A Tale of Two Towns: Marlboro Housing Plan Tossed Out, Union Township Approved

by: Adam Gordon at Fair Share Housing Center

Wed Sep 08, 2010 at 02:30:59 PM EDT

In a decision issued this morning, Marlboro Township (Monmouth County), was removed from the protections of the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) because the Council found that the municipality "consistently failed to demonstrate good faith" in meeting its housing obligations.  

At the same meeting, the Council approved the housing plans of Union Township (Union County), along with Cresskill Borough (Bergen County).

The comparison between Marlboro Township and Union Township gives a good perspective on what a sound housing policy looks like, and the deep flaws with S-1, which failed to pass the Legislature this spring. Marlboro Township was a prime proponent of S-1; Union Township - ironically the location of the office of S-1 sponsor Sen. Ray Lesniak, along with Assembly Majority Leader Joe Cryan - was deemed "exclusionary" by S-1 despite the town's diversity and history of compliance with its legal obligations.

Marlboro Township has a history of flagrantly violating the state's housing laws that would be comical if it weren't true. Find out why below the fold....

S-1 hearing wrap-up, and our testimony

by: Adam Gordon at Fair Share Housing Center

Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 06:00:55 PM EDT

It's bad for South Jersey (as Asw. Riley pointed out to DCA Commissioner Lori Grifa, who avoided the question with a long discussion of the entire history of COAH); it's bad for cities and first suburbs in North Jersey (as we pointed out in a spirited exchange with Asm. Green, who recognized that the bill would overly concentrate poverty in communities like Plainfield). And it's bad for middle-class people like firemen and police - a point that Asm. Scalera's questions focused heavily on.

It's bad for builders and the economy - as many of the state's big time builders (that's the part about nontraditional allies) and the New Jersey Builders Association hammered home - not to mention Habitat for Humanity and the Housing and Community Development Network. It's bad for the environment - as Dianne Brake of PlanSmart, Judy Remington of Coalition on Affordable Housing and the Environment, and Jeff Tittel of the Sierra Club pointed out in extended testimony.

It would turn back the clock decades on civil rights, as the NAACP's Kelly Francis and Mike McNeil pointed out in forceful testimony on the "Jim Crow" nature of the bill. And it would halt NJ's progress in deinstitutionalizing people with special needs, as several groups working on supportive housing pointed out.

Oh, yeah, Steve Lonegan et al don't like S-1 either which helps explain this morning's rare sight of a Republican Assembly member, Michael Patrick Carroll, conducting a lengthy cross-examination of a member of Gov. Christie's cabinet.

The only supporters of the bill were, well, not quite supporters - they all wanted amendments, in ways that seemed to contradict with each other. The non-residential developers, NAIOP, want changes. The Governor's office wants changes. The League of Municipalities and New Jersey Conference of Mayors want changes. These changes do not, at least from what was discussed, sound like they overlap very much.

The Christie-Lesniak team still wants a bill passed by June 30 and are exerting tremendous pressure to do so. The rationales for the deadline are flimsy - a Lesniak quote in the Ledger mentioned the "fiscal year" (despite the lack of connection of this bill to the budget) and DCA Commissioner Grifa felt that things were close. But, as Asm. Green repeatedly said during the hearing, rushing the bill has many risks - of a court challenge or totally ineffective system.

Thanks so much to the Blue Jersey community - you have been great in your support on pushing the Legislature to reflect the will of its constituents. And thanks to Speaker Oliver, Majority Leader Cryan, Chairman Green, and Vice-Chair Jasey for slowing the process down.

But we're not done yet -  the Governor and Sen. Lesniak are still trying to bully the Assembly into passing S-1. We need to keep the pressure up against the serious push we are seeing. Let me know at adamgordon@fairsharehousing.org if there are any members of the Assembly you can reach out to.

Our testimony, per several people's request, is after the jump.

The Red Tape that Chris Christie Loves

by: Fair Share Housing

Thu May 13, 2010 at 05:16:47 PM EDT

Did you know that New Jersey has the most red tape stopping starter homes of any state in the country? It's harder to build compact, walkable development near job centers and mass transit here than anywhere else, according to a 2006 Brookings Institution study.

