Local candidates respond to HVN’s question about COAH

Do you think the Valley can handle a significant amount of new dwelling units (affordable or not)? If so, where should the new units go? And what do you see as the effects on the environment, open sp

   The Hopewell Valley News recently asked the candidates running for seats on the three local governing bodies the following question:
   Since the original Mount Laurel decision of 1975, New Jersey has recognized the need for affordable housing. Over the years between then and now, the topic been a hot issue on and off. It came to a head again on July 17 when, in Mt. Laurel, Gov. Jon Corzine signed new housing policy legislation (A500/S1783), which ended the Regional Contribution Agreement (RCA) as a means to address affordable housing requirements under the Fair Housing Act. It also created a statewide nonresidential development fee of 2.5 percent that will be charged on nonresidential construction or improvements to raise revenue for the construction and rehabilitation of affordable and workforce housing in New Jersey. And it established an Urban Housing Assistance Fund to help urban aid municipalities in the rehabilitation and production of housing. Funding will be supported through receipts from statewide nonresidential development fees.
   The governor said the ruling will “reform affordable housing laws in New Jersey and increase housing opportunities for low and middle income families throughout the state.” But, many do not like the way the new legislation attempts to meet the those goals. Currently, over 200 New Jersey municipalities are battling COAH (Council on Affordable Housing) rules and the new law in court. As is, the existing law and COAH regulations will impact Hopewell Valley (all three municipalities).
   THE QUESTION — Do you think the Valley can handle a significant amount of new dwelling units (affordable or not)? If so, where should the new units go? And what do you see as the effects on the environment, open space and infrastructure — roads, water and sewers, schools, sidewalks, etc.
   HOPEWELL TOWNSHIP — Four candidates are running for two three-year terms on the Hopewell Township Committee. They are:
   — Matthew Holley (Republican) — Too often municipalities are short-sighted in their pursuit of additional tax revenue and fail to appropriately consider the added infrastructure and demand for services new dwellings cause. At this time and in this difficult economy, I believe additional costs and taxes are unwelcome in the Valley. However, social responsibility and law require that we meet a mandate of 548 new units over the next ten years. Given the concerns I have about infrastructure and the additional demand for services that new units bring, we should mitigate costs by converting underutilized, outdated structures where infrastructure (water and sewage lines) already exist. Also, we should connect to pre-existing infrastructure where possible to disperse the location of new units and too limit construction of infrastructure.
   If elected, my commitment is to creatively and prudently meet our affordable housing obligation in a manner that does not increase taxes.
   — Eileen McGinnis (Republican) — I do not think the Valley can handle a significant number of new dwelling units without increasing property taxes. As a former member of New Jersey’s Property Tax Commission, charged with developing recommendations on ways to help municipal officials ease the burden of property taxes, I am very familiar with the problems that arise when municipalities approve new development for the short term revenue it produces, only to suffer the costs of additional services necessary to support the development.
   However, I do believe Hopewell Valley has a constitutional and moral obligation to meet the affordable housing mandates established by the state Supreme Court, as we have done in the past. Planning to meet the mandate is currently underway and I encourage planners to meet the mandate in a fair, equitable, cost-effective manner. What does this mean? First of all, it means that any new dwelling units should go where infrastructure already exists. In areas without adequate pre-existing infrastructure, additional units will demand heavy investment in roads, water systems and other public facilities, driving property taxes even higher. So, any new units should be built where infrastructure already exists so as to spare taxpayers unnecessary costs. And it also means that new development should not be built solely in one portion of the Valley.
   The current obligation of 548 units over the next ten years will be difficult to attain given the township’s water infrastructure. Fortunately, municipalities can meet their obligations in a number of ways and do not have to rely solely on new construction. If elected, I pledge to help meet Hopewell Valley’s constitutionally mandated obligation to provide affordable housing in a way that makes sense, maximizes the opportunity to use creative methods other than new construction, and not increase property taxes in Hopewell Valley.
   In short, if elected, I would work hard to apply a five-part test to the township’s obligation to provide affordable housing: are the new units spread equitably across the township?; are the units built where adequate infrastructure already exists?; have we looked at all options allowed by the state, including rehab of old housing stock and buy down of foreclosed property?; are our land purchases cost-effective?; do the plans pass the common-sense test?
