Dear Editor:
Truth be told, Christie was responsible for ensuring Developers Remedy was used when applicable. During the Mayoral debate, Barberio denied that Governor Christie was responsible; he said the housing mandates were the developer’s remedy.
COAH’s collapse and court oversight (2015): Following Christie’s administration’s repeated inaction, the Supreme Court declared COAH “dysfunctional” and stripped it of its authority in 2015. With COAH no longer functional, oversight of affordable housing was returned to the judicial system, effectively reviving the threat of builder’s remedy lawsuits against municipalities that were not in compliance with their obligations.
The Mayor’s Doubletalk that democrats not former republican governor Christie
No, Governor Chris Christie did not begin the “builder’s remedy”. The remedy was created by the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1983, decades before Christie took office. Christie’s failure of action, however, led the court to reaffirm and expand the remedy during his tenure. So yes he did surrender the issue completely to the remedy already established for Non Conforming Municipalities.
The developer’s remedy, established in the original Mount Laurel II decision, allows a developer to bypass a municipality’s zoning laws and build high-density housing, including a substantial amount of affordable units, if they can prove the town has failed to meet its constitutional affordable housing obligation. This remedy is granted if the developer proposes a project with a significant portion of affordable housing and demonstrates that the specific site is suitable for development, meaning the municipality cannot prove environmental constraints or that the project would be bad planning.
Builder’s Remedy is a legal provision of the State Housing Accountability Act. It takes away local control by preventing cities from rejecting development proposals that do not align with local zoning and planning requirements if a city does not have a State-certified Housing Element
The lawsuit Parsippany was part of did not address the real issues of the Fiasco
The basic minimum of 4 units should be objected to, by local zoning boards and demand for more affordable, not simply comply as if this was set in stone, the need is for affordable, not market. In addition is Market Living Space was to lower their rents, rather than building more, simply lowering rents, would only slow down the already rich landowner real estate corporations profits; they already own the land, and the highest best interest in “Affordable Housing”, not Market will Bare.
However Affordable Housing like any good landuse laws or policies.
The waterview fiasco, and Chapter 93 Environmental Policies of Affordable Housing, remain the same as the previous COAH policies. Waterview Landscape would of never been taken by affordable housing if local government applied these policies, instead they were ignored, even when brought to light by the Grassroots citizenship group, and their advocacy for the open space, promised then betrayed by the Mayor and John Inglesino.
UNDERMINING AND NOT LEARNING ABOUT HIGHLANDS CONFORMANCE, back in 2010, AND STILL NOT HAVING A NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY to this day, DOESN’T HELP.
Last the Mayor alleged locals do not get any priority in the Housing Pool
Yes, there is a priority for local residents in many affordable housing programs in New Jersey, which is often called a “regional preference”. To get this priority, you must be a resident of the specific affordable housing region where the unit is located. You can also get priority for other preferences like being a veteran, homeless, or disabled, and it is essential to apply for any and all preferences you qualify for. This benefit can be helped by local municipal housing departments if directed to by authority.
The original State Plan for Affordable Housing was to live, and work in close proximity, or close to mass transit nearest work. Why then are the developers demanding every municipality needs to have affordable housing, they are attempting this even in the Highlands Protection Area, and the Highlands Council is fighting this.
Absurd not to have local priority because the demand for the housing is not being addressed by the available units. They need to lower the rents of the Market Apartments, not build more. That should be the legal argument. Too many market will bare, but the economy will not.
Misuse of affordable housing laws: Critics argue that developers use laws like the Mount Laurel decision to bypass local zoning and build luxury developments that are not truly affordable to the average person. This is true. Our system of corporate property over community and lack of federal subsidies brings us not the need of affordable, but luxury instead, absurd. Parsippany by being over-developed with idle corporate properties in need of redevelopment has made itself a de-facto transfer zone of sorts for the housing onslaught, the State plan has intended under Mount Laurel has been dissolved by the corporate real estate power over local home rule; for example where does local and regional quotas come together? Why is there a backlog-lottery for low income working people to have what should be a passive right of affordable living space?
Finally the Mayor alleged the Housing Lawsuit we are a part of was successful, where is the proof?
Nick Homyak
