September 8, 2010 - Trenton, NJ - In a decision issued this morning, Marlboro Township (Monmouth County), was removed from the protections of the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) because the Council found that the municipality “consistently failed to demonstrate good faith” in meeting its housing obligations. This decision permits developers and non-profit organizations, such as Fair Share Housing Center, to obtain compliance with the Mount Laurel doctrine through the courts.

At the same meeting, Union Township in Union County and Cresskill Borough in Bergen County received approvals of their housing plans for the next eight years. These approvals recognize these municipalities’ good faith in planning for a wide range of housing choices through realistic and reasonable measures, and protect those towns from any litigation for an eight-year period.

“Marlboro was given a dozen chances to remove exclusionary barriers to modestly priced housing and spend the over $13 million they have sitting in the bank for that purpose. But they acted in bad faith, in sharp contrast to municipalities like Union Township that have actively planned for a wide range of housing choices,” said Adam M. Gordon, the attorney who represented Fair Share Housing Center in the Marlboro proceeding. “Any effective solution to the problem of exclusionary zoning practices must separate towns like Union Township that are doing the right thing from towns like Marlboro that go to any length to shirk their obligations.”

Marlboro was found to have repeatedly delayed meeting its housing obligations. Although the municipality was protected from litigation for 15 years, its housing plans were never approved by COAH due to the municipality’s constant delay tactics. In 2008, former Mayor Matthew Scannapieco was sentenced to nearly two years in prison for taking bribes from developers in exchange for allowing them to get around meeting their obligations to build low- and moderate-income housing. The town then tried to sell to Trenton 332 low- and moderate-income homes, even after the Legislature banned the controversial practice in 2008. Most recently, the township filed a plan to meet its obligations that failed to meet 256 units of its fair share housing obligation.

“We will now seek appropriate remedies in court to ensure that Marlboro allows long-delayed supportive housing for people with special needs and garden apartments for families to move forward,” Gordon added. “We also will work with organizations that can put the $13 million to good use in creating homes and jobs.”

Marlboro currently has sitting unspent in a bank account over $13 million that is required to be used to build and renovate supportive housing for people with special needs and other homes affordable to low- and moderate-income people, significantly more than any other municipality in the state. Despite the availability of these significant resources to meet its obligations, Marlboro has done everything in its power to prevent housing for New Jersey’s working families from being developed.

Today’s decision was in response to requests for relief filed by Fair Share Housing Center and several developers seeking approvals to develop homes in Marlboro.

The decision is available here.

Fair Share Housing Center, founded in 1975, is based in Cherry Hill. It is the only public interest organization devoted entirely to defending the housing rights of New Jersey’s poor through implementing the Mount Laurel doctrine, which requires that each municipality provide its fair share of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income people. ###

Today is June 30, the day that Gov. Christie and Sen. Lesniak had set as their deadline for passing S-1, the deeply flawed and unconstitutional proposal to overhaul New Jersey’s housing policy. Thanks to an upswell of opposition to S-1 and to the leadership of Speaker Sheila Oliver, Majority Leader Joe Cryan, Assembly Housing and Local Government Committee Chair and Vice-Chair Jerry Green and Mila Jasey, and Assembly Economic Growth Committee Chair Al Coutinho, that did not come to pass. Instead, the Legislature will work on alternative approaches to changing New Jersey’s housing policy over the summer.

