|
Promoted by Rosi Efthim
Senator Ray Lesniak has introduced yet more amendments to his much-criticized housing bill, S-1, in anticipation of a committee vote on Thursday in the Senate Economic Growth Committee. Legislation is normally amended to create a consensus, but each amendment that Lesniak introduces appears to alienate another group. The Lesniak bill would exempt many wealthy municipalities from further housing requirements while demanding that many of New Jersey's older suburbs, which are usually among the more affordable municipalities in a region, provide additional affordable housing. S-1 would also do away with funding for central cities to rehabilitate their existing housing stock.
S-1 continues to be legislation that is in search of a policy, as the Asbury Park Press noted in a critical editorial yesterday calling the S-1 process a "runaway train." His philosophy appears to be "we need to do something, here's something, so let's do it" - even though his bill creates an entire new set of problems, including being unconstitutional, and more sensible and constitutional proposals exist. His most recent amendments should draw the ire of legislators whose districts include municipalities that have done their fair share and yet are being asked to do more while wealthy towns are being given a free pass.
We have long suspected that the Lesniak bill is intended simply to reduce the housing obligations of the wealthiest New Jersey municipalities. The current version of the bill leaves no question that that is happening. There should be no doubt that Senator Lesniak is working to push housing obligations on towns that already are racially and economically diverse while exempting many municipalities that have done the least.
A consistent flaw in the many versions of S-1 introduced by Sen. Lesniak is that expensive condominiums are counted as affordable housing. S-1 deems 261 of New Jersey's municipalities as "inclusionary" - including municipalities such as Far Hills, Holmdel, Peapack and Gladstone, and Summit - because they include townhouses for the wealthy.
In contrast, many more racially and economically diverse municipalities - such as Maplewood, Pennsauken, South Orange, and Union Township - don't meet the "inclusionary" standard. Those municipalities can be forced to rezone property while wealthier municipalities that have the least affordable housing can sit back and do nothing. That is hardly fair.
Lesniak's bill also reduces the funding available for urban rehabilitation by permanently defunding the state Urban Housing Assistance Program established just two years ago under the leadership of Speaker Joe Roberts and with the support of Senator Lesniak and the non-residential developers. One would think that Sen. Lesniak would have a hard enough time asking urban legislators to support a bill that lets wealthy suburbs off the hook. Could he possibly get away with letting wealthy towns off the hook while simultaneously eliminating funding that was intended to fund urban rehabilitation?
S-1 has few supporters. Builders don't support it because it increases home rule and insulates too many municipalities from reasonable development proposals. Housing advocates, including 80 providers of special needs housing, don't like it because it will result in little to no affordable housing. Smart growth advocates don't like it because it does not link housing with jobs and transit. Environmentalists don't like it because it does not channel growth into the right places. With the current version of S-1, Senator Lesniak alienated mayors who have done their fair share, urban mayors whose housing stock is crumbling, and legislators who care about those mayors' towns. All of which makes us wonder, who supports S-1? |