One might think that our red-tape cutting Governor would want to take this problem on. Today, he instead announced plans to make it worse.

Christie proposed a legislative overhaul of the state's housing policy that would effectively undo the Supreme Court's Mount Laurel decisions, which require every town to regulate land use in such a way that allows for a fair share of starter homes. He demanded action by the Legislature by June 30, though did not have a bill available or sponsors lined up - the proposal has some common features with Sen. Lesniak and Bateman's flawed S-1 but also some significant differences. Asked about what the Supreme Court might think of his plan, he noted that the Court does not think particularly fondly of him at the moment (We note that we had to hear about this second hand since, unlike organizations supportive of the Governor, we were barred from the press conference).

The plan was disingenuously presented as a requirement that 10 percent of all new housing be affordable to low- and moderate-income households. The fine print came out in a document not available to the press until several hours after the press conference, and still not officially available to the public at all (though you can see it on our website - http://sites.google.com/a/fair...

The real details are that a developer would have to do 10 percent of housing as starter homes, unless they would prefer to pay a 2.5 percent fee instead. That fee would almost always be the much cheaper option, so unless one expects builders to voluntarily give up their profits, that is what would happen.

That fee could then be used anywhere else in the state (see p. 4 of the plan). So Mendham's starter homes could end up in Trenton.

This plan would give free rein to municipalities to create even more restrictive zoning ordinances to build office parks without any homes for people who work there, McMansions and no starter homes. Municipalities could forbid owners of dilapidated shopping centers next to train stations from reusing that land for new townhouses and apartments.

The results? More sprawl, fewer jobs, and a gash in the plans for New Jersey's economic recovery as towns revoke approvals on over 40,000 new starter homes in the pipeline, many near job centers and mass transit.

Red tape? This time, Chris Christie can't get enough.

Christie Task Force: Reduce Housing Requirements by 94%

by: Fair Share Housing

Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:11:56 PM EDT

Gov. Christie's recently completed housing task force claims that its recommendations would produce "No gimmicks, no formulas, no kidding." It failed to mention, however, that the recommendations would also produce "no housing."

We did an in-depth analysis of the somewhat complex numbers used by the task force, and figured out how they would impact every town in the state. You can read the full analysis on our website here. Follow us below the fold for the key points.

Lesniak Housing Bill Pulled; Christie Task Force Releases Pro-Sprawl, Anti-Housing Report

by: Fair Share Housing

Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 05:23:46 PM EDT

Thanks for all of you who posted supportive comments on our litigation against Gov. Christie on Executive Order 12, which he rescinded on Friday. Also thanks to Sen. Weinberg for her eloquent explanation of why she is opposing Sen. Lesniak's bill to "gut" our state's housing policies, S-1. We are writing to provide an update on several interesting developments over the last two days on both fronts.

COAH Learns You Can Call Christie's Bluff

by: Bill Orr

Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:31:30 AM EDT

With Executive Order #20 we saw how the governor, having dug himself into a hole with his earlier EO #12, suddenly and clumsily tried to extricate himself. We also learned that his bluster creates his own vulnerability. His initial EO #12 dated February 9 allowed him to create his own affordable housing task force and gave it 90 days until May 9th to complete its report which was then to be made public. During the interim he ordered COAH to cease its activities.

The fly in the ointment was that COAH quickly asked the court to grant an injunction against E O #12 which it did. Then  the court scheduled an argument on a permanent invalidation of E O #12 for Monday March 22. Suddenly on Friday afternoon, March 19, he  issued a new E O #20 which rescinded his E O #12. Did he suspect he would not be well received at the court hearing?  How convenient.

His EO # 20, dated March 19 was disingenuous. It said that he was canceling E O #12 because the Task Force had suddenly completed  the report, in a record-breaking 6 weeks. However, the completion of the report did not necessitate canceling E O #12. What required the cancellation was the court's questioning his ability to order COAH to cease its operations and his assumption of broad powers.  By canceling his E O #12 he was tacitly allowing COAH to resume its mandated operations.  Neither was there any mention of the court injunction in his E O #20.