Looking back, June was quite a busy month for those who opposed S1: - June 3 - S1 voted out of Senate Economic Growth committee. Although there was a strong showing of opposition from a wide range of groups, Sen. Lesniak did not allow any testimony at the hearing.
- June 3 - Statement released by every Catholic Bishop in New Jersey in opposition to S1 and support of Mount Laurel doctrine. - June 7 - Star-Ledger editorial opposing S1 process; further editorials throughout June from Asbury Park Press, Courier-News, Home News Tribune, New Jersey Law Journal also oppose the bill. - June 9 - Over 100 civil rights, environmental, special needs and supportive housing, religious, and labor groups release statement in opposition to S1. - June 10 - S1 was passed by the Senate. Senator Rice, Turner and Weinberg voted no. The following Senators abstained or did not vote: Allen, Madden Jr., Ruiz, Ciesla, Norcross, Vitale, Doherty and Smith. Sen. Norcross shortly after criticizes the bill as unfair to South Jersey, and Sen. Weinberg releases a statement explaining her no vote. - June 15 - A coalition of over 15 groups propose an alternative approach instead of S1 in a Trenton press conference, including the NAACP, Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey, New Jersey Regional Coalition, Sierra Club, Corporation for Supportive Housing, Supportive Housing Association, and Coalition on Affordable Housing and Environment. - June 17 - The Assembly Housing and Local Government committee held a hearing on S1. Everyone who signed up was able to testify, providing the first open public hearing on the bill. The hearing took almost four hours, and large flaws with the bill were vocalized with overwhelming opposition to the bill. At the end of the hearing, the committee decided not to take a vote. Read FSHC testimony here. - June 24 - The Assembly Budget committee voted out A3055, extending suspension of statewide non-residential development fee to October 30, 2010, to the full Assembly. After Assembly votes to pass the bill with overwhelming support, Senate refuses to hear it. - June 26 - Despite vocal statements by the Christie administration and Sen. Lesniak alluding to having the bill on Christie’s desk by the end of the month, Speaker Oliver quoted by the Star-Ledger stating, “[S1] will not get a vote in committee this summer but we hope to get it to a point where we can vote on it in the fall.” As we celebrate an interim victory, we look forward to working with the wide range of groups opposed to S1 and legislative leadership this summer to come up with a better approach to New Jersey’s housing policy, expanding on the joint proposal presented at the June 15 press conference.

We would like to thank Assembly Speaker Oliver, Majority Leader Cryan, Committee Chairs Green and Coutinho, and Vice-Chair Jasey, along with Sens. Norcross, Rice, Turner, and Weinberg, for their efforts to slow the rapid movement of the bill. We now hope that they will work to see that the best possible bill presented to the Legislature in the fall.

Most of all, we thank those 100-plus groups, and all of you on this list who worked hard to stop what seemed like, in the words of the Asbury Park Press, a “runaway train” and had faith in the democratic process. Special thanks to the Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey, which partnered with us in leading the opposition to S1.

We know we have a long road ahead of us, and we look forward to walking it with you together.

New Jersey Law Journal

June 18, 2010

Senate Bill No. 1 — which would abolish the Council on Affordable Housing, significantly reduce centralized state oversight of enforcement of the Mt. Laurel affordable housing mandate and essentially allow municipalities to self-certify that they are in compliance — has passed in the Senate and is headed for the Assembly. The governor, who has vowed to “gut COAH,” has announced that he would sign the bill into law.

Once S-1 is enacted, litigation is sure to follow, and absent a significant departure from stare decisis, we predict that its provisions defining municipalities’ affordable housing obligations will be declared unconstitutional.

Abolition of COAH is not the issue. Historically, the council has caused no end of angst, frustration, and exasperation for all sides, and has become a lightning rod for criticism. It has been universally reviled by municipalities, developers, fair housing advocates, and environmentalists.

Ironically, for the first 20 years of its existence, COAH was a convenient shield for many municipalities seeking protection from the more potent builder’s remedy while not actually promoting significant new affordable housing. But in the last few years leading to the promulgation of the third-round rules, it was the municipalities who cried “Et tu COAH!” when they suddenly found that, for once, it meant business, albeit through regulations that are complex, convoluted and at times barely comprehensible.

