88
comments

Critics blast Christie administration's new NJ affordable housing plan

NJ Community Affairs Commissioner testifies on Hurricane Sandy relief in Trenton
Richard Constable, chairman of the state Council on Affordable Housing, testifies in Trenton in February. (Patti Sapone/The Star-Ledger)
Brent Johnson/The Star-Ledger By Brent Johnson/The Star-Ledger The Star-Ledger
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on July 02, 2014 at 3:37 PM, updated July 02, 2014 at 6:31 PM
Reddit
Email

TRENTON — Housing advocates today took aim at the Christie administration's long-awaited guidelines for how many affordable homes New Jersey needs, calling the plan inadequate and arguing that it violates a mandate from the state Supreme Court.

They also accused the administration of secretly making changes to the proposal after it was introduced in April.

The state Council on Affordable Housing held a public hearing today on the regulations, which would govern how many homes each New Jersey town should make available to low-income residents.


READ THE GUIDELINES HERE

The plan — which the council introduced only after being ordered by the state Supreme Court — replaces quotas that expired 15 years ago and calls for an additional 110,000 affordable homes across the state by 2024.

But critics today said that's not enough to cover a state with 8.8 million residents and growing poverty. They also said the plan provides no requirements for rental homes — which they argued is essential in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, because many victims need new or temporary shelter.

"This council proposed rules that will result in many, many fewer homes for hard-working New Jerseyans who make our economy and our community hum," said Staci Berger, president of the Housing an Community Development Network of New Jersey.

Affordable housing has been a contentious issue in New Jersey for years. In 1983, the state Supreme Court ruled that the state's municipalities must provide for a "fair share" of affordable homes for their poorest residents. While studies show up to 60,000 such homes have been built in the state since then, the last few decades have been riddled with a string of legal challenges.

The council, known as COAH, carries out the program. But the last quotas expired in 1999, the council had not met regularly since 2010, and six of its 12 seats are vacant.

Gov. Chris Christie tried to disband COAH — which is headed by his state Department of Community Affairs commissioner, Richard Constable — last year. But the state Supreme Court stopped him and ruled that the board had to write new rules.

The Republican governor responded by calling the affordable housing system "a failed experiment now continuing to be promulgated by an out-of-control court that can never admit its mistakes."

Under the Supreme Court's ruling, COAH has until November to finalize the new regulations.

Kevin Walsh, president of the housing advocacy group Fair Share Housing Center, said the court also told the council to use the same methodology it used for determining housing numbers in the 1980s and 1990s. But Walsh and other advocates today said the new guidelines ignore that order.

Walsh also accused the council of voting on the rules in April and then changing them before today's hearing, reducing the number of homes called for by 40,000.

"Was there a vote taken? Something in which board members secretly met?" Walsh angrily asked the council. "The process was possibly the least transparent the administration has ever done. When people show up to comment, they should at least know what they're commenting on.

Constable told Walsh that the council would only hear public comment today, not respond to it.

"Is what you're telling me that you're not going to answer that question?" Walsh asked.

"Yes," Constable replied.

Tim Doherty, the sole council member who voted against the guidelines, said he too was curious about any alterations.

"Sooner or later, we need to get these answers," said Doherty, the executive director of Project Freedom, a nonprofit organization that builds affordable housing. "I feel offended that I haven't been told why or to what measure these rules have been changed."

Constable noted that residents can still mail comments to the council through Aug. 1.

A spokeswoman for the council said members would not be available for comment after the meeting.

Critics had a number of other concerns, as well. David Fisher, president of the New Jersey Builders Association, said the rules also leave hundreds of towns without an obligation to provide housing.

"The state cannot afford more years of ineffective regulations that frustrate the constitutional obligation to assist in providing desperately needed affordable housing," Fisher said.

Tom Carroll, a Princeton attorney, argued that the guidelines will lead to an even larger number of lawsuits than the state has already been saddled with regarding affordable housing.