As EO #12 was now cancelled, one might suspect that the supposed completed task force report will never see the light of the day.  Indeed, how could a quality report on such an important, complex topic even be completed in 6 weeks?

This is what happens when Christie is challenged and a court intervenes: a rescinding E.O. is issued,  a report is completed in 45 days, a task force's efforts are closed out, there is no mention that COAH can resume its work, said report may or may not see the light of day, and there is no need to appear before a judge to answer pesky questions.

COAH learns you can call the Governor's bluff.  He can and should be challenged frequently.  Organizations using the courts and the legislature using its authority need not be shy.

A Critical Moment in the Fight For Fair Housing in New Jersey

by: Fair Share Housing

Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 11:43:57 PM EDT

We thank Jason Springer for inviting us to post an update on the current attempts to legalize exclusionary zoning, the practice banned under the New Jersey Constitution in which municipalities use their land use laws to allow only expensive homes and office parks, while banning starter homes and apartments. We are regular readers of Blue Jersey, and appreciate the invitation to contribute.

First, we look at Ray Lesniak's effort to kill New Jersey's fair housing laws. These laws banning exclusionary zoning have allowed 100,000 New Jerseyans over the past few decades the opportunity to live in towns that wanted to keep them out (LINK). His replacement legislation, S-1 (LINK), would not replace this system so much as destroy it: under the bill, scheduled for a full Senate vote on Monday, any town in New Jersey could impose restrictions that would exclude creation of all homes affordable to working- and middle-class families.

The bill has gone through four very different, and progressively worse, drafts in four weeks, with the latest draft only becoming publically available more than a day after the committee voted. As the details of the bill have become apparent, civil rights groups, clergy, environmentalists, non-profit and for-profit housing developers, organizations working with people with special needs, and housing advocates have all strongly opposed S-1. Sen. Lesniak has not allowed many of these groups to testify at the three hearings on the bill. (LINK)

Why is Sen. Lesniak, a supposed progressive, becoming the main accomplice in Gov. Christie's drive to "gut" the state's fair housing laws? Follow us below the fold for our suggestions.

New Jersey NAACP files formal ethics complaint over affordable housing

by: Hopeful

Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:19:07 PM EST

James E. Harris, President of the New Jersey Conference of the NAACP, today filed a formal ethics complaint with the Joint Legislative Committee on Ethical Standards, asking for a formal investigation of whether Senators Raymond Lesniak and Christopher Bateman have violated the Legislative Code of Ethics in simultaneously representing over 40 municipalities on affordable housing, planning, and zoning issues and pushing legislation that would substantially change those municipalities' affordable housing obligations.

NJ NAACP Housing Committee Chairman Mike McNeil said:  "Sens. Lesniak and Bateman have violated the public trust in intermeshing their private legal work and their service to the public as legislators. We are today asking the Joint Legislative Committee on Ethical Standards to determine the extent of the violation of public trust and to require Sens. Lesniak and Bateman to recuse themselves from further debate on the bill."

I really can't say whether or not Lesniak or Bateman have crossed the line here, but I will say that the outdated conceit that being a state legislator is only part-time work is what leads directly to conflicts of interest and even outright corruption, whether it is holding multiple elected positions or doing business with the town through a law firm. We'd be a lot better off making the members of the Assembly and Senate full time, even if it ends some romantic notions.  

Court stays Governor Christie's COAH Executive Order

by: Hopeful

Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 05:19:30 PM EST

The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court today issued an order enjoining Gov. Chris Christie's February 9 Executive Order that had placed an indefinite hold on the state's housing policies.

Democratic Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore Jerry Green called for this to be an opportunity for the governor to work with the legislature:

Creating a workable affordable housing plan - especially in New Jersey, the most densely populated state in the union - will take teamwork, compromise and the combined efforts of the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

Well, it's obvious that teamwork is not Christie's Plan A, but perhaps this Court ruling will make him go to the legislature. Meanwhile, the court battle will continue.

