Affordable Housing Fight Goes Back to the Courts
Housing advocate and municipalities try to prevent the state from taking their funds.
The battle between the Christie administration and the Fair Share Housing Center continues.
This time, the two sides are going to court Friday over as much as $200 million in local affordable housing trust funds.
So far, the Appellate Division of Superior Court has been kind to the Cherry Hill-based housing advocates, but this case could be a different story.
To help balance the budget, Gov. Chris Christie recommended the state use the trust fund money. The administration appears to be within its legal right to do so, as the law creating the funds—and the developer fees that municipalities levy to subsidize them—specified municipalities had to “commit to spend” the money within four years. The clock strikes midnight on July 17.
But as always, there are caveats.
Last Friday, the New Jersey State League of Municipalities filed a brief in support of the Fair Share case, averring that the state has never defined what “commit to spend” means.
“It is patently unfair to take this money from towns without first giving them the rules of the game,” League Executive Director Bill Dressel said. “Towns have asked the state time and again what they need to do to protect these funds that are dedicated to affordable housing. The state has consistently refused to tell them.”
That statement gets to the bigger problem: With the abolition of the state Council on Affordable Housing—ruled improper by the court—affordable housing is at a standstill.
Christie has made no bones about his feelings for COAH. Neither have just about every other municipal official and state legislator.
The state Supreme Court’s Mount Laurel decisions, which led to the creation of COAH in 1985 to oversee the process by which all municipalities would provide their “fair share” of affordable housing for the state, continue to be politically unpopular.
Some communities refused to buy into the COAH process and took their chances in the courts, often winding up having to take huge housing developments with smaller amounts of low- and moderate-income units under the so-called “builder’s remedy.”
But more than 300 did follow the council’s process and were in various stages of conformance when COAH went kaput.
Christie sought early on to stop COAH for 90 days through an executive order, but Fair Share went to court. The appellate division ruled the governor isn’t that powerful and Christie withdrew his order.
A year later, the governor issued a reorganization plan abolishing COAH. That drew the same court action from Fair Share and met the same reaction from the appellate division.
The Legislature feels the same way as the governor and passed legislation getting rid of COAH and setting up different housing rules, but Christie conditionally vetoed it and Democratic lawmakers did not agree with his terms.
So while COAH should exist, it remains division non grata.
Much of the problem was politically created, driven by municipalities that did not want to let affordable housing into their communities. The Legislature created COAH in reaction to the court’s rulings, and at one time or another, its rules included all sorts of work-arounds, including provisions for municipalities to pay other communities to take their low-income housing obligations.
With new rules proposed, and challenged in court, twice since its creation, COAH’s regulations rival those of the IRS. Chatham’s last housing plan filed with the council totaled 79 pages.
It’s hard to argue with the language in Christie’s first, rescinded, executive order: “the burdensome procedures governing the provision of affordable housing in New Jersey for those with low and moderate income developed by COAH are excessively complex and unworkable, resulting in delays, inefficiencies, litigation and unreasonable costs to municipalities and the private sector without appreciable progress being made for our citizens.”
But it’s also hard to argue that there is a critical need for affordable housing in a state with a high cost of living, high cost of housing and the high property taxes.
Taking away municipal affordable housing funds without a statewide plan to spend the money to build low-cost housing is not going to solve the problem.
Colleen O'Dea is a writer, editor, researcher, data analyst, web page designer and mapper with nearly three decades in the news business. Her column appears weekly.
Affordable housing status
The amounts collected, spent, remaining and in danger of reverting to the state as of June 2012 and the municipality's status with the Council on Affordable Housing or in the courts as of 2010-11. The following are municipalities in Patch's coverage area in Morris, Passaic, Somerset and Sussex counties:
| Municipality | County | Funds collected | Funds spent | Funds balance | Reverting to State July 17 | Status |
| Chatham Twp. | Morris | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | COAH petition |
| Kinnelon | Morris | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | COAH petition |
| Mendham Twp. | Morris | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | COAH expired |
| Montville | Morris | $966 | $0 | $966 | $0 | COAH petition |
| Morris Plains | Morris | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Court builders remedy |
| Morris Twp. | Morris | $130 | $0 | $130 | $0 | COAH petition |
| Morristown | Morris | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Other |
| Chatham | Morris | $310,626 | $161,932 | $148,694 | $37,776 | COAH filing |
| Chester | Morris | $937,380 | $31,711 | $905,670 | $822,053 | COAH petition |
| Chester Twp. | Morris | $1,902,517 | $1,144,737 | $757,780 | $453,845 | COAH petition |
| Jefferson | Morris | $83,038 | $0 | $83,038 | $79,812 | COAH expired |
| Madison | Morris | $692,401 | $234,273 | $458,128 | $89,934 | COAH petition |
| Mendham | Morris | $575,272 | $464,065 | $111,207 | $0 | COAH petition |
| Parsippany | Morris | $6,397,139 | $1,610,162 | $4,786,977 | $3,280,134 | COAH petition |
