You can listen to the interview here: http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2012/may/04/new-jersey-affordable-housing/.

The Township of Aberdeen announces that 8 affordable housing units will be available for rent in the Villages at Aberdeen development. The housing is under development by C&M Real Estate, LLC, and is available for low and moderate income households. Villages at Aberdeen are located at White Oak Lane and Route 34, Aberdeen, NJ.

MONTHLY RENTS: $507 - $1,286 (tenant pays gas & electric) Note: Opportunities are available in the following bedroom size and income categories 1 - One Bedroom (low) 3 - Two Bedrooms (low) 2 - Two Bedrooms (moderate) 2 - Three Bedrooms (moderate) Low Income Moderate Income 1Person - $31,987 3Person - $41,126 2Person - $58,490 4Person - $73,113 2Person - $36,557 4Person - $45,696 3Person - $65,802 5Person - $78,692 6Person - $84,811

Once certified, households will be matched to affordable units through a lottery system. All successful applicants will be required to demonstrate the ability to pay a security deposit and first month’s rent, and agree to maintain the unit as the family’s primary residence. Applications are available at the MHL Office at Aberdeen Township, One Aberdeen Square, Aberdeen, NJ 07747 (732)583-4200 X101 between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monmouth County Library, 125 Symmes Dr. Manalapan, NJ; Ocean County Library, 101 Washington St., Toms River, NJ; Mercer County Library, 2751 Brunswick Pike, Lawrenceville, NJ.

Applications must be submitted to the Township of Aberdeen, Attn: Maxine Rescorl, MHL, One Aberdeen Square, Aberdeen, NJ 07747 no later than May 31, 2012. No exceptions or consideration will be given to applications received after the deadline date.

Visit www.njhousing.gov for more affordable housing opportunities.

The Housing Authority of the County of Morris announces the opening of its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program waiting list. Preference is given to people who either live or work in Morris County. Eligibility Applications and Supplement Forms must be received in this office by mail only from March 5, 2012 at 8:00 AM to May 4, 2012 at 4:59 PM (E.S.T.).

Vouchers are not currently available; applications are for the waiting list only. Vouchers must be used in Morris County for the first year of participation.

Eligibility Applications and Supplement Forms will only be available on this website. http://morrishousingauthority.blogspot.com/2012/03/section-8-housing-choice-voucher.html

The application along with the supplement form must be mailed by U.S. Postal Mail, Fed-Ex and /or UPS. Bulk application packages will not be accepted. Hand-Delivered, faxed or e-mailed applications will not be accepted. Incomplete applications will not be accepted or recorded.

Instructions/Requirements

Completed Eligibility Application and Supplement Form must be mailed to

HOUSING AUTHORITY COUNTY OF MORRIS 99 KETCH ROAD MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960

The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program is a rental assistance program in which participants pay no more than 40% of their adjusted monthly income towards their rent at initial participation. Applicants must meet all federal eligibility requirements and their income cannot exceed the following income limits:

Persons Per Household • 1 - $45,000 • 2 - $52,000 • 3 - $58,000 • 4 - $65,000 • 5 - $70,200 • 6 - $75,400 • 7 - $80,600 • 8 - $85,800 Applications are placed on the waiting list in chronological order of the date and time received. Local preferences will be given to applicants who either live or work in Morris County and applicants whose head of household, spouse, or co-head are disabled, elderly, or working full time (at least 35 hours/week). These preferences will be applied at the time the application is placed on the waiting list and verified at the time of interview.

Verifiable handicapped and/or disabled persons will be given reasonable accommodations.

Visit the Morris County Housing Authority at http://www.morrishousingauthority.org/

From the website for the event:

“Forty Years After Mt. Laurel: New Findings About the Effects of Affordable Housing in NJ” will introduce new research, based on the experience of Ethel R. Lawrence Homes, a 140-unit, 100% affordable family rental project developed in Mount Laurel, NJ, on Thursday, April 26, 2012, in the Frist Campus Center, on the Princeton University campus. Registration is required.*

Forty years ago, a New Jersey Superior Court handed down an historic decision that changed the discourse about affordable housing in New Jersey. On May 1, 1972, the court released its decision in Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel, finding that the town’s zoning ordinance, which effectively deprived the poor of adequate housing and discriminated against them, was constitutionally invalid.

The state Supreme Court agreed (though on different grounds) in 1975 and created, under a case known as Mt. Laurel I, the “Mt. Laurel doctrine.” The doctrine requires every municipality’s land use regulations, as well as those of state agencies with land use responsibilities, to affirmatively provide a “realistic opportunity” for construction of their fair share of the regional need for housing affordable to low and moderate income households. Litigation followed in Mt. Laurel II to address remedies, and, at the urging of the court, legislation was passed to hammer out the details and implement what the court defined as the state constitutional obligation. The doctrine and the grounds on which it is based - that zoning that excludes low and moderate housing opportunities is a form of economic discrimination prohibited by the state constitution - are still controversial today. At the heart of the discussion is the speculation that affordable housing will increase crime, decrease property values, and diminish neighborhoods. Are these concerns valid?