It's not just about gutting COAH, but who gets credit for it

by: Jason Springer

Fri Feb 12, 2010 at 10:30:00 AM EST

The fact that it is the very first bill on the new legislature's agenda is an indication of what a top priority its been for one of the Senate's most potent operator's: Ray Lesniak. He has been working on a bill to end COAH as we know it for six months. So, when Christie suddenly announces that he will be working outside of that process by immediately suspending COAH and appointing his own advisory panel to come up with a plan, I cannot imagine Lesniak is thrilled.

In fact, I hear that he feels Christie is trying to "steal his thunder" on this issue. Christie did not rule out working with Lesniak, but did say he "made it clear" to the Union County Dem that he is approaching this his own way.

"I look forward to briefing Governor Christie's COAH advisors on S-1, which I have been working on with Senator Bateman for over 6 months in consultation with the brightest and most productive market rate and affordable housing developers, municipal government leaders, planners and business executives in New Jersey.

"Based on testimony presented at two meetings of the Senate Economic Growth Committee, I will make a committee substitute available for public review next week.  I expect to have S-1 pass both the Senate and Assembly well in advance of the 90-day timeline for recommendations from the Governor's advisory panel.

I'm still left with the lingering question of how do the "solutions" being proposed to replace what they view as "the problem" of affordable housing live up to the Mt. Laurel Decision of the courts that put the process in place to begin with? How does this keep from causing the same old problem, just under a new name?

Christie: It's Good to Be the King

by: the_promised_land

Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 10:56:21 PM EST

Did Chris Christie just take the position that he can shut down any of the state's administrative agency, and ignore any state regulation, if he so chooses?

Looks that way. In an Executive Order issued today about COAH, Gov. Christie ordered the agency to cease operating while an appointed task force comes up with a set of new housing policies. There doesn't seem to be any legal justification for doing so other than saying that he is exercising the New Jersey Constitution's requirement that he "faithfully execute the laws" of the State. http://www.state.nj.us/infoban...

COAH is an independent government agency that the Legislature created to implement state housing policy, with a board that has required bipartisan balance and is subject to Gubernatorial appointment and Senate confirmation. That agency has adopted regulations subject to the normal public process of notice and comment.

Instead, (a) the agency is now being entirely shut down (or at least put on hold) and the Governor is in effect refusing to enforce its regulations; and (b) new policies are being created by a group of people different from the board required by the Legislature - a group that is not likely to be so bipartisan, that the Governor may appoint and remove at will, and that they might try to claim are not subject to the normal requirements for public meetings, etc.

Sounds like Gov. Christie is borrowing a page from the Bush playbook - remember the Cheney energy task force? Other assertions of "executive power"? At least we don't have a State Department (ok, we kind of do, but you know what I mean).

Christie's reasoning in today's Executive Order could apply equally to any agency. Perhaps this is Christie's opening salvo for other areas of government. Perhaps the regulatory red tape task force will recommend that the Governor shut down parts of DEP by fiat, or cut pesky health and safety or civil rights requirements without dealing with the normal legal processes.

Asbury Park Press Nails Lesniak Housing Bill

by: the_promised_land

Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 01:54:45 PM EST

I can only guess at the reasons for the Press' position. But if you're a real conservative and not just a dittohead, you should support the general goals of the Mount Laurel decisions. It isn't so conservative to stop private property owners and, as is rather incredibly happening in Summit, Habitat for Humanity from building starter homes on their own land. http://www.nj.com/news/local/i...

Whatever the reasons, the Press' editorial nails what is going on better than anything I've seen so far, and should be required reading for everyone on this site.

First, as the Press reports, nobody seems to know what the bill actually would do. The sponsors may have some idea, but they aren't telling the public:

Exactly what the bill would mean for the future of affordable housing is anyone's guess. Many of the details about the ongoing role of the Planning Commission and how the program would be administered and monitored are unclear. The blanks will eventually be filled in, its sponsors and supporters say.