| Washington Twp. | Morris | $3,065,438 | $2,275,561 | $789,877 | $150,372 | COAH certified |
| Bloomingdale | Passaic | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Court builders remedy |
| Wayne | Passaic | $3,740,059 | $2,268,123 | $1,471,936 | $1,118,849 | COAH re-petition |
| Bernards | Somerset | $11,157,357 | $9,707,544 | $1,449,813 | $289,827 | COAH certified |
| Bridgewater | Somerset | $11,234,905 | $6,141,747 | $5,093,158 | $4,387,670 | COAH petition |
| Green Brook | Somerset | $444,496 | $87,242 | $357,254 | $256,262 | Court declaratory judgement |
| Hillsborough | Somerset | $4,045,341 | $424,945 | $3,620,396 | $2,106,315 | Court declaratory judgement |
| Warren Twp. | Somerset | $7,600,817 | $2,531,756 | $5,069,060 | $4,184,860 | COAH petition |
| Watchung | Somerset | $1,873,904 | $1,245,273 | $628,631 | $387,322 | COAH petition |
| Hopatcong | Sussex | $120,580 | $0 | $120,580 | $69,272 | COAH expired |
Source: N.J. Department of Community Affairs
Timothy A. Jackson
7:56 am on Monday, July 9, 2012
Seems very odd to me that Morristown has $0 in the above table as developers repeatedly were assessed monies for the Coah requirment. Looks like, as we predicted at the time, that 'affordable housing' money disappears as soon as collected. Time to squash this scam asap. "Bigger fish" like Christie eat the "smaller fish": lying politicians who pretend to care for those in need by allocating money and then pocketing it into pet projects or budget shortfalls. Affordable housing is not desired by those blessed by Our Creator with the ability to help pay for it. It is a tool for gain by those who have, empowered by the vote of those who have not, and all promises forgotten after the vote is cast.
Dan Grant
9:10 am on Monday, July 9, 2012
It isn't odd, the Christie administration took the money. Montville Township had $78,000 which according to the DCA in Trenton was paid to the State. Now we have $900.00. You have to wonder how many other towns had their money turned over to the State.
V
8:30 am on Monday, July 9, 2012
Another sacred liberal cow got the knife. Chris Christie / Scott Walker 2016.
S.G.
8:25 am on Friday, August 24, 2012
Mr. Maxim, please explain how this is related to Liberal beliefs and, if so, why that would be negative?
If you had a child just out of college or a senior family member living on SS, would you object to them living in affordable housing?
BTW, I don't support the distorted form of COAH that I have seen for many years.
V
8:31 am on Friday, August 24, 2012
Mr/Mrs. S.G., I object to anyone leeching off the society. One who cannot afford paying market value for the residence (which, by the way, will decrease when AH is gutted) should either move to cheaper areas or, in a truly desperate situation such as medical handicap, apply for Section VIII.
Flo Gallo
10:10 am on Monday, July 9, 2012
be careful what you wish for...
The Watcher
10:50 am on Monday, July 9, 2012
So it looks like Hopatcong's $69,272 reverted back to the state?
Roll Back Our Tax
11:25 am on Monday, July 9, 2012
Watcher...yes. It appears Hopatcong lost $120,580 total! For a borough that's short on funds as it is, Elia the borough administrator should give up his salary for a year! What are we paying his 6 figure salary....to play with his abacus all day?
Nose Wayne
4:22 pm on Monday, July 9, 2012
How come ONLY two towns in Passaic County!!! IT FIGURES!! Wayne Township getting SCREWED by the state again!!! How many MILLIONS do we have to give to Paterson this time ? When is it all going to stop ?
Pad
4:54 pm on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
The Mt Laurel ruling is disgusting. We are the only state in the nation to have such a ruling forcing low income housing to be built and fiananced by the taxpayers of this state. Governor Christie was absolutely right to get rid of it. Billions have been wasted, misspent and even stolen by contractors, politicians etc. This was a ruling by the state supreme court that this state could do without. This isn't the Garden State its become the Handout State.
Fed up
2:06 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
Hah! You think this is bad. Too bad people don't know about the tens of thousands of elderly immigrants that come here and live rent-free in apts. under Section 8 Housing retired taxpayers could certainly use and deserve!
Nose Wayne
12:21 am on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Pad, the CONTRACTOR STATE, MO MONEY,MO MONEY,MO MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dan Grant
8:29 am on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
The fact is that many towns in the state had exclusionary zoning that prevented the building of reasonable cost housing so builders took it to Court and won. Towns came out of that ruling with a few different options. They could accept the builders remedy, collect a builders contribution and build their own public housing or they could buy their way out of it by sending their money to Towns willing to build affordable housing. The people who live in affordable housing are seniors on fixed income and people who work full time for wages below or at the poverty level. Many of those workers work at jobs that are needed for the ecconomy but don't pay well. Where are those people to live without affordable housing? I live in Affordable housing. I didn't expect to but I didn't expect to be 65 and broke either. I live in a complex that was built under the builders remedy which means that the builder had to set aside 20 percent of the units they were building for low and moderate income. It didn't cost tax payers anything and in fact the Township was happy to get the ratables from the overall complex. It represents a net gain in property taxes for the Township because the overall complex doesn't send the number of children to the school system that single family residential developments do. The fact is that there is a need for affordable housing. How the Towns handle it is up to them.
