The issue of affordable housing in New Jersey has a long and controversial history. Beginning with the challenge to Mount Laurel’s exclusionary zoning practices in the late-1960s, which went all the way to the state Supreme Court, the questions of how much affordable housing should be built and where have divided the state.
Suburban communities have balked at state mandates for housing since the court ruled in 1975 in the first Mount Laurel decision that every municipality had a responsibility to provide housing for low- and moderate-income residents. They have claimed — with some justification — that the housing system leads to sprawl and they have won numerous battles over the years to weaken the court’s second Mount Laurel ruling establishing the notion of fair share.
Despite this, the state managed to make progress on the housing question for about 15 years — until the Council on Affordable Housing attempted to change its approach. The new growth-share formula, which is supposed to peg need to development, has been criticized by housing activists as an amorphous and unenforceable mess that will allow towns to skirt their obligations.
Suburban communities view growth-share — if not the exact formula devised — as an improvement over earlier approaches.
Housing advocates are right, I think, but it remains to be seen where the court comes down on this. I spent the day Wednesday listening to arguments — see my piece in NJ Spotlight recounting the court hearing — and only one thing is clear to me: reading the justices based on their questions is a fool’s errand.
My suspicion is that the court is going to craft a narrow ruling that will leave the Mount Laurel doctrine in place, but could force the Legislature to act. That seems a prescription for further delay, given Gov. Chris Christie’s dislike of the Mount Laurel doctrine and COAH — something the court also will be ruling on at a later date.
Lost in the scuffle, unfortunately, is the rationale for the Fair Housing Act, which is both the construction of affordable housing and the desegregation (by both race and class) of New Jersey. The courts have been clear over the years that the notions of municipal obligations and regional need are meant to spread the housing around and give minorities and low-income New Jerseyans a chance to move to the suburbs.
That must remain the goal whatever happens with the growth-share challenge.
Hank Kalet 