COAH itself is only one particular process chosen by the Legislature in the Fair Housing Act in response to the Supreme Court’s invitation to devise a legislative mechanism in place of a judicial remedy in order to address the constitutional mandate of Mt. Laurel . The Legislature is free to change its mind and devise another solution, and nothing in the Mt. Laurel mandate prohibits abolition of the agency and replacement with something else. We thus have no quarrel with S-1 to the extent that it transfers the functions of COAH to the Department of Community Affairs. Indeed, although COAH is statutorily “in but not of” the department, historically no one has accused it of excessive independence from the department, so the change is somewhat cosmetic.

We do think that accusations that COAH has imposed “unfunded mandates” — the bête noire of New Jersey politics — are a bit overdone, given that COAH is a completely voluntary process that over 200 municipalities in New Jersey ignore simply by not seeking substantive certification, thus taking their chances with a judicial remedy. As the chairman of the Council on Local Mandates wrote last year when Medford challenged COAH on those grounds, “The fact that over 44 percent of New Jersey’s municipalities have elected to not participate in COAH fatally undermines Medford’s assertion that the FHA or the COAH regulations are unfunded mandates as defined by N.J. Const. art. VIII, § 2, ¶ 5. Simply stated, where there is choice, there is no mandate.”

But the observation that, in the eyes of some, COAH has now outlived its usefulness as a voluntary alternative to judicial remedies enforcing the Mt. Laurel doctrine, highlights what is really at stake in S-1 . If substantive certification by COAH no longer provides protection against a direct judicial remedy, then does S-1 ‘s replacement concept of “inclusionary municipality” do so in a way that the courts will accept? Unless the courts are willing to revisit the Mt. Laurel doctrine itself, we think the answer is no.

The real problem with S-1 is that it utterly fails to fulfill the Mt. Laurel mandate that obligates municipalities to provide a realistic opportunity for affordable housing on a regional basis. S-1 does away with state-imposed calculations of affordable housing need, euphemistically known as quotas. Municipalities will simply be deemed to have fulfilled their housing obligation if 7.5 percent of their housing stock is price restricted, or 33 percent of their housing stock consists of multifamily housing and mobile homes. The bill even allows luxury housing to be included, although municipalities “may” exclude it.

And how do we know that such housing stock will satisfy the actual need for affordable housing? S-1 doesn’t tell us. As pointed out by the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services, the bill requires neither the State Planning Commission nor the municipalities to determine and allocate regional housing need among the municipalities. There is no metric to evaluate and determine whether need has been satisfied. Absent some nexus between the housing provided and satisfaction of regional and statewide affordable housing needs, the OLS rightly believes that S-1 will be declared unconstitutional.

S-1 also relies upon inclusionary zoning, under which builders will be required to reserve, or set aside, 10 percent of all new housing units for people of low and moderate income. The courts have repeatedly made clear, however, that satisfaction of Mt. Laurel cannot depend upon the inclination of developers to help the poor, but must depend on affirmative inducements to make the construction of affordable housing a reality. Such inducements must include, at a minimum, density bonuses, elimination of cost-generating features and removal of excessive restrictions and exactions.

S-1 does not require municipalities to provide any such inducements. It is unfair to require builders, and the ultimate purchasers of their market rate housing units, to bear the entire cost of affordable housing. But that is what S-1 does. As the Appellate Division held in its most recent COAH decision, “A regulatory regime that relies on developers to incur the uncompensated expense of providing affordable housing is unlikely to result in municipal zoning ordinances that make it realistically probable that the statewide need for affordable housing can be met.”

While S-1 satisfies the pledge to “gut COAH,” it will accomplish nothing else if, as expected, the bill is enacted and invalidated by the courts. The Legislature needs to go back to the drawing board to draft a bill which simplifies the process while actually satisfying the need for affordable housing.

Times of Trenton Editorial Board - Monday, June 21, 2010

The Assembly was right last week to hold off on a vote to abolish the Council on Affordable Housing and its 25-year-old mission to guarantee the availability of homes for low-income families in New Jersey

The Assembly’s deliberation is in contrast with the Senate’s quick passage of the measure. Assemblyman Jerry Green, chairman of the Housing and Local Government Committee, delayed a vote to give panel members more time to consider the complex legislation.