"Is this going to be the Council on Affordable Housing, or the Council for More Litigation?" Carroll asked the board.

Jeff Tittel, president of the New Jersey chapter of environmental group the Sierra Club, said the regulations also change housing formulas to favor developers, encouraging them to "pave over" environmentally sensitive areas.

Under the old rules, he noted, a developer would be allowed to build four housing units to sell at a regular cost for every affordable unit they constructed. Under the new rules, they would be permitted to build nine.

"These rules are the biggest giveaway to developers in state history," Tittel said. "They will promote sprawl and overdevelopment, while increasing pollution, taxes, and traffic. There is no economic basis for these rules except to make builders and developers richer."

RELATED COVERAGE

NJ releases new affordable housing rules, but advocates are not happy

More Politics

FOLLOW STAR-LEDGER POLITICS: TWITTERFACEBOOKGOOGLE+


  • FOR RENT

    Alpine Court Communities

    1-2 Beds, 1 Bath


    MORE INFO >

    Lindenwold, NJ

  • FOR RENT

    Pine Ridge Apartments

    1-2 Beds, 1 Bath


    MORE INFO >

    Lindenwold, NJ

Reddit
Email
88 comments

 

Jac

GOP wants profit profit profit profit huge tax write offs for businesses. Everyone knows when you vote GOP that you don't mind them raising everything to accommodate the rich and capitalism. Americans for Prosperity. And this state has so much tax dollars flowing.. You are a gold mine.

Nora's Tea Party

@Jac That is very silly ya know.   Businesses actually don't pay taxes at all... the CUSTOMERS do.  <grin> That's you, honey.     Every tax businesses pay comes right out of your pocket, every time you buy something.


Didn't you wonder why your money doesn't seem to go very far.   Don't blame businesses, dear, it's YOUR politicians that have their hand in YOUR pocket due to excessive taxation of businesses.


It's YOUR job that just went to another state that treat's businesses as they should be treated, the heart of the economic engine that provides for YOU.     


Let's pretend you are down on your luck, out of a job, property taxes are killing you, you go to the store and can't afford much...    You sit and blame businesses for it when those who are KILLING the small businesses in this state are the ones who took your job away and put you on welfare.


Are you PROUD to be on welfare?  Don't you want a job?   Don't you want to make enough so you can live in comfort verses hand to mouth?    If you do, then you should be supporting reduction of taxation and regulation on all businesses as when that happens MORE jobs become available.   


Use your head to figure things out... not fall, hook, line, and sinker for the liberal propaganda.

Get Real

Based on the Ledger's past reporting and editorial support, its hard to imagine the SL providing a thorough, objective, analysis of this policy. Past stories have featured photos of little girls doing cartwheels against blue skies and green grass, and stories filled with platitudes and  pious self-righteousness.


The Ledger's attitude has been that the program has a noble goal and it means well, so we all should ignore, excuse and/or forgive the real costs, ugly self-interest, inefficient administration, and arbitrary, deceitful, and ineffective results.

NEWJERSEYJEFF

If they want affordable housing... move to Pa.! Sick and tired of hearing from these people.  Why won't the Dems let a constitutional amendment be voted on by the public to clear all this up?  They have no problem letting us all vote on the minimum wage.  The Dems in the statehouse want this..... just remember that.

citizen17

@NEWJERSEYJEFF Until affordable housing is no longer the law in NJ, Christie and his cabal should be complying.  Do you think NJ should have a governor who gets to pick and chose which laws to obey?

Spudwrench

Housing's nice, but a more prosaic goal is to greatly expand the seats on buses.  The eaters take up most of two seats, often munching on the bus. Perhaps salt and pepper and public jugs of mustard and catsup could be provided for their dining pleasure? Just add it to the cost of fare for the rest of us. It's the least we can do.  

cl500

Can't we stick them all in one area of NJ then section it off with the military?  By HARD WORK & ACHIEVEMENT you will be able to afford to live in a nicer community.  When is society going to realize HANDOUTS to these people don't work & are unfair to the people that work hard?

bill9411

@cl500 You mean like what the nazi did during the war??? Man , your parents must be so proud of you..

cl500

@bill9411 @cl500  There is plenty of affordable housing in Newark, Trenton, Camden, Passaic, Paterson, etc.  Housing prices should be based on what the free market will bear. You want to live in a nice community? Work hard and achieve? If you don't? Sit home in your tenement in Newark and be lucky you get food stamps and other Government, taxpayer handouts. 

