Author	Message
Guest	Posted: Tue, Apr 29 2008, 9:35 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Don't pit affordable housing (Trenton Times EDITORIAL) Guest wrote: Agree. It is politics and favors. Funny that as the housing slump occurs and builders need jobs suddenly COAH's regulations are increased dramatically. People like Roberts just care about giving back to the unions and financial supporters. Exactly. Roberts is the living stereotype of NJ corrupt politics, bald faced in the service of unions and special interests.
Guest	Posted: Tue, Apr 29 2008, 6:58 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Don't pit affordable housing (Trenton Times EDITORIAL) Agree. It is politics and favors. Funny that as the housing slump occurs and builders need jobs suddenly COAH's regulations are increased dramatically. People like Roberts just care about giving back to the unions and financial supporters.
Guest	Posted: Tue, Apr 29 2008, 4:57 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Don't pit affordable housing (Trenton Times EDITORIAL) Guest wrote: I'm beginning to wonder who exactly works for COAH? Why has their plan been so poorly researched? It's either laziness or perhaps an organization that doesnt have the resources to do what it wants to do. Neither. It is a politics. They take their lead from the Democratic leadership of the the NJ State Assembly. It is speaker Roberts who is really pushing this. To be clear, COAH didn't come up with a methodology to get to a new affordable housing #. They were handed a # and told to come up with a methodology to justify it. COAH is not the enemy here. Roberts and his like are. And I say that as a Democrat, but one pretty ashamed that people like him are part of the Party.
guestb	Posted: Tue, Apr 29 2008, 3:21 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Don't pit affordable housing (Trenton Times EDITORIAL) Any proposal for the town? Are we responsible for finding ways to add to our police, fire dept, post office, schools, etc.? Cranbury Conservative wrote: Don't pit affordable housing Tuesday, April 29, 2008 BY MICHELE S. BYERS Everyone knows it's expensive to live in New Jersey and that housing costs are through the roof. For more than 20 years, our state has been trying to provide affordable housing. It's an important public goal, one that we ought to be able to figure out. Unfortunately, new rules put out by New Jersey's Council on Affordable Housing will pit housing needs against clean water, open space and other environmental quality needs of our citizens. Meeting the need for affordable housing doesn't have to mean more sprawl or come at the ex pense of our water supply, parks, open lands and natural amenities. New Jersey's Supreme Court, in its Mount Laurel decisions, ruled that every municipality must provide a realistic opportunity through local zoning to accommodate its fair share of low- and moderate-in come housing. The state's Fair Housing Act of 1985 established the Council on Affordable Housing (commonly known as COAH) to calculate housing need, assign affordable housing obligations and make sure local governments meet those obligations. One of the main tools has been "inclusionary" development -- re quiring low- and moderate-income homes to be built as part of larger, market-rate housing developments. In effect, the sale of market-rate housing subsidizes the affordable homes. Over time, this method of providing affordable homes has re sulted in thousands of units of market-rate housing being built in rural communities, often on farmland and environmentally sensitive lands. The small percentage of affordable units that have been built are often far from jobs and public transportation. Now the proposed COAH rules call for more than 115,000 new affordable housing units across the state. If inclusionary development remains the primary way to reach this goal -- with four to five new market-priced homes allowed for each affordable unit -- a total of al most 700,000 new homes will be re quired by 2018. Where would we put all this in clusionary development? COAH's proposed rules stubbornly refuse to recognize many factors affecting public health, safety and welfare, and have targeted more farmland and open spaces for development. For starters, COAH's estimate of the state's "vacant, developable" land is severely flawed. In addition to making blatant errors like including airport runways, highway medians, back yards and even the Picatinny Arsenal (owned by the federal Department of Defense), the rules completely disregard local ordinances that limit development in order to protect water supply and quality, environmental health and community character. The proposed rules are also not well integrated with other significant, legislatively mandated plans, including the State Plan for Development and Redevelopment and the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan. The very existence of the Highlands Regional Master Plan is ignored. A lack of coordination with these plans is a recipe for disaster. The COAH rules guide affordable units into the State Plan's designated growth areas: Planning Area 1 (urban) or Planning Area 2 (suburban), population centers and existing sewer service areas. However, the Department of Environmental Protection is now revis ing and shrinking sewer service areas because they are decades out of date and not in compliance with current environmental standards. Allowing thousands of new housing units in these old sewer service areas would mean even more sprawl in rural and environmentally sensitive areas. To make matters worse, the proposed rules cap the amount of future open space and recreation land that can be excluded from the developable area, limiting towns to having, at most, 6 percent of their total acreage as parks and recreation areas. Municipalities' ability to preserve farmland, open space and parks for their communities would be severely hampered and the re sult would be a distinctly urban landscape. As we learn more about the many benefits of open space -- as individual as fostering better health, as critical as protecting our water supply and as universal as mitigating global climate change -- these proposed rules ignore today's realities. Instead, COAH should encourage affordable housing to be provided through redevelopment in areas where infrastructure, jobs and public transportation are available, and offer incentives for building affordable housing without the addition of market-rate units. Rehabilitation and "buy-downs" of existing housing should also provide a larger share of the state's affordable housing need. New Jerseyans are fed up with suburban sprawl and continue to vote for preserving our forests, farmland and open space. But most folks also understand and ap preciate the need for affordable housing in this very expensive state we're in. A more carefully thought- out set of rules would prevent these from becoming mutually exclusive goals. Michele S. Byers is executive di rector of the New Jersey Conserva tion Foundation. Contact her at in fo@njconservation.org, or visit NJCF's website at www.njconserva tion.org, for more information about conserving New Jersey's land and natural resources. Learn more about the proposed COAH rules at www.state.nj.us/dca/coah/. © 2008 The Times of Trenton © 2008 NJ.com All Rights Reserved.
