How The New Lesniak Bill Would(n’t) Work

Posted by Adam Gordon on March 9th 2010

In this e-mail we review the latest version of Sen. Lesniak’s attempt to rewrite New Jersey’s housing policy — and by the latest version we mean the version released yesterday, not the version which he released last week and then, yesterday, denied having even read (comparison between the two versions available here).

Sen. Lesniak yesterday at the last minute canceled a long-scheduled committee hearing on his proposed S-1 and instead held a press conference. It was supposed to start with a briefing of all of his fellow Senate Economic Growth Committee members, but only one showed up. So he moved on right to the press, making it very clear that he would take questions from the press only. He excluded the members of the public who had assembled, initially hoping to testify on the legislation given that many of them had been denied the chance to do so in Sen. Lesniak’s prior two hearings.

The press conference’s most telling moment came when Sen. Lesniak proposed that the State Planning Commission could easily use aerial photos to determine what is a “luxury condo” and what is not, in order to sort out which towns would have to create more housing choices, and which towns would be exempt.

We’re not really sure what the rooftops of buildings would tell a government agency about how much those buildings cost. Perhaps the State Planning Commission could buy a couple of helicopters and look into the apartments to see which ones had luxury furniture.

But let’s take a step back and ask – how did we get here, anyway? Back in January, Sen. Lesniak said he intended to end “top down, micro-managed, and complex bureaucracy” in setting state housing policy. But as his bill evolved, it has simply replaced one state agency — COAH — with another — the State Planning Commission. And he has assigned it, instead of tasks that actually lead to the production of new homes, tasks that conform to the bizarre standards in Lesniak’s bill that have absolutely nothing to do with providing more homes near jobs and transit.

To review from last week’s version of the bill (this part of it hasn’t changed), Sen. Lesniak’s bill would make the official policy of the state to focus new homes in towns that do not already have townhouses or condominiums. If a town already has more than one-third of its homes as townhouses or condominiums, it is deemed “inclusionary.” If it does not, it has to change its zoning to allow more residential development.

The “aerial photo” comment came in response to criticism that this standard had no relation to affordability. Gov. Corzine’s condominium in Hoboken would qualify as affordable. So Sen. Lesniak added a provision to the bill allowing the State Planning Commission to determine whether apartments and townhouses are “luxury dwellings” and if so to exempt them.

Let’s say this bill were law. Imagine the process that follows, using the following example. In Secaucus, a developer wishes to redevelop an underutilized warehouse near the train station with a development with 225 market-rate and 75 affordable homes. The municipality is deemed an “inclusionary community” because it has a lot of townhouses and condominiums at not-too-affordable places like Harmon Cove. However, if the developer can prove, through some undefined set of hearings before the State Planning Commission, that the townhouses and condominiums at Harmon Cove are “luxury dwellings,” maybe they have a shot at getting an approval.

How did we get to this point? Sen. Lesniak originally said that he wanted a “smart growth” housing policy that would be easy to understand and implement. But now he is proposing the opposite — a policy that encourages sprawl and separates homes from jobs, transportation, and environmentally suitable sites for development and redevelopment. And creates an unpredictable and strange new bureaucracy to boot.

And we haven’t even discussed the bill’s other issues: - continued failure to accommodate non-profit and special needs developers, who would be excluded from a process driven by for-profit developers – The legislation focuses exclusively on inclusionary developments, which are almost always developed by for-profit companies; - exclusion of New Jersey families making under $40,000 a year; - elimination of funding and usurpation of municipal power through statewide elimination of all future development fees to replenish municipal housing trust funds (which have been a key source of funding housing in New Jersey since the mid-1980s); - Rush through 5,000 RCAs by 2011; half the number of RCAs approved over a 20 year period would be approved in just 18 months.

Sen. Lesniak promises a vote on S-1 in committee next Monday. Visit FSHC’s website, www.fairsharehousing.org, to keep apprised of any further developments.