Nora's Tea Party

FIRSTLY... the residents of a town (you BTW) have no personal obligation to finance with your tax dollars the construction of new housing.   Therefore, if new housing is required, then we do have an obligation to facilitate said development by NOT expecting the developer to not make a profit and be able to pay the workers... jobs ya know..    remember them? 


SECONDLY..  affordability is NOT about purchase price as much as it is about continuing overhead in carrying costs.   Property tax is what makes housing unaffordable, not purchase price.     Therefore, to truly address the obligation to facilitate affordable housing....

We must FIRST address property tax.    To fix THAT we have to address education funding which is HALF of property tax.    Jersey being one of the last states to STILL have municiple level school funding and not have implemented some form of State Funded Tuition Allowance program.   

A Tuition Allowance system sets every public school's budget at the total of the allowances for attendees.     Property tax is CUT IN HALF.     Income tax takes the funding burden, which is IT's constitutional purpose.. to reduce property tax.  THEN we have a CLIMATE where affordable housing will work, long term.


THEN to really do goodness to all involved, ie: the citizens of Jersey, poor or otherwise, human or otherwise, we also need to facilitate redevelopment of blighted city space....     THAT project should be sponsored by the environmentalists as rebuilding to create things like roof garden cities would be pretty cool to work on.   I've got dib's on Camden <grin>.   Been dreaming of rebuilding some neighborhoods for decades.  Makes me cry as I remember when they were nice.   They can be nice again.

THEN we have to ensure land-use law is appropriately modified to encourage the MIXXED USE type community development.     In small towns, folk live above their shops.. live with their shops <grin>.  We need to re-purpose all those empty stores and light industrial buildings..   USE THEM for housing as not everyone wants or needs a house, just an apartment (of various sizes).    


BUT.... nothing we do on the construction side of the cost of housing will work until we address the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM which is property taxes.     Much of the demand for low income to move out of cities is the quality of education for their children.    With Tuition Allowances paid by the state, there are no longer any district barriers so each child of the public can choose to go to ANY public school.


Then, my friends we solve the real problems which are not affordability, but access to a quality of life that is not a slum....    Urban revitalization is critical to the economy of New Jersey... plowing up farm fields for new housing developments is NOT.   


Affordable Housing For Dummies:


Step #1:  Initiate a state income tax funded Tuition Allowance system.

Step #2:  Initiate dedicated funding source for special needs.  It's own budget managed by DHHS.

Result = Property tax cut in half.  Taxation balanced more fairly by income vs fixed asset market value.


Step #3:  Implement affordable housing plan which included, land use changes, sufficient developer profit for motivation to build at all (DUH), rules that recognize plowing open space under verses reuse of per-developed properties is frowned upon (will not be facilitated).  


AND... to preserve open space best, make carring cost to taxpayer ZERO.   Only tax improvements, not land.    Then folk are not motivated to sell the family farm to developers in the first place.   (another DUH).    Side benefit to that is you eliminate all the tax abatement programs like Farm Land assessments, tree steward, buying development rights, etc..   


The best keepers of the land are those families that live on it....  not government..



Nora's Tea Party

AND... (on a roll) If we do all THAT... then Guess what!


1.  Granny can afford to stay in her home when Pop's pops off to the great beyond and all she has left is social security priced at 50 years ago.


2.  Our youngsters will be able to buy something in town and not have to live with US until they are 30's...  Ahhhhhhh....   