V
9:12 am on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Whoa. Bankrupt used-car salesman freeloading on taxpayer's dime, in the prime of senility. A poster-case Democrat!
Bill
7:57 am on Friday, August 24, 2012
I too live in a complex that has a section for affordable housineg. Problem is, I pay the whole Association Fee and Mt. Laurel folks pay 1/3. So the state isn't responsible, individual home owners within this complex are paying for the Mt. Laurel affordable folks. I live in a market value house, and now that I'm retired, I still have to pay for the folks who now are probably making more than me. I should be able to claim these people as dependents.
Dan Grant
9:54 am on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Max you are as nasty as you are ignorant. You have no idea of my condition or how it came to be that way. Nothing is tax payer supported unless you resent the SS I paid for over 40 years of working most of which I paid at 13-14 percent as a self employed person. My mental capacity is good enough to recognize your hate.
V
10:32 am on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Dan, your mental capacity is not sufficient to find a "Reply" button, despite my repeated attempts to guide you. Don't bang your chest too hard for paying SS because I'm also forced to pay into the same Ponzi pyramid (more than you, most likely) but, unlike you, won't see a single cent of it. Also, affordable housing has nothing to do with Social Security: you're leeching from the township, not the Feds.
Dan Grant
11:23 am on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
You don't get the fact that affordable housing in Montville Township is not tax supported. You come here from somewhere else and start spouting off about things you know nothing about and call those that do know names.
V
8:44 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
Dan, do not prove yourself even more stupid than you are. Affordable housing is supported by the developers who in turn increase prices we all pay through mortgages. Only in your Commie world, money grows on trees and cars are powered by unicorn farts.
Roll Back Our Tax
1:43 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
Dan...correct me if I am wrong butI thought you were a corrections officer?
Dan Grant
9:38 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
No, I don't know where you would have gotten that idea, However I am an unoffical "Officer of Corrections" in that I try to correct the false statements of posters.
Ted
7:36 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
Dan, It appears to me that Max is a byproduct of our freedom of speech rights, but don't wallow in the sewer with him. You owe jerks like him no response, and you have no need to defend your status. Who the hell does he think he is? He has nothing but negative comments to every conceivable situation that the Patch puts up, and it's time for Patch readers to picket this smacker by not responding to anything he posts. If the Patch won't filter him, then our silence will shut him down.
wally
7:57 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
pretty obvious that Max leans right and the Patch leans left (Dan's world), makes for some different opinions and in the case of these two outright fighting. What's wrong with that Ted?
Ted
8:11 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
"leans right" of what? Extremism has no bounds, and it appears that the only effort he makes towards making Montville a better community is paying his taxes (which we all must do) and making nasty comments here. And for the record, I'm a lifelong, fairly conservative Republican, native born & raised, and I personally resent instant status by folks like "him" who "hold no currency" in a community. Montville Township didn't appear on the planet when Max moved here, so I'll choose to shut him out, and I hope everyone else does likewise.
V
8:49 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
Ted, since when has the GOP become the party of "shut 'em up"? You're not a Republican. Lying that you are won't get you any "moderate" cred.
Dan Grant
9:34 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
Ted, Max is a fool and is wrong about all of his negative comments. I have to laugh at his assumption that you are not a Republican. His first response is that you must be a liar because it doesn't fit his narrative. He has neither contributed to anything positive in the Township or taken anything close to a reasonable position on anything. He, however, feeds into false assumptions because he has a computer and thinks he is the only one who understands a Township and it's people he has learned nothing about. You notice he switched from claiming that Montville Affordable Housing was tax supported to now saying it was developer supported and therefore paid for by other people's money. He need not worry the developer claimed to have made money on even the affordable units they built and the fact is that none of the units would have been built were it not for the Mount Laural componant. You notice he doesn't talk about the $4.8 million taken from ratepayers of water and sewer or any other issue of importance to the Township or the potential loss in coverage in public safety. The only thing you can say about Max is that with free speech come the right to say stupid things.
Tracy Tobin
8:59 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
Washington Township Morris County has committed the $150,372 "at risk" balance available for the purchase of a single family home for affordable housing in our municipality. No money in the dedicated affordable housing account will be forfeited to the State. We have complied with the COAH regulations and our affordable housing plan has been certified as compliant.
John Davidson
7:57 am on Wednesday, October 31, 2012
This might not be the ideal place to request this, but I’m trying to find a FREE House Plans online and have no method to find out who is the very best. I uncovered this website which is I find reliable and wanted to see if any person has any reviews on them. SDS CAD. http://www.100freehouseplans.com/
Please help me with this as my wife and I have been struggling to find a good/reliable site to obtain affordable and even FREE house designs