That in itself is troubling. But what the sponsors can tell the Press is that, whatever happens, it will actually REDUCE the number of homes built in NJ:

Bateman, responding to a question by the Press, said the bill would "probably" result in fewer affordable housing units in the state than are required under COAH. That can't be allowed to happen.

It also appears to create a bureaucratic morass that could be even more complex than COAH. This is a theme that Steve Lonergan is running with - as usual with looney tunes overtones. But on the substance he's actually right (ok, it's hard to admit that he's right on anything, but...) As the Press describes:

The bill, S-1, would transfer ill-defined authority for affordable housing to the State Planning Commission and allow towns to determine for themselves, through their master plans and zoning, whether they were meeting their constitutional obligation to provide housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents.

So the State Planning Commission - which is itself a mess - determines part of what's going on, and then towns also determine part of it for themselves. There is also some role for the Economic Development Authority in the bill. And another role for courts. And, no doubt, lots of work for lawyers.

The Asbury Park Press also gets the goals right:

Whatever form it finally takes, the overriding goal of reform should be developing a plan that increases the amount of affordable housing in this state. Every municipality should be required to provide its fair share, and a mechanism should be in place to ensure compliance. The plan also must be clear about funding sources.

Why is a Democratic Senator sponsoring a bill that, as his Republican co-sponsor admits, actually goes against these basic progressive goals, creating a huge new bureaucracy along the way? Why is all of this being hammered out in secret? And how do we get to the goals that the Asbury Park Press, of all places, has articulated so well? I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts...

Under the Dome: Abolishing COAH leads Senate Committee Agenda

by: Jason Springer

Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 07:16:56 AM EST

Leading the Senate news will be Senator Lesniak's bill that would abolish the state Council on Affordable Housing and change the way housing for moderate- and low-income residents is provided in the state. The measure is up for discussion in Lesniak's Economic Growth Committee and he plans to have a vote on the legislation February 8. Fair Share Housing put out a statement saying any reforms that will be done should be constitutional.

The Judiciary committee is not scheduled to meet so the new Governor's nominations will have to wait for the next one. The Environment and Energy committee will consider four bills including one that would exempt solar panels from impervious surface or impervious cover designation. Another bill would authorize $17 million for dam restoration projects.

The Senate Education Committee will hear testimony from representatives of the New Jersey Education Association, the statewide teachers' union, and EA, school boards and other educational organizations and associations on their educational priorities in the current legislative session.

A bill in the Senate Government, Wagering and  Tourism committee sponsored by Senator Lesniak proposes a constitutional amendment authorizing Legislature by law to allow in-person wagering and account wagering on sports events at Atlantic City casinos and at racetracks. Another bill sponsored by Senators Codey and Pennachio would permanently require the state to establish a public finance website.

You can see the full agenda below the fold. If you can't make it to Trenton, you can follow along here.

Senate will consider bill to abolish COAH

by: Jason Springer

Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:15:00 PM EST

An effort to abolish the state Council on Affordable housing will begin Feb. 1 when the state Senate Economic Growth Committee will begin hearing testimony on bipartisan legislation that would eliminate the agency.

Under the bill, affordable housing issues would be handled by the State Planning Commission.

Sen. Raymond J. Lesniak (D-Union), the committee chairman and co-sponsor of the bill (S-1) with Sen. Christopher "Kip'' Bateman (R-Somerset), announced the hearing Wednesday.

"The purpose of this bill is to repeal COAH's top down, micro-managed, and complex bureaucracy,'' Lesniak said. "For decades, COAH has burdened property taxpayers with millions of dollars in unnecessary cost of compliance by municipalities with its maze of ever-changing rules and regulations. And, COAH has discouraged job creation by adding housing requirements and fees based on the number of jobs created and private dollars invested.

The Lesniak-Bateman proposal would allow municipalities to decide if they if they have already met their affordable housing goals and could adopt a simple ordinance to declare their compliance.

