The perfect storm apparently has hit the state Council on Affordable Housing. With suburban communities in revolt, with an influential state senator playing politics and a new governor elected with suburban votes all taking aim at COAH, it appears we could be headed back to court to defend the underlying right endorsed by the state Supreme Court in its Mount Laurel decisions: that towns have a responsibility to allow lower-priced housing to be built for low- and moderate-income homebuyers and renters.
The web of laws and lawsuits and the bureaucratic maze created in their aftermath have not accomplished the court’s goal. On the contrary, the backlash we are witnessing — culminating in the governor’s announcement today that he was creating a task force to “review” the future of COAH and affordable housing in New Jersey — has narrowed the space for discussion of the issue.
Reform, as we wrote in an editorial last week on the legislation being proposed by state Sen. Ray Lesniak, is obviously necessary. But reform has to respect the basic goals of the original Mount Laurel suits:
After more than 20 years, it has made only the smallest of dents in the need for housing or the income and racial segregation that plagues the state, while also contributing to sprawl. The question is whether the Lesniak bill, which essentially shifts responsibility for providing housing back to local communities, will accomplish what needs to be accomplished.
There are three issues at play.
The first is the need to build more housing for low- and moderate-income New Jerseyans. The state Supreme Court in 2008, in tossing out the latest COAH rules, estimated that 115,000 affordable units would be needed by the end of 2014. That figure, however, may significantly underestimate real need. According to NJ Future, a nonpartisan planning and research organization, housing advocates place the number at 900,000, a figure that takes into account the large number of families in the state who live either in substandard housing or housing that busts their household budgets.
The second is the need for regional planning that acknowledges the impact that both industrial and residential development has on housing need, traffic and the environment.
And the third, which goes to the heart of the COAH debate and we believe was the central point made by the state Supreme Court when it forced the Legislature to address the housing issue, is the idea of fair share. The court did not just rule that housing was necessary, but that every town had to supply its fair share of housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. Its point — which remains valid — is that racial and economic segregation is not good for the state, and that all of us had a responsibility to close that gap. COAH, unfortunately, has failed to do so — the state is home to three of the nation’s wealthiest counties (Hunterdon, Morris and Somerset) and three of its poorest cities (Camden, Newark and Paterson).
We obviously can do better, but it remains to be seen whether the legislation on the table will fix the problem or further exacerbate it. Before the Lesniak bill — which is being reviewed by the Economic Growth Committee — moves forward, its sponsor needs to demonstrate just how his reforms will result will lead to more housing and a less segregated state.