3.  Villages form in the mixxed use shop's areas.   That's important really, as Baby Boomers are crafters, they are scaling back in housing needs, have marketable hobbies and often dream of having a small shop.   Keeping our Baby Boomers in state means not taxing them off to S. Carolina...   

Out-flight of retirees is sucking our economy dry..  Baby Boomers possess HALF the wealth of the country.. they BUY stuff for kids, grandkids, etc..    If they are HERE they spend it here, if we drive them out....  we have budget gaps... bigger and bigger..

The Baby Boomer tsunami is about to (is already really) swamp our economy UNLESS we do something to keep them here... ie:  all of the above.   <grin> 

2sickofit

@Nora's Tea Party Christie eliminated the public retiree COLA.  I guess he's not interested in keeping the ones with lower incomes -- those who need the COLA -- in state.  That would be typical of a Republican, though.  Only the well-off are valued.


But that's penny wise and pound foolish, because the low to middle income retirees make up the bulk of public sector retirees, and there's buying power in numbers.  And these people won't be adding children to the schools.  They're the cheap ones to keep.

Spudwrench

@2sickofit @Nora's Tea Party


The state sends billions to public servants retired out of state and moved to locations with lower taxes. The rest of us are following their lead. It cannot end well for the Socialist State of Jersey, as the process snowballs and revenues slide.

Nora's Tea Party

@2sickofit @Nora's Tea Party When WE (the people) stand up in strong enough numbers and scream "ENOUGH Already!" and make them address property tax, then everyone benefits.


Anyone on fixed income, be they state retirees, or SSecurity, or private sector 401K distribution, has a tough time keeping afloat when you have to buy your house once and pay a second morgue (forever) in property tax.


If folk would stop FALLING for the whole emotional propaganda stuff, like GOP has it in for state workers crap, or racist crap, which is all dust kicked in the eyes of the stupid so they won't LOOK at the real problems... THEN maybe we can address the real issues.


Jersey can only keep good people HERE by treating people good.   Not treating citizens like some bottomless cash cow and beggering our middle class.


Propagandists WANT folk to believe that it's all those nasty rich folk's fault which is a bunch of hog-wash.    The problem is POOR public policy..   period.   


Good policy has to be good for EVERYONE.. Not just one class, or one minority, or one industry... everyone, else it's no good.

citizen17

"There is no economic basis for these rules except to make builders and developers richer."

When has Christie ever needed any more reason than that?


Semaj

@citizen17 It is the democrats that promulgate these rules for their developer cronies to allow them to rezone and overdevelop questionable properties for maximum profit.  Christie wanted to eliminate COAH altogether and force developers to develop within the confines of the zoning rules currently in place.