If a municipality finds that it does not meet housing requirements, it must adopt an ordinance to that effect and work to meet the standards prescribed by law. Municipalities that fail to adopt an ordinance would be subject to a use variance wherein a housing development would be deemed to have met affordable housing requirements to obtain a use variance by a low- and moderate-income housing component of the development application.

Credit where credit is due: the APP on affordable housing

by: Scott Weingart

Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:26:05 AM EDT

Apparently, the conservative editorial board of the Asbury Park Press—a Gannett newspaper—agrees with me:

In New Jersey, however, affordable housing is not only a social good, but a matter of law. Thanks to a series of Mount Laurel court decisions, New Jersey is the only state in the union to enshrine access to affordable housing as a constitutional right. Whether you agree with that or not, it's the reality facing lawmakers today. Those making increasingly loud noise about wanting to dismantle COAH have failed to offer a better alternative ? at least an alternative that will pass legal muster.

The APP goes on to criticize "public officials and politicians" like Republican Gubernatorial candidate Steve Lonegan, who "demagogue the issue." While Ingle may not quite match up with Lonegan when it comes to shameless demagoguery, he is certainly throwing sucker punches in the same weight class.

Indeed, Ingle's irresponsible screeching stands in stark contrast with the APP editorial, which offers a well-reasoned analysis of affordable housing issues in New Jersey. The piece identifies several real problems with current affordable housing rules that have Republican and Democratic mayors alike fighting with the state.

Sadly, we don't hear many calls for reasonable reform of COAH from Republican leaders these days.  All they have to offer are images of impalement, policy pyrotechnics, and campaign promises inconsistent with the oath of office to "support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey."

2009 and the Politics of Supreme Court Appointments

by: vincent solomeno

Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 03:20:00 PM EST

Top row, L to R: Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto; Justice Barry T. Albin; Justice John E. Wallace, Jr.; Justice Helen E. Hoens; Front row, L to R: Justice Virginia Long; Chief Justice Stuart Rabner; Justice Jaynee LaVecchia.

More than any previous gubernatorial contest in recent memory, the outcome of this November's election will have a lasting impact on the composition and ideology of the New Jersey Supreme Court.  

The brief campaign has already included Republican criticism of several of the Court's high profile decisions.  However, little attention has been paid to the fact that the terms of four out of seven justices will expire on the watch of the next Governor.  Justices Virginia Long and John E. Wallace, Jr. will reach the age of mandatory retirement in 2012.  Additionally, the non-tenured terms of Justices Roberto A. Rivera-Soto and Helen E. Hoens will expire, allowing whoever is Governor the option of reappointment or selecting a new jurist to join the bench.

These days it's popular to beat up on the Supreme Court in conservative circles.  As such, the potential to reshape the Court's majority is significant when one considers that that criticism has been a centerpiece of the Republican primary campaign.  

Former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan has pledged to overturn judicial decisions mandating affordable housing and funding for the state's poorest school districts.  While he has proposed taking the matter to voters in the form of referenda to amend the state constitution, the unlikely passage of such measures no doubt guarantees that a Governor Lonegan will work to achieve his agenda through the judicial selection process.

Assemblyman Rick Merkt (R-Morris), a longshot candidate for his party's nomination, labeled the coming Supreme Court appointments "a critical issue for New Jersey's future."  If elected, he wants to "drive a stake into COAH's [affordable housing] heart, bury it, and make sure it never rises again."

Meanwhile, former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, the presumed front runner, echoed his opponents and pledged, "If I am governor, I will gut COAH and I will put an end to it."

These ambitious goals can only be accomplished by overturning previous Supreme Court decisions.  By tradition, Governors maintain a partisan balance on the Court.  However, is it difficult to imagine a Republican Governor appointing justices - even those who are registered Democrats - sympathetic to conservative views?  Such a reversal would signal not only an end to COAH and Abbott funding, but a reorientation of the ideology of the Court, a shift with implications beyond these two issues.

