By James “Jay” Taylor
When I think of the affordable housing issue in New Jersey, I am reminded of the Will Rogers’ quote, “Never blame a legislative body for not doing something. When they do nothing, they don’t hurt anybody. When they do something is when they become dangerous.”
Incomprehensible, illogical, unbelievable and questionable…those are the words that come to my mind every time we discuss Cranbury’s affordable housing obligation. Serving on the Township Committee for the past six years, I have become well versed in the ever-changing affordable housing requirements in the state and disillusioned in our legislature that they will ever provide a solution that makes sense.
It is incomprehensible to me that our legislature — voted in by the people to represent the people — has been unable to draft clear legislation for over 30 years. Due to the failure to define and clarify the law over the years, we are left with a nebulous ever-changing methodology passed by our legislature that is subject to political whim, court interpretation and influence from lobbying interests on both sides.
It is illogical that towns like Cranbury, which have been financially prudent and addressed affordable housing needs in the community before the state and court decided it necessary, are required to absorb millions more of debt. That those same individuals in Trenton who couldn’t define the law for the last 30 years somehow can decide there is a new housing requirement every couple of years. In six years, I’ve seen three different affordable housing obligation numbers.
It is unbelievable to me that we are required to take on debt and build housing that is not needed in our town. Further it is questionable why the myth is perpetuated that the affordable housing law provides housing for those in the community such as police officers and teachers. While it provides housing we cannot legally prioritize the housing list for those who work in the community or have ties to the community.
The grounds on which this obligation is based are questionable. If we do not build it at the ever-changing target number then the state has threatened us by allowing builders’ remedy lawsuits that for a town like Cranbury will ruin all the efforts we’ve employed to preserve our small town heritage. Our municipal master plan comprehensively outlines a plan to serve all aspects of our community. However, the builders would be allowed to build 4-5 or more market rate units for every affordable housing unit. In Cranbury, that means 1,200 plus new homes.
Cranbury has a rich history of providing affordable housing through voluntary means. In 1965, Cranbury Housing Associates (CHA) formed to support affordable housing within our community for those in our community with need. This organization formed on a moral basis well before the state decided we had an obligation. And what do you know? It worked.
The above issues leave us where we are today. In 2010, the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) recognized the township’s efforts to provide affordable housing and granted the township substantive certification of its Housing Element and Fair Share Plan. Since that time, COAH stopped fulfilling its functions and earlier this year, the Supreme Court dissolved the COAH process and required towns like Cranbury to file litigation in the courts to protect itself. As part of that litigation, the township is required to submit our affordable housing plan to the court and again demonstrate that we have a plan to meet our affordable housing obligation. To date, the court has ruled that we have temporary protection so long as we continue to make progress toward our affordable housing obligation and return to the court by the end of the year with a new affordable housing plan.
To demonstrate progress and maintain our protections, we must commence with the building of the 32 affordable units on the Route 130 site that borders Cranbury Estates. If we do not begin this build then the court will likely void our protection and we’ll be open to suit from Toll Brothers, Avalon Bay and the other developers who have notified us of their interest to build housing in Cranbury. This means a new middle school, a high school, infrastructure investment, changes in EMS services and other expenses. In other words, our taxes and quality of life would change dramatically.
On Sept. 17, CHA will present the site plan for Route 130D to the Planning Board for approval. CHA is working with the township and we want to ensure that the neighborhoods bordering this area are not impacted. As such, we’ve discussed added berming, dumpster placement, screening, restricting vehicular ingress and egress to the new development to Route 130 only, parking needs and other factors that will ensure the existing developments bordering the site are not adversely impacted.
I am hopeful and perhaps naive that someday we’ll be able to put politics aside at the state level and the legislature will do as tasked by the voters. That they will put forth a long-term sustainable solution that addresses the need for both the towns and housing.
