 Posted: Sun, Jun 8 2008, 11:00 pm EDT Post subject: Letter to Township Committee on A-500 |
|
| This was sent to the Cranbury Township committee in response to the agenda item on Bill A-500.
To the Cranbury Township Committee, I am glad to see that you are focusing on the legislation regarding affordable housing. It seems that with all the uproar in the State the COAH has caused, the legislature wants to get in the action to actually define the rules. Of course, it is important that those rules are fair to Cranbury (and other towns) while providing the needed benefit of affordable housing in the state. I see on the agenda for the June 9 meeting, a resolution opposing the Roberts affordable housing bill A-500. I will not be able to attend the meeting but wanted to share some thoughts for your consideration regarding the legislation, I will also post this on the Cranbury blog. The A-500 seems to have legs in Trenton and if we take a strong position against, our voices may not be heard. We may want to find a way to support the goal but adjusting the bill so that it is fair to towns like Cranbury. The A-500 bill eliminates the ability for towns to satisfy part of the affordable housing obligation with RCA’s. There is still a need for funding of cities that need the cash for affordable housing that RCA’s previously provided. The bill provides an affordable housing fund with a 2.5% fee on commercial development along with some general state funding. There is a new housing commission to administer that funding. The bill also prohibits towns from collecting funds on commercial development for affordable housing. By reading the bill, I have not been able to determine if that prohibition eliminates requirement for towns to build affordable housing based on commercial development. If towns are no longer required to build affordable housing based on commercial development, this bill would be a huge benefit to Cranbury. Our major problem has been requirements forced upon us by warehouse development. It seems the target for affordable housing units is around 20%. Because Cranbury and CHA have done a great job at building affordable housing and we are close to that level. If this is the intent of the bill, of course, we would need details on how requirements for previously built warehouses are impacted. If the bill means that we cannot assess fees for commercial developers to meet our affordable housing, but are still required to build affordable housing based on commercial development, it would be a disaster for Cranbury. We would have major demands to build affordable housing well beyond the 20% target that would either need to be paid for entirely by taxpayers or by massive building using the builders remedy. Neither are good solutions. It is critical to understand how this bill would impact COAH requirements. Taking a position that Cranbury opposes RCA’s may make us seem unwilling to meet our affordable housing obligations and appear elitist. We may to consider a position that we support a 20% level of affordable housing based on residential housing, we like the concept of the 2.5% fee on commercial development with the new commission best able to determine how to spend those funds for affordable housing where they feel appropriate to meet housing demands for the jobs created by new commercial development. By this fee being controlled in Trenton, it should eliminate towns’ individual obligations to build affordable housing based on commercial development. This position is good for Cranbury and supportive of the legislation being pushed in Trenton. We need to fully understand the intent and ramifications of the bill. We should enlist the support of Linda Greenstein and Wayne DeAngelo to help craft the bill correctly. When it gets to the State Senate where there may be more potential revisions, I can help get Bill Baroni involved. We all need to pull together to help save Cranbury. Thanks for your attention to this note. Win Cody |
|
