The Bizarre Amendments to S-1
Posted by Kevin Walsh on March 4th 2010
Yesterday, we received a copy of the amended version of S-1, the legislation sponsored by Senator Ray Lesniak that is intended to reform New Jersey’s approach to affordable housing. It is a proposal that, more than anything else, is simply bizarre.
In its original form, S-1 was an ambiguous bill with no standards. It was plainly a placeholder intended to capture attention while not being seriously advanced.
The amended legislation, which we are making available here, provides a clearer picture of what Senator Lesniak is attempting to accomplish. We have been involved in discussions about affordable housing in New Jersey for a long time, and we stay on top of what other states are doing. We can safely say that the amended version of S-1 is the strangest housing policy that has ever been seriously considered in any statehouse.
S-1 would:
Exempt half of New Jersey’s municipalities from further obligations, based mainly on a standard that has nothing to do with affordable housing and instead largely deals with how many townhouses are in a town. The towns that are exempted have very little in common with one another. Here’s a few disparate examples: Camden, Newark, Princeton, Summit, Far Hills, and Parsippany-Troy Hills.
In the other half of municipalities, eliminate planning and municipal control for a process designed to produce a lot of development, but relatively little affordable housing. In those municipalities, any developer on any site with sewer service can force a zoning board to accept their proposed development anywhere in the town, with basically no standards for site suitability and minimal affordable set-asides.
Move development away from transit and thus encourage sprawl. Some 55 percent of municipalities in New Jersey with a train station would not have to do anything at all. The very municipalities where we are supposed to focus growth would have no obligation whatsoever to include affordable housing.
Move development away from jobs. Approximately 63 percent of jobs in New Jersey are in municipalities that would have no further obligation under S-1.
Remove requirements for low-income and very-low-income housing, excluding virtually all New Jersey families earning less than $40,000 a year. All affordable housing can be moderate-income or “workforce housing” (a term that improperly assumes low- or moderate-income residents, who can earn as much as $70,000 a year, are not part of the workforce).
Rush through 5000 RCAs by 2011. Half the number of RCAs approved over a 20 year period would be approved in just 18 months. The process would be even more of a rubber stamp than the process used in the past.
Eliminate opportunities for non-profit developers and, in about three-quarters of New Jersey towns, for special needs housing developers. The legislation focuses exclusively on inclusionary developments, which are almost always developed by for-profit companies.
With such substantial flaws and ridiculous results, this legislation is not only unconstitutional, but also entirely unworkable.
Just as Lesniak initially got rid of RCAs and now wants to bring them back, he has flip-flopped on his goals on S-1 in just a couple of months. In January, the senator criticized COAH for producing too little affordable housing, saying, “COAH has had 25 years of failure, producing an average of 2,000 affordable housing units a year.” But yesterday he acknowledged that his goal is reduce the amount of affordable housing that will be provided in New Jersey. The Star Ledger reported:
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Ray Lesniak (D-Union), said today it is not designed to produce more affordable housing but rather to comply with a landmark state Supreme Court ruling that towns could not block residents from access to affordable housing.
Saying just that it is designed to produce less affordable housing is an understatement. The amended version of S-1 would produce virtually no affordable housing and shift homes further from jobs and transportation and would exempt many of the state’s wealthiest towns from any further housing obligation. Nor would it comply in any meaningful way with the Mount Laurel doctrine. It will be interesting to see what kind of defense, if any, Senator Lesniak can offer for his strange proposal at the Senate Economic Growth Committee hearing on March 8.