The discussion will introduce new research, based on the experience of Ethel R. Lawrence Homes, a 140-unit, 100% affordable family rental project developed in Mount Laurel, NJ, that demonstrates that many of the fears of the ill-effects of affordable housing are unfounded.

The format for this event will be presentation and discussion. Four researchers will each give a 15-20 minute overview of this new research. The second panel will consist of stakeholders asking the researchers questions about what the literature says about various policy initiatives. The goal of this format is to have the stakeholder panel shape the discussion about how the research should and will affect decisions that New Jersey must make as it considers housing policy going forward.

The event is free and open to the public but registration is required. To attend, please register here.

The event will be archived online for later viewing on the Woodrow Wilson School’s Webmedia site – http://wws.princeton.edu/webmedia.

It’s unconscionable that Gov. Chris Christie is attempting to grab money earmarked for affordable housing to inflate his irrationally exuberant budget. You know, the one where everyone gets a 10 percent income tax cut.

But he’s not the only villain in this story. The towns that have left this money sitting in bank accounts share the blame. And there is still time for them to change course.

The money in question is raised through fees that state law imposes on new development. The money is supposed to be used to expand the supply of affordable housing. In 2008, the state gave towns four years to use it or lose it. Since then, 30 municipalities have spent nearly $100 million on these projects — a big win in a state with such expensive housing.

But nearly 200 towns are sitting on their money, a total of nearly $170 million. By law, they have until July 17 to tap those funds.

The laggard towns complain that state rules are vague, and that it’s not clear exactly what the law means when it says they must “commit” the funds. The New Jersey State League of Municipalities says it has been “overwhelmed” with questions and has asked for a deadline extension.

That’s not likely to happen. For one, the governor has that 10 percent tax cut to pay for. And let’s face it: He has never taken the state’s housing crisis seriously. He has tried to drive a stake through the heart of the despised Council on Affordable Housing, an agency that was overly prescriptive about how much affordable housing a town had to build, and where. But he hasn’t taken the next step by offering a better solution.

As for the towns, the irony is that the same folks who bristled at too much COAH meddling are pleading for more explicit directions. It seems clear that many towns didn’t spend this money because they didn’t want more low-income housing within their borders. If the rules are really so vague, how did the other municipalities figure out how to spend $100 million?

Our hope is the towns move quickly and commit this money to good projects before the July deadline. If the money is gone, the governor can’t grab it. In other words, just do it.

Anyone paying attention to the problems of affordable housing in this state should have seen this coming. Late last week, a state appeals court ruled that Gov. Chris Christie had overstepped his authority last year when he abolished the state Council on Affordable Housing (COAH).

The ruling was inevitable. What does not have to be inevitable is Christie’s promised appeal of that ruling to the state Supreme Court. It will be costly and bring the state no closer to achieving a fair and legal means of providing affordable housing. In fact, observers noted the language of the decision was so strong that the Supreme Court would be unlikely to accept the case.

Christie and the Legislature need to work together to fix what ails COAH — and it certainly is in need of fixing — without eliminating it. Christie had never been a fan of COAH, and he campaigned on a promise to “abolish it.” But he should not, and the court ruling affirms that he cannot by simple fiat.

The court ruling stated, in part, that the governor lacked the power “to abolish a legislatively created, representative, independent authority that is ‘in but not of’ the executive branch or any department in that branch of the government … the power to abolish COAH rests exclusively with the Legislature.”

COAH was not created out of thin air to address an imaginary problem. It was a product of the Fair Housing Act, which was enacted in response to the so-called Mount Laurel decisions on towns’ obligations to provide opportunities for low- and moderate-income housing. It determined how much affordable housing there should be in each town.

In some ways, the governor’s longstanding objections to COAH are valid. It has become cumbersome, even at times contradictory. But the concept of municipalities providing their fair share of affordable housing, mandated by the state Supreme Court in its Mount Laurel decisions, must not be lost.

Any reform should be aimed at addressing COAH’s weaknesses, not relieving the state’s municipalities of the obligation to provide low- and moderate-income housing within their boundaries or skirting the state constitution.

The governor and Legislature need to start from scratch to ensure that the very idea of affordable housing is preserved, even as COAH undergoes needed reform. The plan also must be clear about funding sources and address regional as well as municipal needs. And starting from scratch does not mean resurrecting state Sen. Raymond J. Lesniak’s flawed bill, which would have transferred authority for affordable housing to the State Planning Commission and allowed towns to determine for themselves whether they were meeting their constitutional obligation to provide affordable housing.

It’s time to build something new, not destroy COAH.

The decision itself is available here.

“The Governor’s role under the constitution is to enforce the laws, not to make them,” Fair Share Housing Center Associate Director Kevin D. Walsh said. “The Appellate Division properly found, based on a careful reading of the original intent of New Jersey’s statutes and constitution, that Gov. Christie simply does not have the power to unilaterally abolish independent agencies he doesn’t like. In doing so, the Court properly protected the independence of agencies such as the Election Law Enforcement Commission, State Ethics Commission, Public Defender, and dozens of other agencies that would have been subject to gubernatorial abolition if the plan for COAH had been upheld. The Court required the diverse interests represented in independent agencies to have a voice, as the Legislature intended.”