Testifying before the panel, Community Affairs Commissioner Lori Grifa said the legislation comprises three goals: “One, end COAH and the madness of the arbitrary quota system that paid dividends to lawyers and planners, cost towns thousands of dollars and stymied sensible growth. Two, empower municipalities to make their own decisions about land use and housing on a local level. Three, create clear guidelines for affordable housing that encourage achievable results.”

We agree that the present system, set in motion by the state Supreme Court’s Mount Laurel decision, is capricious and has not fulfilled the promise of providing an opportunity for all to afford a life and home in New Jersey. It should be replaced.

But the proffered solution is not the best course. And the “clear guidelines” are anything but clear.

Intended to simplify the rules mandating inclusion of affordable housing as part of any development, the legislation would require that up to 10 percent of any new residential development of 20 or more units be set aside for low-income residents.

And it deems about half of New Jersey’s municipalities “exclusionary,” meaning they must add affordable housing units. But the formula’s practical inconsistencies abound. For instance, while Princeton Borough and Township are considered “inclusionary,” and therefore exempt, Ewing is deemed exclusionary. The bottom line is that, in some cases, towns that already have a diversity of housing stock will be required to do more than wealthier towns.

Another unsuitable aspect of the plan is that it would allow builders to slough their affordable housing responsibility by constructing affordable units elsewhere, making a contribution to rehabilitating existing low-income housing or paying fees into the towns’ affordable housing trust fund. That continues the COAH loophole that has resulted in so much racial and economic segregation in this state.

More than 100 groups, including the state’s Catholic bishops, the Sierra Club, Habitat for Humanity, the NAACP, the Coalition for Affordable Housing and the Environment, the Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey and the Fair Share Housing Center, have urged the Legislature to come up with a better solution than that represented by this bill. We call on the Legislature to hold hearings to cull the input of those who address affordable housing issues every day.

We agree with Kevin Walsh of the Fair Share Housing Center that, as it stands, this bill will “strengthen the hand of municipalities that have shut their doors to lower-income New Jerseyans.”

Assembly Housing & Local Government Committee

June 17, 2010

Good Morning Chairman Green, Vice Chair Jasey, and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to speak about reforms to the Fair Housing Act of 1985. I am here this morning on behalf of Fair Share Housing Center, an organization founded in 1975 by several of the plaintiffs in the original Mount Laurel litigation. Since its founding, the Center has been involved in representing the interests of lower-income families and others who need housing they can afford.

Although I have attended all five legislative hearings on S-1 and signed up to testify at every hearing, this is the first time I have been permitted to testify. The problems with S-1 begin with the process by which it passed the Senate and extend all the way to the recently added provisions of the legislation that permit developers and municipalities to provide no new affordable units despite substantial housing growth by simply arranging $10,000 grants. Organizations with longtime and unquestioned commitments to social justice, such as the Catholic Conference and the NAACP, have opposed S-1 because it would undermine the Mount Laurel doctrine and strengthen the hand of municipalities that have shut their doors to lower-income New Jerseyans.

But I am not really here to talk about S-1 because I do not believe it is worth spending further time and energy on that bill. It is my hope that today’s hearing begins an honest and inclusive dialogue about a new housing policy that produces homes for people at all ranges of the income spectrum and that links housing with jobs and transit. New Jersey’s housing policy should provide opportunities for everyone, including people who don’t already live in the town where the housing is built and want to find better opportunities for their kids — or people who want to move back to the town where they grew up. New Jersey’s housing policy should promote racial and economic integration in housing and should provide a good balance of housing for families of all incomes, including families earning around $25,000 per year which A-500 for the first time included and S-1 would take out, seniors, and people with special needs.

As this committee takes a fresh look at New Jersey’s housing policies, there are several points worth highlighting.