   — John Murphy (incumbent Democrat) — No. Several years ago Hopewell Township went through a comprehensive and inclusive process to update our Master Plan and zoning ordinances. The results of that process indicated the need to increase our minimum lot sizes. This “downzoning” was not in the result of the township’s political desire to limit new development, although most residents favor limiting development and preserving our rural character. Rather, the basis for our rezoning was science. The clear scientific evidence presented by the township’s experts demonstrated that the water carrying capacity of our lands was significantly constrained. Therefore, our rezoning was based on the practical limitations of our natural resources. Our rezoning was strongly challenged in the courts. But the courts upheld our rezoning and commended us for using a methodology that was not arbitrary and capricious but scientifically based.
   Unfortunately, despite the clear scientific evidence to the contrary, the state Council of Affordable Housing (COAH) has mandated that the township has a significant affordable housing obligation it must comply with by 2018. And the plan to meet that obligation must be filed by the end of this year! Early this year Mayor Vanessa Sandom and I met with Joseph Doria, the commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, to personally plead our case that Hopewell Township could not meet its proposed COAH obligation based on the limited carrying capacity of our land. Suffice it to say, Commissioner Doria did not see things our way. As a result, Hopewell Township has joined forces with other towns to challenge the new COAH rules, which we find to be impractical and virtually impossible to implement. At the same time, we would put the township in great legal and financial jeopardy if we do not submit a bona fide COAH plan and realistically plan for some level of affordable housing in accordance with that plan. While the township has a legal and fiduciary obligation to provide affordable housing, any development, be it affordable housing, market rate residential or commercial, must comply with our Master Plan. Otherwise we can not responsibly plan for the township’s future.
   — Vanessa Sandom (incumbent Democrat) — No, we cannot meet the new COAH affordable housing obligations without a monumental and insupportable cost and tax burden to the township residents.
   Over the past decade, Hopewell Township has dedicated itself to understanding the best ways to shape development and growth. We have based our Master Plan and zoning on a scientific assessment of the carrying capacity of our land and water resources, an approach that has been upheld by New Jersey courts in response to strong legal challenges.
   One of the many flaws in the new state affordable housing law and COAH regulations is that it has made this kind of careful planning irrelevant. Instead of balanced analysis, we were assigned a very large affordable housing obligation — for a total of 549 units by 2018 — based on an arbitrary approach to meeting a statewide target of 115,000 new affordable housing units by 2018. Our most recent analysis indicates that it would cost $80 million to acquire the land and build the units, of which only $20 million is paid for by the affordable housing fee under the revised law.
   In assigning their affordable housing numbers to towns, the Council on Affordable Housing has ignored state environmental laws, the State Guide Plan, the growing tendency of New Jersey’s population to want to live in walkable towns and cities and near jobs and shopping, and the proximity to necessary infrastructure. It has failed utterly to calculate the true cost to the municipalities of its assigned affordable housing numbers. Hopewell Township will not be dictated to by either a state agency or profit-motivated developers in shaping the future of our town. So we are taking the two-track approach of challenging the new policy while undertaking the careful planning that will protect us from a builder’s remedy lawsuit.
   We will use the principles that guide our Master Plan and zoning to preserve the quality of life in our town, while carefully planning for a generous yet sensible number of affordable housing units and managing the financial, municipal service, school, and infrastructure impacts that so many new housing units bring. At the same time, we have joined over 230 other New Jersey municipalities in contesting the recent amendments to state law and COAH regulations through legal and legislative action. While we remain committed to the goal of providing affordable housing, as we have demonstrated for over 30 years, we believe current state policy is a fatally flawed approach.
   PENNINGTON: Four are running for two three-years terms on Pennington Borough Council. They are:
   — Mark Blackwell (Republican) — It is my opinion that the Valley is not ready to meet COAH obligations. We will need more schools or more children in each class. To me that is not a good thing. The roads would need improvement. There would be an increased drain on the first responders, police, public works . . . I could go on and on. What we do need is a “real plan.” The borough does not have the vacant land to meet COAH obligations. We need to go to COAH and show them. This is a “pie in the sky” plan. We do not have the water or sewer service capacities at this time to do anything. We do not want a “builders remedy,” just a real plan.
   — Glen E. Griffiths (incumbent Democrat) — Let’s first destigmatize affordable housing. It is intended for hard-working people, including police, teachers and firefighters, as well as seniors, who contribute much to the quality of life in Pennington. Their salaries may not afford them market-priced housing in Pennington, but they are welcome and valued.