bikefixr

So much dis-information and falsehoods. COAH was established to develop, implement and oversee Affordable Housing. The reason for the act was because Towns were zoning in such away as to make it unaffordable for people to live there. This is exclusionary zoning. It was also unfair to a lot of people who grew up in these communities. Wealthy New Yorkers moving to NJ and driving prices out of control. Or plain snobbishness. The problem in this thread is that people are commenting on a subject they know nothing about. The people who live in the affordable housing are YOUR kids fresh out of school in their first job. YOUR widowed Mothers needing to downsize and economize. Your Teachers, Firefighters, Police who are good enough to serve your communities but who don't make enough to buy a liveable home in the very towns they serve. If you live in a modest-intermediate level Condo development built in the last 20 years...your neighbor might have the same exact type of unit you do, but it's an affordable unit regulated under COAH by the Mount Laurel Decision. You don't know where they are except in a few instances whereby the specific neighborhood within the development are designated as Affordable. These aren't derelict people. These are your family and friends and public servants. How do I know? I got my start in a development in Bedminster in the HILLS. A very affluent community, we lived in tidy, bare-bones 1,2,3 BR condos. Many restrictions apply. I was a year out of College starting my career. My new wife was a Teacher. Together, we could barely afford a rental anywhere in the immediate area. Our neighbors were all young people getting a start or older people winding down. Our community was lovely, and still is 30 years after it was built. These units are NOT run by the Government, and this is not public housing as in NYC. We had a Condo board like all development are required to have. The Affordable housing units are regulated by a private entity with the sole purpose of keeping true to the intent. Often time the County has an affordable housing office that does the same.  In my extensive experience...they all do a damn fine job at it. Several of my friends and family got a start in these units. The people who own these take pride in them, and owning vs renting gives them real roots in the area. These units cost the taxpayer NOTHING. It costs the builders a bit because they can't charge $250K for a 2 BR Condo built of cardboard. They might only sell that affordable unit for $120K. They still make a MINT on these. In some cases, towns have a developer rehab an old warehouse into Condo's, saving a structure and putting it back to use and generating taxes. Some towns avoid their share by paying other towns to take the units. So wealthy towns do have an 'out" to some degree.  As for the success of the the affordable sale/rentals....there is almost always a waiting list. Sometimes it can be very long. The buyers have to jump through the same hoops to get a mortgage. They also can't just resell the unit. The resale price is controlled by law. While you do get to make some money, the idea is that with a reasonable monthly mortgage, you can save enough for a bigger place later. Does this work? You bet it does. Some people are content to just stay there..others move on and up. I saved enough in 8 years to buy a small 4BR in Bridgewater with 30% down. We saved a bit more, sold the 2 homes and put 60% down on a much larger home in B'Water. In EVERY case I know of, the affordable owners were able to move up. So instead of being forever stuck in crummy rentals, we were able to move up and now contribute heavily in property taxes etc...Keep this in mind. In 1970, a typical 4BR house cost approx 5 years of an average salary for the person in that town. By 1990, that same house now costs 9 times the same persons salary. It's only getting worse. With stagnant wages, fixer-uppers going for $250k in many towns and a 2BR Condo at $200K and UP, what chance do YOUR kids have of buying in on their $35K starting Teacher salary? 

getagrip

I don't have as much a problem with having"affordable" housing as much as I oppose some group of nit wits on the side lines deciding that each town should have some number of affordable housing units that they somehow determine how many should be required. Rarely do they seem to consider available land or the current infrastructure They are more concerned with creating some social engineering


I also appreciate that large groups of affordable housing as were done in he 60's and 70's as "projects were a total disaster.


Affordable housing would best be served in small groups in areas where the infra structure can best support it.

Stop seeing how hard you can destroy every half ay decent town. Enough is enough. 

Those that work hard to have earned the ability to live in nice areas need to start voting and supporting candidates that will oppose this utter nonsense before there are absolutely no nice places to live,

nj.com reader

If you feel that forcing towns to make room for affordable housing (ESPECIALLY when open land is "paved over"), which increases the need for public union employees (police, public works, teachers), is unfair, then you know what to do in November.

nj.com reader

And? Critics of affordable housing do blasting of their own but don't have the media-elite to trumpet their concerns - "Critics blast Christie administration's new NJ affordable housing plan"

Brent Johnson/The Star-Ledger

@nj.com reader We cover hearings like these all the time. We write about what happens at them. And what happened at this one was the people who spoke blasted the rules. I would have given the council's opinion if the council said anything. But the members declined comment. 


No? 

oldnpres

People need to see what the guidelines are for NJ affordable housing --- it is not public housing as some think.    Case in point:  had I been a single mom with my two kids I would have qualified for affordable housing based on my last salary as a school teacher.   Go to the new jersey website and check out income needs for affordable housing -- you will be surprised.  

However -- the new numbers for each municipality are ridiculous -- there is no account taken for environmental constraints, infrastructure, school population, and real available open space.

J9050

NJ continues to dive deep into a sewer main. More affordable housing will ruin the good towns that are left. The entire state will be a gang run drug war zone not fit for civilized people to live. 

neihow

@J9050 

Just more boogeyman talk. 

J9050

@neihow @J9050


Take a drive around Camden. I don't think I dreamed what I saw there. Trust me, its as real as real can be. 