1. As a general rule, the municipalities that are less affordable should do more. New Jersey is among the most racially and economically segregated states in the nation. It is NOT like this everywhere else. Our housing policies should acknowledge that problem and work to break down damaging patterns that divide our state. S-1 asked diverse municipalities such as Pennsauken and South Orange to do more than Far Hills and Evesham. It asked more of Cumberland County than Somerset County. That’s not a fair housing policy. We must have a policy that actually produces homes in places that are not affordable — and does not penalize places that are.

2. The laws you pass should comply with the Mount Laurel doctrine. S1 only by its own terms attempts to comply with Mount Laurel I, a 1975 decision. In 1983, however, the Court issued Mount Laurel II because Mount Laurel I wasn’t working. Any legislation that ignores Mount Laurel II will be struck down very quickly by the judiciary.

3. Families are the primary beneficiaries of the Mount Laurel doctrine. It is important that municipalities have a diverse affordable housing stock, and legislation should not lose sight of the need to provide opportunities for families. The Courts as recently as 2007 rejected a policy that permitted half of all units to be satisfied with age-restricted housing. Market studies show a 19-year glut of senior housing. And rental housing is especially important for families who are looking for opportunities in the region.

4. There must be a check on municipalities. We know from experience that most municipalities, if left to their own devices, will not develop housing that is affordable to close to half of New Jersey’s families and people with special needs. Municipalities should not be permitted to use their zoning laws to restrict legitimate, environmentally sound land uses. This is the central premise of the Mount Laurel doctrine and it must form the backbone of any attempt to comply with our state constitution. A municipality cannot build a mall and office parks without providing a place through zoning for the workers in those buildings to live. A municipality cannot require its firefighters and police to live in town and then make that economically impossible through zoning.

I am pleased to join you in a spirit of dialogue this morning and promise you that Fair Share Housing Center will use its 35 years of experience and its commitment to fair housing to assist you as you work on a better piece of legislation — one that is effective and constitutional. We would much rather get it right the first time, as Chairman Green said in his statement yesterday.

Thank you.

N.J. Bishops: Fair housing policies a matter of justice Wednesday, 09 June 2010

The Catholic Bishops of New Jersey on June 3 issued a joint statement on affordable housing urging Legislators to “recognize the importance of affordable housing to our state and to maintain housing policies that are fair and just for all. Lower-income families are especially in need of affordable housing, and their needs should be given special attention.”

Throughout the state, there is considerable discussion about reforms to the Fair Housing Act. In discussing changes to that law, well-intended legislators and policymakers have proposed everything from modest reforms to shutting down and not replacing the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH). While the Catholic Bishops support efforts to improve the New Jersey’s housing laws, in the joint statement the Bishops said “these proposed changes have the potential to leave municipalities with unchecked power to exclude all but wealthy residents from within municipal borders.”

“Prior to the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Mount Laurel decision in 1975, towns did not create adequate affordable housing opportunities for families, and, in fact, intentionally zoned low-income families out,” said Marlene Lao-Collins, Director of Social Concerns for the New Jersey Catholic Conference. We should not return to the zoning practices that existed prior to the Mount Laurel decision. Poor residents need to have a “realistic opportunity” to live in an affordable home, and towns must take the needs of the working poor into consideration.

New Jersey’s housing laws or policies should ensure the protection of everyone – the wealthy and the poor. They should not create economic and racial divisions in our communities. Low-income families should have the opportunity to live in areas where they have access to job opportunities and quality education for their children. According to Lao-Collins, “the Catholic Bishops believe any change in housing statutes should provide a structure for meaningful state oversight, including a numerical obligation of affordable housing within municipalities. We should close loop holes that allow municipalities avoid providing their fair share of affordable housing.”

To see the full statement of the Catholic Bishops on Affordable Housing see below or visit the New Jersey Catholic Conference website at www.njcathconf.com.

