 Posted: Mon, Sep 7 2009, 10:31 am EDT Post subject: RCAs: A Useful Tool for an Affordable New JerseyShare |
|
| An interesting note about legislation from Jennifer Beck on RCA's.
RCAs: A Useful Tool for an Affordable New JerseyShare by Senator Jennifer Beck Wednesday, August 19, 2009 at 11:04am It cannot be denied that New Jersey’s Council on Affordable Housing was created with the admirable intention of helping resolve our State’s affordable housing problem. However, the most recent regulations allow COAH to use faulty data to assign municipalities unwieldy affordable housing obligations and include new obligations of affordable housing based on on-going commercial development, and requiring a new affordable housing unit for every 16 jobs (deemed to be created whenever a commercial building is built or expanded), regardless of whether there actually has been any job growth. Compounding this, statutory changes adopted in 2008 limit the devices municipalities are permitted to use to meet those obligations; most importantly, eliminating regional contributions agreements. It was the intention of COAH from the very start to rehabilitate existing housing for affordable use, and to create new housing in the areas in which it was needed most. Rounds one and two of the COAH rules presented some difficulties for some municipalities, but, for the most part, those difficulties were eased by certain tools COAH made available in order to increase the numbers of units produced overall. RCAs, which had been used in good faith by many municipalities wishing to deal with their obligations in the way that was most responsible and responsive to their Master Plan, allowed municipalities to make a financial contribution to another municipality in return for them accepting a portion of their affordable housing obligation. Up to 50% of a town’s obligation could be transferred using an RCA, and 25% of that number was permitted to be age-restricted housing. The majority of municipalities that submitted a plan to COAH to receive substantive certification and protect themselves from builders remedy used RCAs. The end result was a substantial growth in the number of affordable housing units statewide. Municipalities in my Legislative District like East Windsor Township and Manalapan Township used the pre 2008 affordable housing regulations and statute as a land use tool, following the stated intent of the Fair Housing Act. Ultimately, their affordable housing plan, which included RCAs, helped shape their Master Plan. In my home town of Red Bank, RCA dollars were used to rehabilitate existing housing stock, which otherwise would have continued to deteriorate. This story is repeated in our urban centers. Between 1988 and 2000, Jersey City gained $6.9 million in funding through RCAs, from 1988 and 1991, Newark earned $12 million and between 1996 and 2005, Trenton earned $24 million for affordable housing. These receiving cities, along with other urban centers, now have only $1.3 million to split between them. As a State Senator representing a district containing municipalities on both sides of RCAs, both sending and receiving, I have seen first hand how useful a tool this can be to actually provide the affordable housing needed in our State. In July of last year, RCAs were not only removed as a device through which municipalities were able to fulfill their COAH obligations, but 72 RCAs agreements already entered into by municipalities before July 17, 2008 were declared null and void. I have legislation in front of the Senate, and my colleagues Assembly members Declan O’Scanlon and Caroline Casagrande have an identical bill in front of the General Assembly, that would reinstate the 72 RCAs that were already in place before A-500 passed, which nullified them. I requested a vote on my bill before the full Senate before our summer break, but that motion was tabled along party lines. My colleagues and I are also supporting legislation to fully reinstate RCA agreements as a land use tool. New Jersey is a state in which we truly appreciate home-rule, and agreements that are entered into between two municipalities should not be voided by the State. The current law offers no flexibility in terms of how municipalities meet their obligations, which, for many towns, have increased significantly in the newest round. Some towns simply don’t have the room or the resources to produce as many affordable housing units as COAH has assigned them. The constitutional underpinning of the Fair Housing Act and the Mount Laurel doctrine is that increasing useful land use tools and builder incentives to create affordable housing will lead to a realistic opportunity for such housing. The current COAH regulations and statutes ignore this, and focus instead on forcing municipal taxpayers and homebuyers to become financers of such housing. Urban centers that had their RCAs revoked were told that the funding for their projects would be made up by the Urban Housing and Assistance Program. This program is administered through the New Jersey Affordable Housing Trust Fund, into which 2.5 percent non-residential development fees are to be deposited. According to A-500, the first $20 million collected annually statewide in non-residential development fees would go directly into the Urban Housing and Assistance program. Since A-500 was signed into law on July 17, 2008, only $1.3 million has been collected in State fees. Since this fund has fallen seriously short of its goal, our urban centers are losing out on significant dollars. In fact, since the non-residential development fee has not amounted to anywhere near the amount originally promised, and yet, has still acted as a detriment to commercial entities investing in New Jersey, it is clear that RCAs, not non-residential fees, are more useful in dealing with the lack of affordable housing in the State. In my opinion the 2.5% commercial development assessment for affordable housing is a significant deterrent to job creation. A bill passed at the end of the legislative session would suspend that aspect of the law for 18 months. It also provided $15 million to fulfill the funding promise made under A-500 to the Urban Housing and Assistance program, but also will be used to refund dollars to municipalities that had to return the 2.5%. In my opinion, the Fair Housing Act was never intended to be tied to commercial growth and economic development in the manner that COAH has done in calculating the affordable housing need. Job growth is being inferred under the COAH rules from incremental building expansion – without taking into account job losses which may have recently occurred. Over the last several years, New Jersey has seen a negative population growth, and so many of the people remaining are having an increasingly difficult time making ends meet. Our unemployment is the highest in the region, and our property taxes are the highest in the nation. Affordability, and specifically the affordability of housing, is something that must be addressed now; otherwise, as the nation pulls out of this recession, New Jersey will be left behind still suffering from poor planning and wasteful management. published in the New Jersey Conference of Mayors Quarterly Magazine |
|