The appellate court, which relied on quotes from Associate Justice Antonin Scalia on the proper separation of powers in the original meaning of the Constitution, rejected Governor Christie’s argument that the constitution gave him unlimited power to change the structure of state government, stating that “While the framers of our Constitution intended to create a strong executive in the office of Governor (perhaps the strongest in the United States), they also recognized the need to insulate functions and agencies from executive control.”

The Court ruled that “[w]ithout clear direction in the Reorganization Act that it should apply to independent agencies, there is no basis from which to infer that the Legislature intended to permit a governor to undo such a balanced representation scheme through a reorganization plan.” It further concluded that “application of the Reorganization Act requires an explicit legislative mandate to warrant the abolition of an independent agency, rather than generic language, in order to subject such agencies to reorganization or, as here, to abolition.”

“As the court properly found in quoting authorities such as Justice Scalia and New Jersey’s constitutional drafters, Governor Christie’s actions are inconsistent with our democratic form of government,” Mr. Walsh said. “The Governor must in all his actions be limited by our statutes and constitution, and not create new powers without basis in law.”

The decision, which is available here, reinstates COAH’s board and authority over municipal fair share obligations. The Court noted that the Legislature sent Gov. Christie a bill to abolish COAH in January 2011, and that if Gov. Christie had wished to abolish COAH he could have signed it. Having chosen not to, he could not then go around the Legislature to abolish COAH himself.

This decision marks Governor Christie’s third strike on changing the state’s policies for providing housing for working families, people with special needs, and seniors. He first attempted to eliminate COAH through Executive Order 12 in February 2010. The Appellate Division enjoined that order and Governor Christie then rescinded it. In early-2011, the Governor tried, but failed, to persuade the Legislature to adopt his preferred housing policy through legislation after the aforementioned veto. The governor then vetoed legislation that would have abolished COAH because he felt that municipalities should never be required to provide housing opportunities for lower-income families, seniors, and people with special needs.

The COAH reorganization plan was proposed on June 29, 2011 and went into effect 60 days later. The plan was immediately appealed by the Center, and the Appellate Division accelerated its briefing and argument in view of the public interest nature of the matter.

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 provides its fair share of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income people.

Obviously, it would be nice if everyone in the United States were wealthy, but given that poor people exist, they should have the same freedom to live where they please that everyone else does… . New Jersey governor Chris Christie has been much less friendly to high-density development-and more friendly to municipalities’ efforts to restrict it-than his Democratic predecessor Jon Corzine. The Republican Party is theoretically the party of property rights and limited government, but it seems to forget these principles when it comes to the freedom of poor people to live where they like.

As Lee notes, ending restrictive zoning goes part and parcel with conservative philosophy on the limited role of government. There is nothing market-driven about only allowing one home to be built for every 17 jobs, as a Rowan University study found Somerset County is doing, or banning apartments or townhomes when that is what the market demands. While we believe there is a proper role for zoning laws and support the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas, no rational public policy basis can justify New Jersey’s extreme restrictions, which increasingly are blocking not only market-driven development but also the reuse of existing developed land for homes that would be built absent overregulation. Indeed, a state study found that, compared with less restrictive North Carolina, New Jersey homebuyers pay a $60,000 tax on every new home because of overregulation.

Lee joins a growing chorus of conservative and libertarian thinkers critical of Christie’s position on Mount Laurel as inconsistent with conservative principles, such as blogger and law professor Rick Hills, who claimed that Christie’s positions made him doubt whether the Governor “really like[s] private property rights.” We hope that the Governor will come to understand that there is nothing conservative about making poor people pay more for homes because zoning regulations stop homes from being built.

Visit blog archives »

In the appeal, Fair Share Housing Center contends that Governor Christie has unlawfully consolidated power by transferring the powers of an independent agency over which the governor previously had no direct authority to a department led by one of his cabinet members. The Center has asked the court to invalidate the reorganization plan, thus reinstating COAH and its independence.

Governor Christie first attempted to eliminate COAH through Executive Order 12 in February 2010. The Appellate Division enjoined that order and Governor Christie then rescinded it. In early-2011, the Governor tried, but failed, to persuade the Legislature to adopt his preferred housing policy through legislation. The governor vetoed legislation that would have reduced the role of direct state oversight involving housing because he felt that municipalities should never be required to provide housing opportunities for lower-income families, seniors, and people with special needs.

The COAH reorganization plan, which is the governor’s third strategy for getting his way, was proposed on June 29, 2011 and went into effect 60 days later. The plan was immediately appealed by the Center, and the Appellate Division accelerated its briefing and argument in view of the public interest nature of the matter. In a related appeal, which is also being argued on Wednesday, the Appellate Division has already enjoined rules issued by the Department of Community Affairs that implemented the COAH reorganization plan.

The Center’s briefs are available here and here. The Governor’s brief is available here.