maybe it is good news that COAH is delaying the finals rules and maybe they will truly listen and make prudent changes (or maybe this is wishful thinking). While I do not have exact numbers, if nothing significantly changes, the obligation of Cranbury could be around 400+ units just for existing buildings, not counting planned construction.

I am not privy to the township’s strategy but there has been some information shared. As we have heard at meeting, there has been talk about asking for a waiver for Cranbury. That would be nice but it does not seem likely that COAH would make adjustments for Cranbury and not other towns. There has also been talk about a lawsuit, maybe joining a consortium of towns. The TC has formed a sub-committee to address COAH, I am not sure who is on the sub-committee. After receiving the revised regulations, the TC went into closed session during the May 12 meeting to talk about a response. It is good to ask what they are doing but more importantly, ask what you can do to help.

There are three basic responses the town can take now, fight, passive resistance or give in to the new rules. I will give some ideas on the fight and passive resistance options, I will not expand on giving in, I don’t think that is an option anyone wants.

The first part of fighting is what we are doing now. We gathered forces and writing letters to COAH. I think that was a good step, it had some impact but more needs to be done. Remember we are taking on full time Trenton employees and their legal staff who thinks about this all the time. Of course, we don’t have the time they have to put in with our jobs, families, etc., but we need the stamina to see it through. I think we also need to use our elected officials in Trenton more. They are supposed to serve the community and Cranbury has not asked much from Trenton. We have two people representing us in the State Assembly, Linda Greenstein and Wayne D’Angelo and one in the State Senate, Bill Baroni. A key person who is really a force behind the initiative to increase housing is our Governor who made campaign pledges to increase affordable housing. Letters to all those officials would help. I am not sure if county or federal officials would be of help here since this is a state issue. But, since they are up for election this year, it might be a good question to ask of any of them if someone has that opportunity during the campaign. Over the next couple of days I am going to draft some letters and post them here that others can use as templates, as I did for the COAH letter.

Uniting with other towns is great tactic for Cranbury. Many other towns have similar impacts due to COAH. There are more powers in numbers. Also, it will help us share ideas and share potential expenses.

Fighting may end with a legal challenge if COAH does not make significant changes. Hopefully, if that was the tactic, we would join forces with other towns to share legal expenses.

An option to a legal fight could be passive resistance. Becoming part of COAH is a voluntary. Only about half of the towns in NJ are part of COAH. Complying with COAH acts as a shield to a lawsuit and the builders remedy. If we drop out but still continue to provide reasonable affordable housing, as we have been doing, what is our risk? If we work with many other towns who also drop out, that may force COAH to change their ways. Also, if there is a lawsuit, we become a small target. This is a risky course but it does not involve the same amount of legal costs as a proactive lawsuit. It should be analyzed and considered at the appropriate time.

I will forward this to the TC as some ideas since I am not sure if they read this blog and offer my help.

Win Cody

[guestx]

Nice article, Win. Please post your template and we will send it to COAH.

[James]

Win,

Good points.

One issue I would raise is opting out can cause issues in a town that is desirable like Cranbury. WW opted out and the Toll development with I believe 1,000 plus houses (incl apts) is the result. I definitely believe all options should be on the table. Just wanted to raise a devil advocate point.

My one quetsion is what if Cranbury opts out and takes a sum of money that would otherwise be spent on homes and lock up farm land. We can leave undesirable land that would be high commercial value, but of low value for residential. Who wants to live in a 500K plus home in a warehouse district. If there is no desirable farmland for sale then the builders can't sue for rights to protected land. In WW they owned the land it was not town property.

[HistoricallyFiscal]

Good job Win, that’s more analysis and forethought about this COAH issue then has been shared to date, so I appreciate you posting here. I agree with you also about not expecting any help or waivers for Cranbury, we need to drive our own destiny and not expect anyone else to change our fate.

Have you seen how well organized Clinton Township is about COAH, its detailed nicely on the front page of its township’s home page:
http://www.township.clinton.nj.us/

I’m soooo impressed how well they are coordinated, instead of private meetings behind closed doors like our township, Clinton welcomes any and all to participate and musters all its collective resources against the unfair COAH practices. And you know what’s really surprising when you go on its website, and you see all the planning that Clinton Township has published, they are only talking about a change from 60 homes to 111, yes it doubles but its no where near the >400 that Cranbury is saddled with. Why are they better prepared then Cranbury? Every Cranbury resident should read this letter from the Clinton Twnships Mayors office, I would recommend we contact them and co-ordinate our own efforts better.

http://www.township.clinton.nj.us/town_council_docs/Letter%20to%20Commissioner%20Doria.pdf

[Jersey Dad]

[James]

Sorry, but what you just outlined is a town destroying situation. That is not even a point of discussion as far as I am concerned. That many homes and residents would absolutely kill Cranbury as we know it today. A high school being built would raise our property taxes beyond the realm of affordability.

Robbinsville just went through growth of this level and people are being hit with $1,000 plus raises in property taxes and that is at the average home level. Homes in the $500K and above level saw even bigger increases. They called it smart growth and planning. What town center ended up doing was bringing so many people into town that the town and school system could not afford the expense. I lived in TC and it was a great development. However, the infastructure required with the town was below what was required.

I know first hand the adverse impact that this type of building brings because I moved back to Cranbury after living there for 2 years.

[Guest]

I agree James a build out to 10,000 is definetly not an option. We would no longer be Cranbury. We do however need to have a major reduction or elimination of our COAH share as well as have the ability to keep RCA's which we all know are also under attack.

[wcody]

I agree that adding 2,500 houses in a Builders Remedy is not a good option. But the town needs to consider all options to put together an effective strategy to fight COAH.

I will try to give an explanation of the Builders Remedy from what I understand. If anyone has any further clarification, it would be appreciated. The Builders Remedy was established under Mount Laurel II as a way to enforce townships meeting their affordable housing obligation. A lawsuit is brought to a town who will not meet their affordable housing obligations and the enforcement remedy if the town loses, the court mandates a builder can build 4 market rate houses for every affordable house needed. I am not sure if this lawsuit is brought by COAH or the builders. Therefore, if our affordable housing requirement was 400, then the Builder would be allowed to build 2,000 total houses. The expenses for that build would be borne by the builders, not the taxpayers. All taxpayers, new and old, would need to pay for the expanded services required for the new households. This is not a great option and would obviously be a huge impact to Cranbury and change the character of the town. Adhering to COAH gives town protection from this lawsuit.

The Builders Remedy has come under a lot of protest. The protesters feel that this remedy supports suburban sprawl and does not help housing in the cities where help needed.

The question is regarding our strategy. If after all our protests, we do not get an acceptable response from COAH, would dropping out make sense? It may not be the best alternative but it should be examined more closely. If we continue to do a good job of providing affordable housing, with the COAH controversy, what is our likelihood of a lawsuit? Are we small enough to fall under the radar? If we do get sued, at that point could we then comply and build 400-500 affordable houses and not have the threat of builders remedy? Can preserved farmland or commercially zoned property be mandated as a location for new housing? Many other towns felt the risk of the lawsuit was low enough and do not participate in COAH. It would be good to hear their rationale. Does the threat of many more towns dropping out of COAH encourage change?

I am not saying we must drop out of COAH, only consider it as an option. There are a lot of open questions on the strategy to approach. What is needed is a good plan, with risk assessments on approaches, and contingencies based on what happens when we go down a certain path.

Win Cody