COAH news

[yankee]

COAH Reform: Life or Death For Our Economy
Posted by Senator Raymond J. Lesniak January 12, 2009 9:28AM
Categories: Politics
The following is Senator Lesniak's statement opening a Senate hearing to be held later this month on reforming the policies of the Council On Affordable Housing (COAH).

I come here today not to praise COAH, but to bury it. In my 31 years of working with government's bureaucracy, I have never experienced an agency that has so totally failed its mission as COAH has. If the legislature fails to act, and act quickly, COAH's policies will continue to not produce necessary affordable housing and will stifle job production and the state's recovery from the worldwide recession. Governor Corzine and the Legislature have embarked on a bold plan to restore economic viability to our state and for our residents. Our efforts will fail, if we do not quickly stop COAH from dragging our state into an economic abyss from which we will not be able to recover.

Cutting our nose off to spite our face, which has been embraced by COAH, and to a certain extent our Courts, is not an option. Stopping economic development if affordable housing is not provided for is a zero sum game where the residents and taxpayers of New Jersey are the losers. Affordable housing is the responsibility of the State. We need to treat affordable housing as an infrastructure need to be provided for by the state. There are many ways we can fulfill our affordable housing needs. One of them is not trying to pound a square peg into a round hole as COAH, and again to an extent the Courts, have tried and not surprisingly failed to accomplish.


Affordable housing needs to be included in the federal infrastructure stimulus package. Congressman Rothman and our Congressional delegation are working on that need.

RAD financing, using a portion of future state income taxes, sales taxes, parking taxes, admission fees and local property taxes generated by a development can help finance the infrastructure needs of a development so that affordable housing can be built without killing the project. COAH needs to learn basic math: 2.5% or 10% or 20% of zero is zero. The Treasurer of New Jersey likewise has to understand that 80% or 60% or 40% of new state revenues is better than no state revenues.

New Jersey has an inventory of surplus property, as well as underutilized property, which should be dedicated, where appropriate, for affordable housing.

Our Courts need to understand that the welfare clause of the New Jersey Constitution does not exist in a vacuum. A policy that damages our state's economy hurts our most at risk residents: the poor, the uninsured, the elderly, the infirm, the uneducated, the undereducated, the jobless, the single parent struggling to raise a family, the two parent family struggling to keep a roof over their heads and provide for their children, and the children who have been abandoned or abused by their parents. Foremost, it hurts the state's ability to protect the safety of our residents. Governor Corzine has to make this clear to the Court, in litigation that will no doubt challenge our effort to reform COAH. We have to be able to produce affordable housing, protect our environment and promote economic growth. Yes we can do all three. In fact, leaving any one out hurts the others. This holistic approach is not everything, it's the only thing.

A policy that ignores smart growth and environmental protection principals, such as COAH has adopted, damages the quality of life of all our residents, the quality of the air we breath, the water we drink, the soil we walk, live and play on, and the beaches that are not only a source of recreation for our residents, but are also a key part of our economy.

COAH's policies also impair the ability to create or maintain open space so necessary in the most densely populated state in the nation.

There has been much sound and fury over COAH's deadline for municipalities to submit its compliance plans. To me, the deadline was meaningless since any plans submitted under current COAH policies are not worth the paper they're printed on or the type they're e-mailed on. COAH's methodology of determining the number of affordable units needed in the state and each municipality is not only flawed, it's outdated as a result of the economic downturn that has engulfed our state, our nation and the rest of the world. The cost of developing the plans submitted under these circumstances was a colossal waste of tax dollars.

For the sake of the future viability of our state as a prosperous and healthy entity that provides for the general welfare of all of our residents, we must reform COAH. Make no mistake about this effort. We will not tolerate any exclusionary zoning or any efforts to keep low income residents from living in a municipality. But attempts at social engineering that are contrary to the laws of economics, the laws of environmental protection and the laws of common sense are doomed to failure. And failure has been the signature of COAH throughout its existence. Low income residents of our state have been, and will continue to be, the most damaged by that failure.

Today we will be considering legislation sponsored by Democratic and Republican Senators which will bring much needed common sense and effectiveness into our government's obligation to provide for affordable housing and the general welfare of our residents. We must succeed. Failure is not an option.