Take the ongoing campaign for marriage equality in New Jersey.  In October 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals.  This decision led the Legislature to pass the landmark civil union law.  The ruling also set the stage for marriage equality by leaving the decision to lawmakers.  Will a refashioned and more conservative Supreme Court find same sex marriage unconstitutional?  Will it reverse the previous decision on civil unions?  Considering conservative views on the subject, it is hard to conclude otherwise.

New Jersey is a socially liberal, environmentally conscious state.  That said, Democrats need to make it clear that while we oppose legislating from the bench there is a compelling case for complying with affordable housing, education, and equality mandates.  We should raise the appointments issue.  A right turn by the Supreme Court should alarm not only progressives, but the moderate Democrats and Independents critical to victory in November.  New Jerseyans should know that changes to the Court's ideological composition will result in conservative decisions that impact life in our state for a long time to come.

The Political Necessity of COAH Reform

by: vincent solomeno

Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 02:24:04 PM EST

Democrats must be prepared to transform the statewide mandate of the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) or else ready for Republican criticism that may diminish our support among suburban voters.

On Friday, former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan traveled to Freehold to stump for votes in his campaign for the Republican nomination for Governor.  Lobbing rhetorical grenades is the conservative gadfly´s specialty. He likened his campaign to the American Revolution and compared Governor Corzine and the Democratic majorities in the Legislature to the tyrants of Europe and Asia.  The twenty-first century Washington continued with a blistering attack on COAH and promised that when the general election is through, the self-financed Corzine will be living in one of the program´s 40,000 units.

Next November´s election will not only determine who occupies the front office in the State Capitol.  It will test New Jersey Republicans´ability to make inroads into the Democrats´legislative majority.  As New Jerseyans sweat under the burden of economic recession, unless Democrats present a compelling narrative for affordable housing, COAH and its cumbersome regulations have the potential to unite the feuding factions of the GOP and erase our party´s gains in suburban battlegrounds.  

From a policy perspective, the need for affordable housing remains as clear today as it was when the Supreme Court ordered state action on the issue in 1984.  According to the U.S. Census, New Jerseyans pay 30 percent or more of their income for housing, the fourth highest percentage in the nation.  However, members of both parties recognize that in its current form COAH often results in continued overdevelopment and an increase in property taxes as municipalities struggle to fund essential services and public schools.

Democrats in the Legislature have already indicated their willingness to take on the challenge.  In his capacity as Chair of the Economic Growth Committee, State Senator Ray Lesniak (D-Union) introduced legislation (S2485) that directs the State Housing Commission to take into consideration the impact of its assessments on local property taxes.  Lesniak also wants COAH to provide housing not only to low income individuals, but to those in the middle class who do not qualify for the program but nonetheless struggle with New Jersey´s high cost of living.  Called work force housing, the change will allow individuals such as secretaries, firefighters, and recent college graduates to qualify for assistance while remaining in and contributing to the economies of their hometowns.

In his recent State of the State address, Governor Corzine indicated his willingness to "allow for maximum flexibility and ample time for collaborative review" of affordable housing plans.  In the coming months, the Governor and Democrats will face the challenge of articulating the need for COAH regulations to a public that is leery of continued development.  

Affordable housing may be an issue that Republicans can use to their advantage, but thus far they have offered no policy alternative other than S2292, a bill re-establishing the regional contribution agreements that circumvented the intent of affordable housing in the first place.  Their advocacy of a return to the failed status quo does nothing to address the real problem.  On the other hand, Lesniak´s call for work force housing demonstrates the Democratic Party´s understanding that suburban housing is not only out of reach for the working poor, but for many sons and daughters of middle class suburbanites.

New Jersey is a blue state and New Jersey Republicans are a party rife with ideological divisions.  Criticism of COAH presents them with an issue that they can rally around.  However, they will need more than bombastic rhetoric and stale policy solutions to convince voters of their ability to solve the problem.  Democrats have demonstrated our willingness to ease the burden on municipalities without abandoning our commitment to providing affordable housing to those who are struggling under our state´s high cost of living.  The remaining challenge for lawmakers is to deliver on the promise of reform and communicate the results of that work to the residents of our state.