#

New Jersey Catholic Conference

149 North Warren Street

Trenton, New Jersey 08608

609-989-1120

Representing the Archdiocese of Newark, Diocese of Camden,

Diocese of Metuchen, Diocese of Paterson, Diocese of Trenton,

Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Passaic and Our Lady of Deliverance Syriac Catholic Diocese

A Letter from the Catholic Bishops of New Jersey on Affordable Housing

Dear Senators and Members of the General Assembly:

We, the Catholic Bishops of New Jersey, urge the Members of the New Jersey Legislature to maintain New Jersey’s commitment to affordable housing. As you know, New Jersey has one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation. New Jersey also is one of the most racially and economically segregated states in the nation. This segregation has divided our state, denied lower-income families access to educational and employment opportunities, and resulted in islands of wealth and enclaves of poverty throughout much of the state.

With concern for the dignity of every human person, we recognize the fundamental importance of fair housing policies as a matter of justice. For this reason, we have supported efforts to combat discrimination in housing against racial and ethnic minorities, people with special needs, and families with children.

We believe that the exclusion of the poor and lower-income households through a local government’s zoning policies is no less pernicious than more blatant discrimination that offends our consciences and that our laws prohibit.

Throughout the state, there is considerable discussion about reforms to the Fair Housing Act. In discussing changes to that law, well intended policymakers have proposed everything from modest reforms to shutting down and not replacing the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH).

We think that some of these proposed changes have the potential to leave municipalities with unchecked power to exclude all but wealthy residents from within municipal borders.

We support efforts to improve New Jersey’s housing laws, but we oppose efforts to eliminate COAH without simultaneously providing an effective replacement for that agency. We are convinced that state oversight is necessary to ensure that municipalities do not pursue exclusionary zoning policies that could perpetuate the divisions in our state.

Providing numerical obligations to municipalities, rather than permitting municipalities alone to choose how much affordable housing they will build, would provide a necessary check on local zoning powers and would ensure that regional goals for affordable housing have a chance to be achieved.

Finally, we oppose the return of regional contribution agreements. Wealthier municipalities should not be permitted to pay poor municipalities to grow poorer. Rather, all municipalities should bear their fair share of affordable housing.

We urge the Legislature to recognize the importance of affordable housing to our state and to maintain housing policies that are fair and just for all. Lower-income families are especially in need of affordable housing and their needs should be given special attention.

Most Reverend John J. Myers, Archbishop, Archdiocese of Newark

Most Reverend John M. Smith, Bishop, Diocese of Trenton

Most Reverend Arthur J. Serratelli, Bishop, Diocese of Paterson

Most Reverend Joseph A. Galante, Bishop, Diocese of Camden

Most Reverend Paul G. Bootkoski, Bishop, Diocese of Metuchen

Most Reverend William Skurla, Bishop, Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Passaic

Most Reverend Edgar M. da Cunha, SDV, Auxiliary Bishop Essex County

Most Reverend John W. Flesey, Auxiliary Bishop Bergen County

Most Reverend Thomas A. Donato, Auxiliary Bishop Hudson County

Most Reverend Manuel A. Cruz, Auxiliary Bishop Union County

Most Reverend David Arias, Retired, Auxiliary Bishop of Newark

Most Reverend Charles J. McDonnell, Retired, Auxiliary Bishop of Newark

“As one of the 3 ‘no’ votes in the Senate, I urge the Assembly Housing and Local Government Committee to make substantial changes to S1. I am supportive of the efforts to remove red tape and make the process simpler and easier to understand, however, the Committee should make certain that any bill they release would fulfill its mandate to provide affordable housing for New Jersey residents.”

“I am skeptical that the bill in its current form would create any additional affordable housing. Most troubling is the ability of developers to meet the set aside requirements by spending $10,000 per unit to rehabilitate other housing in the municipality. This provision would obviate the need for developers to create new, deed-restricted units, which are the key to affordable housing.”

“I am confident that the Committee will scrutinize S1 and allow for a lengthy and transparent public hearing on the bill.”