COAH	Posted: Tue, Apr 29 2008, 3:14 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Don't pit affordable housing (Trenton Times EDITORIAL) Guest wrote: I'm beginning to wonder who exactly works for COAH? Why has their plan been so poorly researched? It's either laziness or perhaps an organization that doesnt have the resources to do what it wants to do. You know, a powerful organization like COAH, with its rule making authority that can destroy a town like Cranbury, requires more careful oversight and more capable leadership.
Guest	Posted: Tue, Apr 29 2008, 2:32 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Don't pit affordable housing (Trenton Times EDITORIAL) I'm beginning to wonder who exactly works for COAH? Why has their plan been so poorly researched? It's either laziness or perhaps an organization that doesnt have the resources to do what it wants to do.
Cranbury Conservative	Posted: Tue, Apr 29 2008, 9:42 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Don't pit affordable housing (Trenton Times EDITORIAL) Based on this search of google news I would say the answer is.... http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=&q=COAH No good news to report on COAH.
Guest	Posted: Tue, Apr 29 2008, 9:34 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Don't pit affordable housing (Trenton Times EDITORIAL) Just curious... are there ANY articles or opinion pieces in favor of COAH's proposals? It seems that nobody thinks this is a good idea... it should be easy to defeat.
Cranbury Conservative	Posted: Tue, Apr 29 2008, 9:22 am EDT    Post subject: Don't pit affordable housing (Trenton Times EDITORIAL) Don't pit affordable housing Tuesday, April 29, 2008 BY MICHELE S. BYERS Everyone knows it's expensive to live in New Jersey and that housing costs are through the roof. For more than 20 years, our state has been trying to provide affordable housing. It's an important public goal, one that we ought to be able to figure out. Unfortunately, new rules put out by New Jersey's Council on Affordable Housing will pit housing needs against clean water, open space and other environmental quality needs of our citizens. Meeting the need for affordable housing doesn't have to mean more sprawl or come at the ex pense of our water supply, parks, open lands and natural amenities. New Jersey's Supreme Court, in its Mount Laurel decisions, ruled that every municipality must provide a realistic opportunity through local zoning to accommodate its fair share of low- and moderate-in come housing. The state's Fair Housing Act of 1985 established the Council on Affordable Housing (commonly known as COAH) to calculate housing need, assign affordable housing obligations and make sure local governments meet those obligations. One of the main tools has been "inclusionary" development -- re quiring low- and moderate-income homes to be built as part of larger, market-rate housing developments. In effect, the sale of market-rate housing subsidizes the affordable homes. Over time, this method of providing affordable homes has re sulted in thousands of units of market-rate housing being built in rural communities, often on farmland and environmentally sensitive lands. The small percentage of affordable units that have been built are often far from jobs and public transportation. Now the proposed COAH rules call for more than 115,000 new affordable housing units across the state. If inclusionary development remains the primary way to reach this goal -- with four to five new market-priced homes allowed for each affordable unit -- a total of al most 700,000 new homes will be re quired by 2018. Where would we put all this in clusionary development? COAH's proposed rules stubbornly refuse to recognize many factors affecting public health, safety and welfare, and have targeted more farmland and open spaces for development. For starters, COAH's estimate of the state's "vacant, developable" land is severely flawed. In addition to making blatant errors like including airport runways, highway medians, back yards and even the Picatinny Arsenal (owned by the federal Department of Defense), the rules completely disregard local ordinances that limit development in order to protect water supply and quality, environmental health and community character. The proposed rules are also not well integrated with other significant, legislatively mandated plans, including the State Plan for Development and Redevelopment and the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan. The very existence of the Highlands Regional Master Plan is ignored. A lack of coordination with these plans is a recipe for disaster. The COAH rules guide affordable units into the State Plan's designated growth areas: Planning Area 1 (urban) or Planning Area 2 (suburban), population centers and existing sewer service areas. However, the Department of Environmental Protection is now revis ing and shrinking sewer service areas because they are decades out of date and not in compliance with current environmental standards. Allowing thousands of new housing units in these old sewer service areas would mean even more sprawl in rural and environmentally sensitive areas. To make matters worse, the proposed rules cap the amount of future open space and recreation land that can be excluded from the developable area, limiting towns to having, at most, 6 percent of their total acreage as parks and recreation areas. Municipalities' ability to preserve farmland, open space and parks for their communities would be severely hampered and the re sult would be a distinctly urban landscape. As we learn more about the many benefits of open space -- as individual as fostering better health, as critical as protecting our water supply and as universal as mitigating global climate change -- these proposed rules ignore today's realities. Instead, COAH should encourage affordable housing to be provided through redevelopment in areas where infrastructure, jobs and public transportation are available, and offer incentives for building affordable housing without the addition of market-rate units. Rehabilitation and "buy-downs" of existing housing should also provide a larger share of the state's affordable housing need. New Jerseyans are fed up with suburban sprawl and continue to vote for preserving our forests, farmland and open space. But most folks also understand and ap preciate the need for affordable housing in this very expensive state we're in. A more carefully thought- out set of rules would prevent these from becoming mutually exclusive goals. Michele S. Byers is executive di rector of the New Jersey Conserva tion Foundation. Contact her at in fo@njconservation.org, or visit NJCF's website at www.njconserva tion.org, for more information about conserving New Jersey's land and natural resources. Learn more about the proposed COAH rules at www.state.nj.us/dca/coah/. © 2008 The Times of Trenton © 2008 NJ.com All Rights Reserved.