Judge voids mortgage for exceeding COAH

by: Jason Springer

Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:15:00 PM EST

In a ruling that should serve as a cautionary tale for lenders, a Somerset County judge has voided a $192,000 mortgage because it exceeded COAH's ceiling for loans on affordable housing.

A rule adopted by the Council on Affordable Housing in 2004 voids mortgage loans on such properties that exceed 95 percent of the maximum resale price set by deed restrictions.

Though the rule states that any loan that violates the provision "shall be void as against public policy," the Dec. 26 ruling in NovaStar Mortgage v. Koerne r, F-5085-07, appears to be the first to use the proscription as a remedy in foreclosure proceeding.

Under the COAH rule, N.J.A.C. 5:80-26.18(e), Novastar Mortgage was not allowed to lend more than $73,150 on a condominium owned by Susan Koerner in Bridgewater, for which the maximum selling price was $77,000.

When Koerner defaulted on the loan, NovaStar began foreclosure proceedings and obtained a default judgment. But before the sheriff's sale, Bridgewater move to intervene on the ground that it had an interest in the property. NovaStar had not named Bridgewater in the action, apparently unaware the property was under affordable-housing restrictions.

Presiding General Equity Judge Harriet Derman granted the motion, finding Bridgewater had presented "a compelling policy argument" that mortgage lenders who - evenly unwittingly - advance credit beyond what COAH allows are contributing to the financial burden on towns from foreclosure litigation.

NovaStar tried to cut its losses, asking for a declaration that the mortgage was valid up to the $73,150 cap and that only the amount above that was void. But Derman said the rule, which NovaStar had not shown to be unconstitutional, contrary to legislative policy or the product of agency error, unambiguously voided the entire loan.

Though she had equitable power to modify the mortgage to make it conform, Derman said she would not do so because the mistake was not mutual: It was NovaStar's duty to conduct a diligent inquiry when it made the loan.

State won't extend affordable housing deadline

by: Jason Springer

Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 11:00:00 AM EST

"We have given serious thought and consideration to your request but have determined that an across-the-board extension of the deadline would not be consistent with COAH's statutory obligations under the Fair Housing Act," Doria said in the letter. "As we have stated, COAH is committed to continuing to work cooperatively with municipal officials in the planning process, and that cooperation certainly will continue as we move forward."

In a letter to municipal officials, Dressel notified the towns the request has been denied despite the backing of state Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union) and Christopher "Kip" Bateman (R-Somerset), Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts (D-Camden) and Assemblyman Gerald Green (D-Union).

"The commissioner's decision means that municipalities will need to file revised third-round plans by December 31 or face 'builders' remedy' lawsuits," Dressel said. The so-called "builder's remedy" allows dense, market-value developments in exchange for providing a smaller number of affordable units.

The lack of an extension doesn't settle the matter by a long shot.  There are legitimate questions that have been raised.  Hank Kalet recently discussed this issue. Just yesterday, Senator Lesniak sent out a release talking about his bill to "fix the faults in the current COAH guidelines.

"I have proposed a bill (S 2485) which would fix the faults in the current COAH guidelines that are stifling job growth and economic development in New Jersey. The bill would suspend the 2.5% development fee strangling our economic recovery as well as direct the State Housing Commission to recommend sound planning and economic principles sorely lacking in the current COAH mandates and regulations."

COAH eases rules with amendments

by: Jason Springer

Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:57:52 PM EDT

Under the rules, one-fifth of new development would be set aside as affordable housing.

The amendments approved by COAH yesterday would relax the one-in-five requirement under certain circumstances, taking into account the amount of environmentally sensitive land and vacant land within municipalities.

Still, COAH and the Highlands Council have yet to reach a formal agreement about how to reconcile their mandates, with the council dedicated to restraining development and COAH devoted to ensuring that every municipality build its share of affordable housing.

The Council on Affordable Housing proposed an exemption for homeowners rebuilding their homes due to fires, floods or natural disasters. The change is a response to outrage over regulations approved June 2 that consider a burned-down home a demolition that, if rebuilt, would trigger a fee paid to the agency.