Letter to the Editor: Assemblywoman Stender Discusses Affordable Housing Legislation

I wanted to take this opportunity to clear up some confusion and respond to some inaccurate comments regarding S-1, the legislation recently passed dealing with affordable housing in New Jersey. This legislation does not mandate Fanwood and Scotch Plains to build hundreds of units of affordable housing. That is simply not true. What it does require is that towns develop and adopt a plan for providing  affordable units as part of any additional development, which means if there is no additional development there is no additional building of affordable units. Please note that towns are not required to utilize lands reserved for open space in their calculations. Also it is important to know what “affordable housing” really means.  As a recent article in the Star Ledger correctly stated "affordable" constitutes a family earning up to 80 percent of the median income. Affordable housing is for the people who work in and for our communities.   

Having fought against the Mt. Laurel decision and COAH for years, I know first hand about the weapons COAH and the developers used to bludgeon towns into building high density affordable housing. When I was Mayor, it was used against towns like Fanwood that had never even had so called “exclusionary zoning” to prevent low and middle income people from living in town. Exclusionary zoning was the basis for the original court case now commonly referred to as Mt Laurel. As a result of those court cases, all towns have a constitutional obligation to provide affordable housing.

The old system under COAH is a nightmare. Approximately every 10 years they issued new "need" numbers using an unintelligible formula that gave absurd numbers to be built in towns like Fanwood and Scotch Plains. Towns routinely had to hire special attorneys to fight in court to get the numbers reduced. It defied logic and required tax payers to pay huge legal bills.  I have long believed that the prevailing policy should require that when development occurs, in accordance with our constitutional obligation, affordable units must be part of it.  That is the premise of S1.It is a dramatic policy shift which eliminates COAH and puts towns in control of their own destiny. Under S1, towns are in charge of their own planning and if they make that good faith effort they will not be vulnerable to the old "builders remedy" which hung over their heads like the sword of Damocles. Over the next 30 years they must adopt a plan that includes vacant and under utilized property to provide for affordable units. Parks and green and open space are not part of the definition of vacant or under utilized. The market will drive the development, no building- no additional affordable units.

We all hope the economy will improve and when it does I believe a public policy which provides a  plan that will include housing for our sons and daughters who work in our communities is in our best interest. 

Assemblywoman Linda Stender
Democrat and Fanwood resident, represents Legislative District 22