   As a Pennington resident and chairman of council’s Finance Committee, I will limit the balance of my remarks to Pennington Borough. While plans are not final, discussions for one tract indicate it will include a senior and community center, retail stores, and number of affordable housing units.
   Secondly, the borough landfill is ready for environmental remediation and development. This tract is owned by the borough and, if developed with retail and affordable housing, will link the downtown business district with the Route 31 business corridor, providing a vital economic and residential center for Pennington.
   However, even if all the vacant land in Pennington were developed for affordable housing, it would not meet the requirements that the Council on Affordable Housing has decreed necessary. COAH’s decrees would require high density housing, including high rise construction. This would grossly distort the quality of life in Pennington, increasing its traffic, parking and retail services requirements.
   The Hopewell Valley Regional School District would need to expand its capacity to educate hundreds of more students with proportionately less tax income per new student. Furthermore, COAH decrees do not contemplate the expanded infrastructure necessary to serve them, including new water wells, pumping and filtration equipment, as well as a significant increase in sewage treatment capacity, which Pennington has no control over.
   Lastly, COAH makes no mention of how the $300,000 it will provide in grants will finance the $11 million its staff projects such housing will cost in Pennington alone, not to mention $122 million in Hopewell Valley and $7 billion across the state. As usual, state officials seem to assume that New Jersey’s property taxpayers will gladly pick up the bill. I don’t think so.
   The disparity between COAH decrees and reality is why Pennington is pursuing a two-prong strategy. The first is meeting COAH on its terms by providing a realistic, affordable housing plan that will preserve the borough’s character and provide for well-planned growth. The second is exposing the less rational aspects of COAH decrees in the court of public opinion by joining the NJ League of Municipalities lawsuit in opposition of current COAH rules.
   — Stewart Schwab (Republican) — No. I do not feel the Valley can handle a significant amount of new dwelling (affordable or not). I believe we do not have the infrastructure in place and as such should not be taxing the system of roads, environment, open space, schools, water and sewers, public works, police and emergency services. If the Valley’s considers such a plan the infrastructure must be addressed before putting a single shovel in the ground.
   — Edwin Weed Tucker (incumbent Democrat) — COAH requirements are intended to provide affordable housing to lower income citizens such as police, firefighters, teachers, healthcare providers, the young starting careers, senior citizens. These residents contribute much to our valuable diversity and our quality of life here. We have a legal and moral obligation to provide for these folks as best we can.
   As a Pennington Council member, I will focus on the borough.
   There is little land for development in Pennington Borough. COAH currently requires 20 affordable units. Six are in Pennington Point, eight more are earmarked for the Capital Health tract and six are for planned accessible apartments. However, COAH’s Round 3 requirements increase Pennington’s obligation to 87 affordable units. The YMCA is purchasing the 13-acre Capital Health tract for a community center, and is also planning to include space for a senior center, COAH units, and a retail component. The borough landfill can be cleaned up and developed for retain units and affordable housing adding ratables and linking Main Street and highway businesses. The borough owns two other very small tracts.
   The new COAH obligation is unreasonable for Pennington and most COAH designated towns in New Jersey. The new rules would require high density housing perhaps even high rise units. This would greatly change the village character of Pennington and increase pressure on our infrastructure and services including traffic flow, parking, and our schools. We also are about at our limit for providing sewer and water services.
   As responsible elected officials, our desire is to provide services and a realistic number of affordable housing units while maintaining our character and quality of life. Given the difference between what is realistic and what COAH is requiring, we have developed a dual strategy. First, we have directed Pennington’s planner to develop a realistic affordable housing plan to present to COAH and secondly, we are joining 229 other New Jersey towns in the League of Municipalities lawsuit challenging COAH’s unreasonable new regulations.
   We want to provide for open space, protect the environment, and maintain our infrastructure and the character and quality of life throughout our Valley. We will do our part in Pennington and I’m sure our Hopewell neighbors will do theirs.
   HOPEWELL BOROUGH — Two are running for two three-year terms on Hopewell Borough Council. They are:
   — Robert Lewis (incumbent Republican) — I would not like to see a significant increase in dwelling units in Hopewell Valley. I think we need to look at what shakes out after current worldwide economic issues stabilize (before adding anything that would impact our local environment and infrastructure). I would rather see incentives to utilize/restore existing structures and move toward a more renewable resource-based economy.
   — Schuyler Morehouse (incumbent Republican) was unable to respond in time.
   — No Democrats filed in April to run for these seats in November.