I’m not exactly sure where The Star-Ledger gets its numbers for today’s editorial on affordable housing, but anyone who knows the communities of Cranbury and Monroe knows that another 4,590 housing units will never be built in Cranbury and that 12,200 are not anywhere on Monroe’s horizon.
The error, unfortunately, undercut what otherwise would be a strong argument for change in the way the state plans for affordable housing. The editorial essentially endorses legislation introduced by Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts that would ban regional contribution agreements — or the provision that allows towns to pay other communities to take on up to 50 percent of their obligation. The Roberts bill, as the Ledger points out, “would offer an alternative to RCAs by setting aside $15 million a year — money earmarked for affordable housing — to continue efforts to rehabilitate housing in cities and elsewhere. And, while the bill would ban RCAs, it encourages towns to come up with other methods to provide realistic opportunities for affordable housing, including donating land, providing tax abatements and using state and federal funds.”
There is some legitimate concern among urban mayors, because ending the RCA arrangement would mean an end to what has been a necessary flow of cash into the state’s cities. But it is, in many ways, dirty money because it perpetuates a widening income gap — low- and moderate-income housing gets built in the cities, while McMansions get built everywhere else, forcing not only the poor but many middle-income people out of towns like Cranbury.
Behind Roberts’ bill is a recognition that as long as there are two New Jerseys — one rich, one poor — the state is in trouble. New Jersey has the fourth-most segregated schools in the nation. Much of that is driven by housing patterns, and RCAs have contributed to the problem. The poor are concentrated in the cities not by choice but because there are simply too few alternatives.
That’s why the rehabilitation fund is so important. It potentially could offer an alternate source of funding for mayors in Jersey City, New Brunswick and other urban centers to repair existing housing without making them complicit in the artful dodge that RCAs create.
According to New Jersey Future, a nonprofit group that has long pushed for affordable housing, 12 municipalities have more than 50 percent of the statewide inventory of low- and moderate-income housing. Remarkably, some 246 municipalities have absolutely no affordable housing. Worse yet, there is virtually no affordable housing in areas where there is job growth.
The reason that the RCAs have remained in place so long are manifold.
Fear, prejudice and even legitimate concern about controlling municipal costs — poor people often require more services — have caused towns to resist their legal obligation to provide affordable housing.
There also is concern about the impact that affordable housing has on development — early efforts by most towns included the builder’s remedy, which required increased housing density — and the subsequent impact it has on local schools and on the elimination of open space.
Those are the two arguments generally made in Cranbury and Monroe — arguments that hold far less water than officials in those towns might be willing to admit. The experience in South Brunswick, where the township has made it a point of policy to keep all affordable units within its borders, has been a good one. That said, there have been rumblings about South Brunswick doing RCAs — from some school board members and some Republican candidates for council.
That’s why the bill may have some difficulty getting through the state Legislature (if it does get through, expect the governor to sign it — he already has announced that he wants to put limits on RCAs).
So let the conversation begin.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
Hank Kalet 