Page 22 - RE-NJ

20 MARCH 2025
POLICY
PAGE
NJBA TAKES AIM AT TOWNS SEEKING
TO LOWER STATE HOUSING MANDATES
By Joshua Burd
The New Jersey Builders Association
is suing nearly 160 municipalities that
have sought to reduce their affordable
housing obligations under a law
adopted last year, setting up a new
round of legal battles as state offi cials
roll out the closely watched program.
The organization, which represents
homebuilders and apartment
developers, said in late February that
it had begun fi ling challenges against
towns and cities that contested
guidelines from the Department of
Community Affairs. That follows
the agency’s release last fall of the
nonbinding calculations — which
found a defi cit of more than 150,000
low- and moderate-income homes
across New Jersey’s 564 municipalities
— launching a program that required
governing bodies to adopt the state’s
fi gures for their municipality or
provide their own by Jan. 31.
Those that offered their own numbers
based on land capacity or other
factors were subject to challenges
from developers, affordable housing
advocates and other stakeholders
through Feb. 28. NJBA is now
targeting those 159 communities that
adopted resolutions calling for lower
obligations.
For instance, Brick Township believes
its defi cit is a mere 29 units or 8
percent of the 360 units identifi ed
by DCA last fall. Neptune Township,
meantime, is seeking to wipe out its
full obligation after the state said
its prospective need was 170 lower-
income homes, while White Township
in Warren County believes its number
is 53 units, a 269-unit reduction from
DCA’s fi gures.
“These municipalities had the ability to
produce their own fair share allocation
model that would have applied in a
uniform manner,
but instead
they chose
to ignore the
clear statutory
requirements
of the 2024
amendments to
the Fair Housing
Jeff Kolakowski
Act and cherry
pick data with the singular focus of
reducing their fair share obligations,”
Jeff Kolakowski, the association’s
CEO, wrote in a prepared statement.
“We feel compelled to respond in
order to preserve the nearly 14,000
low- and moderate-income units that
these 159 municipalities would seek to
simply eliminate despite New Jersey’s
established and pressing need for such
affordable housing opportunities.”
Mike Cerra, executive director of
the New Jersey State League of
Municipalities, said he was “not
surprised but
profoundly
disappointed”
by the NJBA’s
action, criticizing
it as “reckless”
and a “throw
everything
against the wall
and see what
sticks type of approach.”
Mike Cerra
“There are about 430 municipalities
that have sought to comply with their
obligation through this process, and
the response from the builders is,
‘Across the board, everybody who
sought to lower their number is
wrong,’” Cerra said. “Now, taxpayer
dollars are going to be spent defending
these lawsuits across the board,
regardless of why the reduction was
sought in the fi rst place.”
The framework comes under a law
that Gov. Phil Murphy signed last
March, aiming to streamline the
tangled, at times polarizing process of
building affordable housing under the
state Supreme Court’s seminal Mount
Laurel cases and Fair Housing Act.
And it follows a decade in which the
state judiciary oversaw enforcement
— having assumed control in 2015
from the dormant Council on
Affordable Housing — leading to
the creation of some 21,000 deed-
restricted affordable homes in New
Jersey.
NJBA, for its part, pointed to its
longstanding “strong interest and
standing to advance sound affordable
housing policy.” That’s the impetus for
its move “to counter a concerted effort
by these 159 municipalities to skirt
the law,” the group said, while citing
the ongoing litigation by 28 towns
that have sought to block the statute’s
implementation.
“(The towns) have amassed a legal
war chest to challenge every aspect of
the 2024 revisions to the Fair Housing
Act despite the fact that the process
they are challenging is a purely
voluntary one,” Kolakowski wrote.
“NJBA’s actions to defend against
the fi lings of these 159 different
towns requires substantial effort and
great legal expense for our trade
association. However, it is an action
we felt necessary, as this is matter of
statewide importance and imperative
that we continue in our opposition to
the municipal playbook of obfuscation
and delay.
“NJBA has taken no action to
impede or challenge those 250+
municipalities that demonstrated
good faith compliance with the recent
amendment to the Fair Housing Act by
accepting their fair share allocation as
established by the sound and audited
methodology of the Department of
Community Affairs.”
Cerra, meantime, pointed to DCA’s
own admission that some of the
datasets it used for its calculations
were limited. That’s one reason why
the agency’s guidance was nonbinding,
he said, “so towns are complying with
the statute, but the developers are
trying to rewrite the statute.”
NJBA said its goal “is not to cause
municipalities unnecessary legal
expenses but to ensure that the law
is followed and its equitable uniform
approach is adopted for all New Jersey
municipalities.” The association added
that its position “is not one of rigidity,
either, and we recognize that towns
may eventually seek adjustments to
their obligations after looking more
comprehensively at their land and
housing opportunities as they prepare
updated compliance plans later this
year.”
“However, what these 159 towns have
attempted is to reduce the established
need for affordable housing in this
state,” the statement read. “We
believe such an outcome would be
unacceptable and only undermine
our ability to meet the constitutional
obligation to ensure reasonable
opportunities for affordable housing
throughout all of New Jersey.
We look forward to continuing
to work to address our housing
underproduction, undersupply and
affordability problem through the
creation of a healthy supply of diverse
housing types.” RE