Those who support the status quo remind me of a line referring to President Lyndon Johnson in a Vietnam War protest song, "We're knee deep in the big muddy and the big fool says to push on." Let's get out of the big muddy and then push on.


Print This Page | Send To A Friend | Permalink (Learn More)
Share: Reddit | Digg | del.icio.us | Google | Yahoo | What is this?
COMMENTS (4)Post a comment
Posted by jillian2 on 01/12/09 at 10:43AM
At a time when nearly everyone in this state is in some sort of crisis the adjective "affordable" has lost it's intended definition. The COAH has not been very popular in their unreasonable demands on the municipalities and has become one of the most dreaded topics in the average household. There seems to be no getting away from policies such as COAH as this is literally being forced on people who will have no benefit whatsoever and will undoubtedly cause more devastation and foreclosing in NJ than what we are already seeing.

Since there are many complications with COAH and much of it I admit I do not understand as to how, where or why this even became such a hot issue in NJ and I believe many other residents are in the same position as I. We sift through the information that is available and construct our interpretations and much of it makes no sense at all.

Senator, when you write a piece such as this and I know you are an extremely intelligent and well informed person I have a glimmer of hope that COAH will not have it's way as it stands.

I agree that we have a large surplus of vacant property both under utilized or empty and we are seeing more of this type of property every day. Many buildings are practically new and many in my own county have never been occupied. To build anymore in NJ is almost criminal considering the problems we already have due to the lack of smart growth. Sprawl has considerably diminished the quality of life in this state already. If anything the standing structures need to be filled in order to generate some taxpaying revenue.

If we use a common sense approach to this situation then we can probably all agree that what is affordable to one is not to everyone and this will also hold true in the laws of economics. Opportunity should be a given for everyone in this country, entitlement is not. This is a time Senator that we all need help in NJ and due to the circumstances many of us are now living in our own dwellings for many years but which are now unaffordable.

I put my trust in you Senator that you will represent fair and common sense on this issue and I anticipate others will post here and give their true opinions and thoughts on the subject of "Affordable Housing in NJ." Thank you for addressing this very frightening mandate we citizens are now facing.




Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by DiscussedTed on 01/12/09 at 11:47AM
Senator Lesniak:

If we are forced to provide "affordable housing," then your new approach sounds like a vast improvement.

I would still like to know where in the state constitution it says that certain people are entitled to subsidized housing. Does the "welfare clause" specifically state that? Is it limited to housing, or does it also include food, medicine, transportation, employment, etc.

I would also like to know where the state constitution defines which people are entitled to subsidized housing, and which are not. While you are at it, please tell me where the state constitution places expenditures into the judiciary.

In my view, what you propose will take a terrible idea and make it a bad idea.

Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by obe1knobe on 01/12/09 at 1:25PM
for that you'd need a constitutional amendment, as the NJ Supremes "found" the obligation in the NJ Constitution.

In Mount Laurel I, the Court held that a zoning ordinance in a developing municipality that did not make an appropriate variety and choice of housing realistically possible was contrary to the public welfare. 67 N.J. at 173-74. The same municipality could satisfy its constitutional obligation by adopting a zoning ordinance that provided a realistic opportunity for the construction of its fair share of the present need and future regional need for low- and moderate-income housing. Ibid. Eight years later, the Court returned to the issue.
In Mount Laurel II, the Court reaffirmed the doctrine and fashioned a procedure for use by trial courts to determine municipalities' obligation to provide the opportunity for low- and moderate-income housing. 92 N.J. at 220-23. In the course of the opinion, the Court reminded us that "the doctrine . . . arise[s] from . . . underlying concepts of fundamental fairness in the exercise of governmental power." Id. at 209. The Court also reiterated the constitutional basis for the Mount Laurel doctrine. Chief Justice Wilentz stated:
The constitutional power to zone, delegated to the municipalities subject to legislation, is but one portion of the police power and, as such, must be exercised for the general welfare. When the exercise of that power by a municipality affects something as fundamental as housing, the general welfare includes more than the welfare of that municipality and its citizens: it also includes the general welfare -- in this case the housing needs -- of those residing outside of the municipality but within the region that contributes to the housing demand within the municipality. Municipal land use regulations that conflict with the general welfare thus defined abuse the police power and are unconstitutional. In particular, those regulations that do not provide the requisite opportunity for a fair share of the region's needs for low and moderate income housing conflict with the general welfare and violate the state constitutional requirements of substantive due process and equal protection.

Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by mcmid on 01/12/09 at 2:05PM
Has the supreme court ever mandated anything that doesn't cost the taxpayers plenty? Until Lesniak and the rest of the legislature, and our governors get the guts to confront the supreme court and its absurd rulings, we will always have these troubles.

Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a comment
Username (Don't Have a Username? Sign up here):
Password:

Remember Me
Welcome back, !
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

[Associated Press]

N.J. affordable housing payment plan shifts -- again
by The Associated Press
Sunday January 18, 2009, 1:09 PM
Just six months after advocates for the poor heralded a new law to create more affordable housing in New Jersey, parts of it may be set aside because of the slumping economy.

Gov. Jon Corzine has called for a one-year moratorium on a fee charged to developers of commercial real estate. He said the moratorium on the fee, used to fund housing for low- and moderate-income people, would spur economic development.

It was expected the 2.5 percent fee, created last year, would generate $160 million per year. But in six months, it's raised only about $5 million, according to state Sen. Raymond Lesniak, D-Elizabeth.

"It doesn't work, it hasn't worked and it's not working," Lesniak said. "Two-point-five percent, 10 percent, 20 percent of nothing is nothing."

Lesniak is crafting a bill that would waive the fee, and a state requirement for each municipality to use money generated by the fee to create affordable housing, for one year. The concept has the support of key legislative leaders in addition to the governor.

For more than two decades, the state had let towns pay other towns to fulfill their affordable housing obligation. Last year, the Legislature ended that practice in a shift that affordable housing advocates saw as a major advance.

Instead, money for subsidized housing was to come largely from the 2.5 percent fee charged to developers of commercial property. Previously, towns had been allowed to set their own fees for developers. Some declined to do so; others charged more than 2.5 percent.

But there's been a big problem: Since the fee was standardized, real estate development has fallen sharply.

Affordable housing advocates don't like the idea of suspending the development fee. They say it's confounding that the state would slow action on providing housing for low- and moderate-income people in a time when there is a growing need for housing.

"We are opposed to a moratorium and don't understand why this is the first thing to be cut," said Kevin Walsh, associate director of the Cherry Hill-based Fair Share Housing Center. "Holding steady is one thing, but cutting the resources available to help folks with shelter is bad."

Affordable housing has been a contentious issue in the state since the state Supreme Court found in a 1975 ruling in Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Mount Laurel that towns could not use their zoning to exclude the poor. Since then, the court has gone further, finding that towns have an obligation to provide for homes for lower-income people.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/01/post_56.html

[Average Joe NJ]

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/01/post_56.html[/quote]

ALL housing in New Jersey is affordable; it's just that some are more than the others.
It all depends on how hard you want to work.
There should never be a free ride to home ownership, unless you are disabled.
If you want something nice, then work for it.
I worked three jobs at once for my first home. Why should a lazy crybaby get to live in a free home next door me? This country runs on capitalism, not communist socialism.

[Guest]

You know it's bad when people in Michigan and California are saying the NJ COAH rules are insane. I have friends in both states who are members of both parties. None of them believed the COAH rules until I sent them links with the policy.

[Guest]

I had dinner with friends of mine from Mount Laurel over the weekend. They said they have been advised by their school to speak with their children about gangs because gangs have started to take hold in government subsidized "affordable housing" in Mount Laurel.

[Guest]

I had dinner with friends of mine from Mount Laurel over the weekend. They said they have been advised by their school to speak with their children about gangs because gangs have started to take hold in government subsidized "affordable housing" in Mount Laurel.

[Jersey Dad]

From Today's Star-Ledger (Kean-Byrne Dialogue)...

[Guest]

It's quite expensive to drive a car in NJ. The monthly costs:

1. Gas
2. Insurance
3. Car lease (if you lease a car) payment or car purchase
4. Maintenance
5. Traffic tickets, surcharges (if any)

I bet most Cranbury residents drive to work.

[Jersey Dad]

The expenses of vehicle ownership and operation can easily exceed the the difference between market-rate and affordable rent/mortgage.

My tolls alone exceed what many people pay for public transit.