A central key provision of the new bill provides that 10 percent of any new housing development with 20 or more units must be affordable — which sounds great. But the bill is full of escape hatches for municipalities that don’t want to build housing of any kind.

For example, there’s what critics are calling the A-Rod exemption: a town where a third or more of the housing is in townhouses or apartment buildings — no matter what their price range — gets a pass. That means Hoboken’s luxury high-rise condos, where Yankee Alex Rodriguez has a residence, would count toward its affordable housing obligation.

Under the new rules, builders could sidestep the 10 percent set-aside in a development by building affordable units elsewhere, contributing money toward the rehab of existing low-income housing or paying fees into the towns’s affordable housing trust fund. In a state already highly segregated by income and race, the bill leaves the old patterns essentially unchanged.

Lesniak’s bill also kills the commercial developer’s fee, which went directly into a town’s affordable housing trust fund. It was suspended by Gov. Jon Corzine when the recession hit. But until then it had garnered millions for affordable housing, and developers willingly paid it for years, even lobbying a couple of years ago to have it standardized at 2.5 percent.

Under the new bill, what’s left of COAH’s authority would rest with the Department of Community Affairs. But DCA won’t carry on one of the council’s critical responsibilities: trying to figure out what the state’s housing needs may be down the road. Planning is key to sound government, but this law makes a fetish of ignorance: If we don’t think about the future of housing demand and supply and its costs, maybe it will all go away. Good luck with that.

Environmentalists worry other provisions of the bill will give builders the upper hand when it comes to pushing development into more rural areas. They criticize the bill’s failure to contain sprawl and to promote smart growth that builds near downtowns, jobs and mass transit.

Lesniak squandered a historic opportunity to rewrite the state’s housing policy, shutting out anyone who might disagree with the bill and withholding information about its contents as long as he could. The Assembly will now consider the bill; it should seize the chance to get it right.

Star Ledger Editorial Board - June 13, 2010

What a mess. At this historic moment, when major changes in state housing policy are being decided, Sen. Ray Lesniak last week rammed through amendments to a housing bill without letting the public see them.

And without hearing from anyone who might disagree with his grand vision of how affordable housing should be built in the state.

By treating a public bill as if it were a state secret, Sen. Bigfoot stomped all over democracy.

The Senate Economic Growth Committee, like sheep, went along with the ploy. A special thanks for nothing to Sens. Dick Codey, Sandra Cunningham, Joe Vitale, Steve Oroho, Bob Singer and Joe Kyrillos.

The intent of Lesniak’s bill is to shut down the Council on Affordable Housing and create a new system for producing low- and moderate-income housing. The senator was working furiously in the last several weeks to synchronize his bill with Gov. Chris Christie’s proposals. The full Senate is supposed to vote on the latest version of the bill Thursday.

“This may not be perfect, but COAH wasn’t perfect,” Cunningham said. And you’ll just have to take her word on that, since only she and her fellow committee members have had a chance to review the latest version of the bill in detail.

Lesniak tried to pin the blame on the committee, which opted not to hear testimony. But even the senator, who is chairman of the committee, realized that was hogwash. “That doesn’t get me off the hook,” he conceded. “I have the prerogative to allow testimony.”

More than that, he should have circulated the amendments days before the hearing, and then turned the public microphone on in the hearing room. Instead, the committee voted to adopt the amendments without public testimony, and the meeting was over in less than 10 minutes. On Friday afternoon, the day after the hearing, the new version of the bill had yet to be posted on the Legislature’s web site.

Lori Grifa, recently sworn in to lead the Department of Community Affairs, attended the hearing and was scheduled to testify on the bill and its amendments — which she undoubtedly had access to. She had no qualms about the way the hearing was run. “The reality is this bill ends COAH,” she said as she exited the hearing. “We worked actively with both sides, it was a very active process.”

By both sides, she no doubt meant the governor’s office and the committee. Everyone else got the back of the committee’s hand.