Acontroversial bill aimed at substantially overhauling the state’s affordable housing regulations could be voted on by the state Senate in early January.
Senate bill S-1, which was initially scheduled for a vote before the end of the year, was pulled from the Senate agenda after Gov. Chris Christie made it clear he would veto the measure if legislators approved it as it currently reads.
S-1, which would abolish the state Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) and supplant the current housing regulations with a series of new guidelines to provide low- and moderateincome housing, is currently being discussed by members of the Assembly and the Senate.
Among the bill’s critics is Middletown Mayor Gerard Scharfenberger, who said proposed changes to the legislation approved by the Assembly would increase Middletown’s affordable housing obligation.
“Everybody wants to see COAH abolished, that’s not even a question anymore, but we don’t want to see it replaced with something worse.
“From what I understand, this is going to be worse; it’ll actually end up increasing our quota,” Scharfenberger said.
Under current COAH rules, he said, towns could pay other towns to build their quota within their limits, called regional contribution agreements (RCA).
“This made a lot of sense because often they were in areas that already had an infrastructure, transportation, a job base, plus they rehabbed existing structures without having to eliminate open space to accommodate these ridiculous quotas,” he said.
However, according to Scharfenberger, the new changes would retroactively eliminate RCA credits.
“I understand that they would take RCAs away, received during the first and second round [of COAH goals], which is outrageous.
“It means that they are actually stealing $9 million from the Middletown taxpayers,” he said.
The loss of these credits, Scharfenberger said, would increase Middletown’s obligation to provide affordable housing units.
“If you lose credits from past RCAs that you’ve done, all of a sudden now you have to make up those credits with additional units now,” he said.
“We’re being penalized for having followed the rules.
“It really is very unfair to a town like Middletown that’s done everything right and has tried to abide by the rules, to all of a sudden hurt them by throwing out rules that were in place 20 years ago,” he said.
Scharfenberger said that the cumbersome, constantly changing rules were one of his biggest complaints with COAH.
He also said that he disagrees with the use of quotas.
“It’s just absurd to have these nebulous, unrelated formulas. Now we’re basing housing on the number of kids who are getting free or subsidized lunches. What does one have to do with the other?”
Scharfenberger said towns should have a greater say in the amount of affordable housing constructed.
“Middletown has more than enough affordable housing; we have housing in every price range, every economic range you can imagine,” he said.
Scharfenberger said that he thinks the towns should be allowed to evaluate the existing housing stock.
“I’m sure a lot of towns would be able to prove that they have a diversity of housing stock without being forced to eliminate open space, cost the taxpayers millions of dollars to artificially build and glut the housing market with additional housing,” she said.
According to Scharfenberger, each affordable housing unit costs $161,000 to subsidize.
“These are taxpayer dollars that we don’t have. Taxpayers cannot afford to pay any more taxes to subsidize this insane housing policy that they are ramming down the throats of every municipality in the state.
“This is outrageous. I sincerely hope that the governor is going to veto this.”
State Sen. Jennifer Beck (R-12th District) concurred, saying the legislation as it stands in its current form is simply “not good.”
“Unfortunately, the issue of affordable housing is a critical one to the Monmouth County community, and frankly to the state of New Jersey,” Beck said.
“The policy that has been put forward here would establish obligations that are nearly unmeetable,” she said.
However, a housing advocacy group feels the bill would not go far enough.
Kevin Walsh, associate director of the Fair Share Housing Center, said the fact that the bill would reduce the number of affordable housing units that municipalities must provide from 115,000 units to 56,000 units is inappropriate because the need for such units is greater than ever.
“The idea with the whole [affordable housing policy] is that it’s supposed to allow people to live close to where they work,” Walsh said. “And too many folks want lower-income workers to commute for hours and hours.
“They want lower-income workers to take care of their mothers and fathers in nursing homes and to drive their kids to school and to pour the coffee in the diner, but they view them as the enemy when it comes to making sure that everybody has a place to live,” he said.
S-1 was initially approved by the Senate in June, but it was significantly altered by the Assembly and approved on Dec. 13 as Assembly bill A-3447,
Both measures call for the abolishment of COAH and its round-three regulations, which many municipalities and state lawmakers claim require towns to construct an unfair number of affordable housing units within their borders.
COAH’s round-three guidelines required towns to construct 115,000 affordable housing units statewide by 2014.
A-3447 would require construction of roughly 56,000 units.
Beck criticized the legislation, saying it offers builders the ability to construct developments with little need for approvals.
“They will get almost automatic approval at the planning board level, and it also tells you the density that they are allowed to construct.
“If your town’s [population] is 5,000 or less, it says that you should construct between six and 12 units per acre. If you are a town between 5,000 and 15,000, you get to construct between 12 and 30 units per acre, and so on.
“So it takes land-use decisions out of the hands of a town in a case where they can’t meet the unreasonable obligation that is in there,” Beck added.
“I think the big picture here is the affordable housing policy we have in place is very detrimental to our towns,” she said, referring to COAH. “It’s not something people can comply with, so we have to do something.
“It’s just unfortunate that the bill that came out [Dec.13] is really not workable and doesn’t improve the situation very much.”
However, Walsh said more units are needed and that the Senate should close loopholes that allow towns to reduce their housing requirements.
“[The legislation] says that no town can be required, over the next 10 years, to provide more than it was required to provide from 1986 to 1999, prior to the third round.
“The only reason they do that is because they want to reduce towns’ obligations,” he said.
“There is no rhyme or reason to it other than it makes it more politically palatable. And what’s really funny is there are a lot of towns out there that are saying that they still want the numbers lower.”
According to A-3447, a town such as Eatontown, which under COAH had a total affordable housing obligation of 994 units, would be required to construct 79 units.
Ocean Township would be required to provide 548 affordable units. Under COAH the municipality would have had to build 1,206 units.
However, those reductions are contingent upon the bill moving forward unaltered.
According to Michael Cerra, a legislative analyst with the New Jersey League of Municipalities, the chances of that happening are minimal.
Cerra explained that the portion of the legislation that allows for such a reduction in the number of units would mostly likely be challenged and overturned in court.
If that happened, Cerra said, and assuming all towns would have to provide an amount of affordable units equal to 10 percent of their total housing stock, municipalities would have to construct over 300,000 affordable units throughout the state, a significant increase from COAH’s 115,000 obligation.
The Senate’s next legislative session is scheduled for Jan. 6.
Contact Daniel Howley at