[Dan Mulligan]

LESNIAK BILL WOULD MAKE CHANGES IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAWS

By Matthew Reilly


TRENTON – A bill (S-2485) sponsored by Sen. Raymond J. Lesniak (D-Union) that would exempt certain non-residential development projects from a 2.5 percent fee to fund affordable housing was approved 12-0 today by the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee.

Current law imposes a 2.5 percent non-residential development fee on certain projects to provide funding for the construction of affordable housing. The bill would exempt projects from the fee through July 2010.

“The 2.5% tax is an impediment to our economic recovery,” Senator Lesniak said. “Increasing costs of development to pay for affordable housing, based on the number of jobs created, damages job creation and is a disincentive to investment in our economy.”

Senator Lesniak noted Governor Corzine called for the deferral of this fee in his 2009 State of the State message to the Legislature, and the Office of Economic Growth supports the bill.

the rest of the article can be found at...

http://www.politickernj.com/mreilly75/27747/lesniak-bill-would-make-changes-affordable-housing-laws

[Guest]

[Guest]

This is not necessarily good news. It removes the fee, but not the obligation for towns to build. So where will the funds come from to build the homes? It's only working one side of the problem and IMO a gift to builders and business on the backs of the tax payers.

[publius]

[joe the plumber]

I am not totally against some public housing, but, I do disagree strongly about how these quotas are formulated. Why does it matter how much warehouse space we have???????????????
Are we building housing just for folks who work in the warehouses?????????Seems to me to be some scam between the folks who own/operate the warehouses and our idiotic state government. If WE pay for PUBLIC housing in OUR town, WE should decide WHO gets to live in OUR houses that OUR PUBLIC monies paid for.
NO?
Does that seem like a stupid idea?
Public housing should be used (MOSTLY) for people employed in the public sector. Teachers, school staff, librarians, artists, cathedral designers etc. It should be up to those who pay for the housing to help decide who could live in the housing.
YES?
Or does this make too much sense?
Perhaps, the warehouse tycoons should pay THEIR people living wages so that THEY can afford to BUY their OWN homes rather than get US to subsidize it for THEM!
Good night and good luck.

[The Times]

Bill to scrap housing age-limits advances
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
BY RYAN TRACY

HAMILTON -- State lawmakers will send Gov. Jon S. Corzine a bill allowing developers to seek the removal of age restrictions on housing projects without re-starting the lengthy local approval process.

The bill was staunchly opposed by observers who believe it circumvents municipal control. Many towns favored the age restrictions to limit the impact homes would have on local services.

Supporters say it will create jobs by making approved-but-on-hold developments more marketable, encouraging builders to build and banks to invest.

The state Senate and Assembly passed the measure yesterday after the bill moved quickly through both houses less than three weeks after its introduction.

Under the proposed law, developers would have a two-year window during which they can apply to local planning or zoning boards for removal of the age restrictions.

Up to 20 percent of the housing units in the revised plan must be set aside for affordable housing.

In Hamilton alone, officials say 431 already-approved housing units will eligible.

Across the state, age-restricted units that are approved but not yet built or currently under construction account for between 15 and 18 years of supply, according to Jeffrey Otteau of Otteau Valuation in East Brunswick.

William Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities, said the bill "effectively ... changes local zoning."

"There already exists a means to change a development ... that is for developers to apply to local officials for a ... change and go through a public process," Dressel said.

Dressel and others predicted that towns will face court fights if they reject developers who want the age-restricted units converted.

"This a backdoor way around the local planning process," said Sen. Bill Baroni, R-Hamilton, who criticized amendments that were made to the bill as recently as yesterday afternoon.

"It's an extraordinary power grab by the builders to rush through this proposal. This is a bad day for property taxpayers," Baroni said.

Sen. William Lesniak, D-Union, disagreed.

"I see this as giving more authority to the local planning authority to make changes to accommodate the different use," he told senate colleagues.

Other supporters of the bill have downplayed its impact on services, saying homes designed for seniors will not be attractive to many families with children who might attend taxpayer-funded public schools.

The bill passed the Senate 21-15 and the Assembly 42-28, with eight abstentions in the latter vote.

Votes went across party lines, with support and opposition forming on both sides of the aisle.

Hamilton Mayor John Bencivengo likened the bill to a "government bailout" for developers who wanted to change projects that appeared less profitable because of the economic downturn.

