N.J. appeals court rules towns can alter zoning laws to allow affordable housing

[wcody]

This ruling is concerning. From what I understand, it says a the court can force a change zoning laws for affordable housing even if the COAH obligation is met. We need to watch this carefully.

Win

N.J. appeals court rules towns can alter zoning laws to allow affordable housing after meeting quota

by Mary Fuchs/Statehouse Bureau
Monday August 24, 2009, 8:08 PM

TRENTON -- New Jersey towns can be forced to alter zoning laws to accommodate affordable housing even after they have met their state quotas for low- and moderate-income homes and apartments, a state appeals court said today.

Noting that affordable housing is a state problem, the appeals court said towns that have met housing obligations created after the state Supreme Court's Mount Laurel fair housing decisions cannot use that as the reason to reject more.

A state appeals court today ruled that municipalities can alter their zoning in order to build affordable housing, even after they have met their quota of building the affordable units. "It is beyond question that even if a municipality meets its Mount Laurel obligation, substandard housing will continue to exist," Judge Michael Winkelstein wrote for the three-judge panel.

The decision was praised by housing advocates who say the state desperately needs more affordable housing, and drew sharp criticism from local leaders who said it would hurt towns.

The court ruled in the case of a non-profit organization, Homes of Hope, which wanted to build eight multi-family dwellings in an area of Eastampton Township in Burlington County that was zoned for single-family homes. The town's land use board denied the request for a variance to build the dwellings, saying the construction was "not inherently beneficial." It also said 100 units of affordable housing were already built and the proposed dwellings would exceed the number required by the state's Fair Housing Act.

The appeals court, backing a lower court decision, said the housing should be allowed.

"The (Eastampton Land Use) Board claims that because the Township has met its fair share obligation, it no longer has a need for low or moderate income housing and, consequently, that type of housing is no longer inherently beneficial so as to qualify as a special reason to support a use variance. We reject that argument," the decision reads.

Christopher Norman, a lawyer for Eastampton -- 11 miles north of Mount Laurel, where the state's decades-long battle over affordable housing began -- said the decision hurts a town's ability to control its own destiny.

"They have always been told -- and this is in the Mount Laurel II decision itself -- that if you meet the affordable housing obligations you're not required to do more," Norman said. "The municipalities were also told if you cooperate and participate in the Council on Affordable Housing process you get to decide how you're going to satisfy it."

Carl Bisgaier, a lawyer for the Fair Share Housing Center, said another law -- the Municipal Land Use Law -- allows hospitals, schools and churches to be built for if they are useful to town residents. "They (Eastampton) feel that they should be able to treat an affordable housing project exactly the way they treat an application for a 6,000 square foot mansion. (That) neither would be inherently beneficial," Bisgaeier said.

Providing affordable housing is a benefit to residents, he said. The state Council on Affordable Housing has said 173,000 new affordable houses and apartments will be needed in New Jersey by 2018.

"The reality is that there are hundreds of thousands of households in New Jersey that are in desperate need of affordable shelter," Bisgaier said.
But advocates worry the decision set a dangerous precedent.

"It brings to question what is the real meaning and purpose of the Fair Housing Act," said William Dressel, executive director of the state League of Municipalities. "It's problematic for towns that have done all they've been asked to by the state, the legislature, the Corzine Administration and the Council on Affordable Housing."

Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, said developers could use it as a "battering ram" against local zoning laws, potentially ruining a town's environment.

In a separate but concurring, opinion, Judge Amy Piro Chambers said legislators can change the two laws so towns cannot be forced to build affordable housing after meeting their quotas.

State Sen. Christopher Bateman (R-Somerset) said he would "vigorously pursue" such a change.

"The Corzine administration promised that if towns didn't pursue commercial development and met the quotas set down by the Council on Affordable Housing, they would be protected," he said.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/town_forced_to_build_affordabl.html

[Jay T.]

[publius]

Damn activist judges!!!!!
See, I told you that it doesn't really matter whom you vote for..........they will ALWAYS find a loophole to screw you over.
Why do builders get so much pull?
Are they busy greasing palms of legislators, who then appoint judges who are their buddies at the club?
We all know that NJ government is THE WORST in the nation, but, why do we keep putting up with it?
Too many cushy inside deals going on here.

[publius]

p.s.

Why do taxpayers ALWAYS have to subsidize the "private" sector?
If companies paid their people a decent wage, we wouldn't have to build so much "affordable" housing!!!!!!!!

Thats what it comes down to.
Privatize the profits
Socialize the costs

[Jersey Dad]

[Guest]

[Guest]

This is a disgusting turn of events.