That's what an "affordable housing" New Jersey looks like. 

neihow

@J9050 @neihow 

No..it does not. 
You folks just love to talk in the extreme.

That is exactly one of the reason why the taxes are so high in NJ.

J9050

@neihow @J9050


Yes, it does. Or, if you care to broaden your horizons, go check out public housing across the United States. New York City, St. Louis, Los Angeles.


Public housing units are public temples to lawlessness, vandalism, and decay. 

neihow

@J9050 @neihow 

Who said affordable housing equals public housing?

J9050

@neihow @J9050


Hmm...well, it would seem to me that when government invests its time, energy, and financial resources into planning and constructing housing, it is public housing. 

neihow

@J9050 @neihow 

That's where you are wrong. Private developers have and would be the ones building the affordable housing. You don't even know the process. You just know fear and talking points.

J9050

@neihow @J9050


So there is no government involvement in the process whatsoever? Private developers are building below market value housing of their own accord? The government is not involved in the planning and execution of affordable housing construction in the state?


The private developers came up with COAH on their own? 


No sir, there is most definitely a public aspect to affordable housing. And the government's record on housing is consistently awful. 



neihow

@J9050 @neihow 

There is a public aspect to non afforable housing. Maybe you should take your own advice and broaden your horizons.

Here I'll help you a little.

https://www.boundless.com/u-s-history/the-politics-and-culture-of-abundance-1943-1960/the-culture-of-abundance/the-growth-of-suburbs/

J9050

@neihow @J9050


There is a difference between a court mandated directive about housing and legislated laws and regulations about housing. 


There are reasons why programs like COAH are failures. When a court subverts the will of the people and bypasses the other two branches of government, the results speak for themselves. 

neihow

@J9050 @neihow 

You split hairs all you want.It doesn't change the facts.

J9050

@neihow @J9050


You call the difference between a law passed by a legislative body and signed by an executive and a court decision a spilt hair? 


Fair enough, but I think there is a significant difference between the two. 


Why is COAH the subject of so many lawsuits? Could it be that the court decision that led to its creation by and large does not have the support of the people? 

J9050

@neihow @J9050


If I had to hazard I guess, I'd bet you're not a fan of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. 


How does it feel when a court passes a decision that bypasses the Congress and the President that you don't agree with? Not so great, right? 

BeaufortScale

@J9050 @neihow J9050, you say "No sir, there is most definitely a public aspect to affordable housing. And the government's record on housing is consistently awful."

Then would you agree that minimum lot sizes and zoning that forbids high-density housing is consistently awful? Because that's government that does that. Would you say that the owner of a tract has the right to either develop and sell 3 single-family lots or to build a couple dozen apartments to let to moderate-income renters, whichever he decides would be ? It isn't the market keeping high-density housing out of a lot of towns, it's government impositions.  I don't know if I agree with the COAH rulings either, but it's not the government dictating to the people, it's one level of government limiting the ability of another level of government to dictate to the people.

Brian

We need to bring back liar loans so them poor folks can have their own house, worked well last time 

repacer

I worked hard for our family to live in a nice crime free, dug free town. Affordable housing brings in those who will change my nice town.


And by the way we have a project freedom complex in robbinsville which has Mercedes parked in the complex lot in the morning. Seems like there are folks beating the system with COAH.


BTW there is plenty of affordable housing in Newark, Trenton, Camden. Perhaps these wealth re-distributors could redevelop these areas for low income to destroy. Affordable housing problem solved.

getagrip

@repacer 

I wonder the advocates live?

This won't come out well, but why is the motive to despoil any reasonably nice town?


The high density housing add millions to local budgets and forces up taxes to pay to pay for necessity expanded services.


How does this help the poor get a job or get to a job? Many suburbs have little mass transit for workers.


Why is it t many people bust their stones to achieve some level of success and someone who apparently hasn't some how deserves the same rewards?  Does every reward for hard work and achievement need to be erased?  One less motivation to encourage productivity.     

Show More Comments