"This is disappointing to me," said Bencivengo, who has said his town cannot afford even a small influx of schoolchildren. "This is not how you run government."

Developments would only be eligible for conversion if the owner has not secured a single deposit on any of the homes.

Developers must meet certain conditions and are not allowed to make large changes to building heights, square footage, and other building design components.

Baroni said the language of the bill did allow developers to change the size of rooms inside the homes.

By design, the bill allows developers to move quickly through the process of removing the age restrictions.

It requires local land use boards to take action on the developer's requests within 60 days and allows developers to file for summary judgment to overturn the board's decision, a move Dressel said would expedite the legal process.

A judge could then order the local land use board to approve the development as long as it satisfies the requirements spelled out in the proposed law.

The bill is labeled A-3772 and S-2577.

http://www.nj.com/news/times/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-16/1237262755264380.xml&coll=5&thispage=3

[MSNBC]

Housing challenge dismissed
By dlevinsky@phillyBurbs.com
PhillyBurbs.com

Levittown - Medford's bid to overturn the state's new affordable housing regulations suffered a setback Wednesday as the state Council on Local Mandates ruled that it did not have the authority to void the regulations.

Medford had filed a complaint with the council this past summer arguing that the state's new Council on Affordable Housing regulations created an unfair burden on taxpayers and towns because the regulations required towns to provide additional affordable housing units but did not provide adequate funding to pay for the development.

Under state law, the council has the authority to overturn laws that impose such unfunded mandates.

Representatives of COAH argued the new rules were not unfunded mandates because participation is voluntary and the rules only require additional affordable units in the event that other growth occurs.

Patricia Myer, the council's executive administrator and coordinator, said the council decided Wednesday to dismiss Medford's claims on grounds that the laws Medford challenged were exempt from the council's oversight because they involved the New Jersey Constitution.

There is no right to appeal the council's dismissal.

State Department of Community Affairs Commissioner Joseph Doria and New Jersey Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen cheered the decision and claimed it validated the COAH rules.

"From the beginning we have stressed that the COAH process is completely voluntary and does not and has not imposed any mandates on New Jersey municipalities," Doria said in a press statement. "Now, instead of squandering taxpayer funds defending a repeatedly validated process, hopefully we can move forward with the production of much-needed affordable housing."

The Department of Community Affairs oversees COAH and its regulations.

Medford officials and other COAH critics promised to continue to fight the new rules in the Appellate Division of Superior Court.

"We will aggressively pursue our case with the Appellate Division, which deals with a full range of issues with COAH regulations," said Medford solicitor Richard Hunt.

The New Jersey League of Municipalities also has challenged the rules in court and had supported Medford's complaint before the Council on Local Mandates.

League executive director William Dressell said Wednesday he was not discouraged by the complaint's dismissal, arguing that the council simply ruled it did not have appropriate jurisdiction and did not address the substantive issues.

"We're not discouraged at all. The [council] simply felt it didn't fall within their purview," Dressel said, adding that some 250 New Jersey towns have pledged to support the league's legal challenge of the rules.

Under the new regulations, called the COAH Round 3 rules, each New Jersey municipality is required to provide one affordable housing unit for every five market-rate housing units constructed in their towns. They also call for one affordable housing unit for every 16 new jobs created by commercial or industrial development in the municipality.

Based on those guidelines, COAH expects about 115,000 new affordable housing units will be built by 2018.

Medford and other towns complain the rules will require them to spend substantial funds to build the required affordable housing within their borders. They also argue that the methodology used by COAH to calculate each town's required affordable housing quota was flawed, and, in some cases, counted preserved properties or other lands on which the developments cannot be built.

Eighth Legislative District lawmakers Scott Rudder of Medford and Dawn Marie Addiego said they disagreed with the council's decision to dismiss Medford's complaint.

"The council's decision is an insult to the property taxpayers of Medford and everywhere else in New Jersey," Rudder said. "[The] council's ruling is an infuriating injustice and a missed opportunity to correct the largest unfunded mandate in the history on New Jersey."

"Today's ruling carries a $20 billion price tag that will only be shouldered by New Jersey families and property taxpayers," Addiego added.

Last year, the Council on Local Mandates voided a provision of the state budget that would have required 89 towns to pay for state police coverage.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29769023/