Hopefully, the efforts to indict our esteemed elected officials continue (44 crooks is but a drop in the bucket...and I love the north Jersey legislator accused yesterday of signing payroll/campain checks into his own account). But we need to do the rest. Think hard, friends, before casting a single vote for our incumbent Assembly reps. The alternatives in our district are pretty obscure, but this may be a case where going with the "devil you know" is NOT a preferred option. I've read Deangelo's "accomplishments". Simply a farce.

And back on the COAH topic...having a judiciary bending over for the rabid affordable housing interests is nothing short of disgusting. I appreciate a society ensuring people have access to food and shelter or helping those temporarily on hard times pull themselves up by the boot straps. But our "welfare" system does nothing to encourage people to better themselves or their situations. Able individuals on long term benefits? Why? And when did assistance turn into an expected entitlement?

NJ's affordable housing debacle is self-perpetuating. The way it is designed only creates economic hardship and diminishes the quality of life for the majority of communities facing unreasonable mandates. The courts have gone of the deep end by mis-interpreting a case that essentially says you cannot EXCLUDE people as a constitutional mandate to ensure that people should have the ability to live wherever they want even if their economic situation does not allow for it. Well, guess what, I live within my means. I don't carry an expectation that I should have state assistance to live in a home or community beyond my economic means.

Rant over...I need more coffee.

[publius]

HERE HERE!
I too am in favor of helping those who stay out of trouble and play by the rules who may, through no fault of their own, come upon unforeseen circumstances which threaten their homes, their incomes or their abilities to take care of their families.
But, where do you draw the line?
Does a government just keep pushing till they've pushed too far?
Judges are beholden to NO ONE?
Once they get in, they are there for a LONG time.
Judges were supposed to be apolitical.
But, COAH seems to be THE hottest political football to come along in decades. I'm all for giving someone a hand-up.......but, I am dead-set against giving people hand-outs-especially when times are tough for everyone now.
It just seems that the rules are bizarre and done arbitrarily and capriciously with malice aforethought. We should be able to negotiate on a case-by-case basis with each town involved with such decisions. Just because we are a well-off community doesn't mean we have money to p*ss away!

I'd still like to know why builder's have such pull in this state. Are they all in bed with the politicians ? Do mobsters...er...um... I mean...builders own the people that we elect into office and then they do the work of the highest bidder instead of working for us?

NAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think that was just a Sopranos episode.

[wcody]

An interesting editorial by the Star-Ledger on the latest affordable housing court ruling is in this note. Cranbury and other towns are in quite a bind now since even COAH obligations are met, the court now has precedence to force zoning changes for more affordable housing.

What is most important now is that legislation gets enacted to straighten out this mess. In her opinion note, the judge even encouraged the legislature to act. The current situation is not good for anyone. The rules are so unfair and unjust; they are being fought by municipalities. The people needing affordable housing are not getting the housing since we are stuck in a legal morass and building is being stalled statewide. There have been many in the state legislature calling for immediate legislative change to fix the situation. I will do what I can to encourage our legislators to act responsibly. Others should also speak out to our legislators in order to get them to act and fix this problem.

Win


Disorder in housing law

Posted by The Star-Ledger Editorial Board
August 28, 2009 6:10AM

New Jersey's housing policy is beginning to resemble a nasty little game of bait and switch.

Municipalities that voluntarily entered into agreements with the state Council on Affordable Housing were supposedly relieved of any further obligation to build affordable housing. If by COAH's measure your town's "fair share" was, say, 300 units, and those units were built, no one could come in and sue to force the town into accepting more.

Now a state appeals court has ruled that just because a town met its fair share of low- and moderate-priced housing does not mean it can reject more of the same.

Under the ruling. Homes of Hope, a nonprofit developer, could build two duplexes in Eastampton Township in Burlington County, in an area zoned for single-family homes.

The town board had refused a zoning variance. But in upholding a lower court decision, the appeals court said affordable housing is an "inherent benefit" to the community and Homes of Hope can proceed, even though Eastampton Township had already met its COAH target of 100 affordable housing units.

It's a small case, involving just four apartments and a nonprofit builder, not a big development. But the ruling threatens to undermine local zoning efforts and master plans and to make COAH irrelevant.

After all, the whole point of joining the COAH process was to maintain local control over where and how a town's "fair share" of affordable housing would be built. The latest court ruling snatches that control away. Why would a town bother with COAH now, if it can still be taken to court and forced to change its zoning?

Judge Amy Prio Chambers has the right idea. In a concurring opinion, she said the laws should be changed so towns cannot be forced to build affordable housing after they have fulfilled their COAH quotas.

In fact, the whole process of COAH needs to be reviewed. The agency estimates that 173,000 affordable housing units are needed statewide by 2018. COAH has already been bogged down by interminable legal challenges; the latest ruling only ensures that further delays will ensue.

[Homer]

Thanks for posting that editorial, Win. Are you sure its from the "Far-Lefter"? That doesn't sound like their usual communist dribble.