To the editor:
We delivered the following letter on September 13 to NJ Assembly Leader Craig J. Coughlin. We are grateful that Hopewell Township Mayor Kevin Kuchinski joined our meeting.
We are a former Democratic mayor and a former Republican mayor of Hopewell Township, writing jointly about state Supreme Court directives that require the construction of nearly one million new affordable housing units, while the state’s population is growing only modestly.
There is widespread agreement that New Jersey requires much more affordable housing. We contend, however, that the court’s current approach is environmentally and fiscally reckless.
In our township, bi-partisan efforts have resulted in an environmentally-savvy master plan and zoning that reflect the carrying capacity of the land. Most of our residents rely upon well water and we have very limited sewer capacity. Many decades of effort have gone into preserving an aquifer that provides water to more than 1.5 million people.
Like many others, our township has fully complied with its first and second round affordable housing obligations.
In the absence of action from the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) or the state Legislature, the court has imposed upon Hopewell Township a round three obligation to build 653 new, affordable housing units. To build them, the township has signed agreements with developers to build an additional 2,881 market rate homes.
The demographic impact is staggering. Those 2,881 market-rate units will add more than 9,500 people within eight years, bringing Hopewell Township’s population well above 26,000, a 40 percent increase. Add in the new 653 affordable units and we are looking at a total population of over 27,000, a 45 percent population increase.
The yearly cost of the additional school-aged children will add approximately $35 million a year to budgets. Add to that the likely need for additional school building.
Like other municipalities, Hopewell Township acted to avoid a Builder’s Remedy, massive development imposed as a penalty for failure to comply with the courts. In essence, the courts have forced towns to act to avoid costly litigation and substantial penalties. The result: unbridled development in an uncertain housing market, abrogates the letter and spirit of municipal master planning and carefully regulated zoning.
What is there to do? We are in this mess because the state Senate and Assembly have not provided useful direction on affordable housing. Their failure to act is a major reason why the courts intervened. Useful bills would shift these obligations from municipalities to the state (A1645/ACR80); would eliminate the Builder’s Remedy (A1650/ACR79); would require that affordable housing mandates consider each municipality’s unique qualities, as well as the impact on municipal services (A1648); would encourage new housing to be built where there is a present and pressing need, notably in urban areas that are closer to jobs, markets, and public transportation (A3928).
Other bills have been proposed, but have not yet been introduced. One would require an independent, bi-partisan authority to determine housing obligations based on statewide need, not on a town-by-town basis. We call upon the legislature to confront these issues. Only they can restore environmental and fiscal sanity to statewide and local planning.
Jim Burd and Jon Edwards
Hopewell Township