PNC is dead; now let’s address the real issues (Issue #1 COAH…)

[Guest]

Towns concerned about COAH change
Tuesday, July 1, 2008 2:59 PM EDT
By Maria Prato-Gaines, Staff Writer

http://www.packetonline.com/articles/2008/07/01/cranbury_press/news/doc486a7e5d3672c798948964.txt


Agreements that would allow Monroe and Cranbury to shift some of their state-mandated affordable housing obligation to Perth Amboy could be in limbo if Gov. Jon S. Corzine signs legislation amending the state Fair Housing Act.

Both houses of the state Legislature adopted the legislation — the Assembly by 44-34 margin on June 16 and the state Senate by a 21-16 margin on Monday. The bills call for several changes in the state’s affordable housing program, including the elimination of regional contribution agreements, an increase in the commercial development fee and expanded eligibility for housing.

Gov. Corzine has said he plans to sign the legislation, which was sponsored in the Assembly by Speaker Joseph Roberts, D-Camden, and in the Senate by Sen. Raymond Lezniak, D-Union.

Officials in Monroe and Cranbury, both of which are designated as developing communities under the Council on Affordable Housing, are studying the bill and its potential impact on their communities. However, they said they are concerned that it will affect RCAs that have already been negotiated but not yet been approved by COAH.

Residents and municipal officials also are concerned that the fee increase will not cover the increased number of units being required under the latest proposed housing round.
Cranbury is estimating that, under the most recently proposed third-round rules, it will need to build 469 affordable housing units — 309 more than under earlier versions of the rules. Monroe officials have not estimated the township’s obligation under the new rules.

The revisions followed a state appellate panel ruling tossing out COAH’s initial third-round rules. COAH’s revisions were designed to more than double the statewide obligation from 52,000 to 115,000 units.

John Riggs, Monroe municipal housing liaison, said township officials were concerned about the elimination of RCAs, adding that the elimination should have been phased in so that towns could adjust to the changing system.

He said a deal with Perth Amboy, in which Monroe was planning to pay the Middlesex County city to take on 200 of Monroe’s units, would still be honored. He said that contracts were executed and submitted to COAH several months ago.

”When you act in good faith and execute good contracts it should be grand-fathered,” Mr. Riggs said.

The township does plan to abandoned RCA negotiations with New Brunswick for 125 affordable housing units since the bill has passed, he said.

Monroe was required to provide 178 units in round one and 435 units in round two, some of which are still under construction. To meet the second-round obligation, Monroe paid $2.3 million to New Brunswick to build 115 of those units in an RCA agreement.

Cranbury also is concerned about an RCA contract it has with Perth Amboy, which would transfer 81 affordable housing units. Cranbury would pay Perth Amboy to build the units.

In previous rounds Cranbury has executed RCAs with both Perth Amboy, for 76 units, and Carteret, for 34 units, said Christine Smeltzer, township Administrator.

Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein, a Democrat who represents Cranbury and Monroe, abstained on the vote, which she said amounted to a vote against the bill. The bill needed 41 votes to pass. She said she objected to the abolition of RCAs, which she said was an important tool allowing towns to meet their obligations.

”I did what I thought was right for my district, but I still kept a small door open for negotiation,” Ms. Greenstein said.

She is hopeful that, when the Legislature returns to session in September, that the question of already-negotiated RCAs would be addressed.

There also was concern that the legislation did not address the most recent rules imposed by COAH.

Sen. Bill Baroni, a Republican who represents Cranbury and Monroe, voted against the bill at least in part because he hoped legislators would amend it to change the formula used to determine how many units new warehouse construction would generate. He said the current proposal — which sets 1.5 jobs per 1,000 square feet of warehouse space and one unit per 16 jobs — was too high. Cranbury is surveying local warehouses to determine what it believes is a more accurate figure.

”There’s no basis for theses statistics,” Sen. Baroni said. “We need to build affordable housing but we need to do it in a way that doesn’t destroy the character of towns.”
William Dressel Jr., executive director of the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, said the league plans to challenge the third round rules in state Superior Court in the hopes of getting the numbers reduced.

”It’s going to hopefully bring about a more realistic number that a town is going to have more of a fighting chance for compliance,” he said. “We are trying to identify the most important issues and lobby.”

There also is concern about the new developer fee, which is being increased from 2 percent to 2.5 percent of the equalized assessed value of the building at the time that they get their permit. Business groups are opposed to the fee, saying it will depress the economy.

Municipal officials and residents, however, are concerned that the fee will not be enough to cover the cost of units that towns will be required to build.

”It helps but it is not enough,” Ms. Smeltzer said.

In the meantime, Cranbury is considering its options, she said.

”The strategy would be to continue to convince legislators to undo what they did,” she said.

[James]

If ever anyone thought Linda Greenstein actually looked out for our interests or respected us as voters then these comments should prove otherwise.

"Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein, a Democrat who represents Cranbury and Monroe, abstained on the vote, which she said amounted to a vote against the bill. "


In what world is abstaining a vote for our distrct? Most boards I have sat on view an abstaining as a positive if there is conflict because it reduces the number of votes needed and is in essence an affirmitive vote. If she truly voted for us then she would have said no.

By abstaining she wants her cake and to eat it too. She does not offend and only helps Roberts. As for Cranbury she believes we're dumb enough to believe that we will accept her abstention as a vote for us.


”I did what I thought was right for my district, but I still kept a small door open for negotiation,” Ms. Greenstein said.

That is political speak. She neither introduced a bill, made an amendement or made any other official comment on the record for the RCA's. This is political speak in the hope that we'll forget later on.

At least Wayne DeAngelo did not provide false hope or look down at our intelligence.

[yankee]

Have to disagree with the previous poster. Greenstein is a democrat and was elected as such. Her abstention is the same as a no vote as the total of 42 is needed to pass legislation and an abstention does not help reach the total. If you'll notice only 2 democrats abstained. I know that Greenstein took alot of heat from her party and is fighting for Cranbury the best she can.To blast her now could make her an enemy when she is more of a friend . D'Angelo is a lemming, who follows the party with blinders. He is a friend to the developers and ignored all requests to meet with him. Greenestein shows up at town meetings, listens to her constituents and is very approachable.

[Guest]

Sorry Yankee, but you're wrong. A no vote and abstention are not even close to the same. What does Linda being elected as a Democrat have to do with anything other than party support or verifying that Dems and Republicans should vote party line. People who are voted in should focus on those who voted them in and not those who they want to curry favor with in their parties.

Why didn't Linda try to add an amendment to the COAH bill?

Why didn't she convince Wayne to vote no?

Why didn't she try and get others to vote no given her position in the assembly?

Why wasn't she more vocal and why is she now saying she hopes to make an amendment. Truth is that she should have done that prior to the billing going through.

Truth is she wanted to play both sides. She does show up, but what good is that if she ignores the voters at the end of the day? Only one Democrate voted no and Linda should have been the second one.

The only way to make sure Linda pays attention is not to kiss up to her, but to hold her accountable. The same goes with all our politicians locally, state and federal.

[Cranbury Conservative]

We have a friend in State Sen. Sean T. Kean. Apparently he see's affordable housing for what it is...

Everyone should have a decent place to live. That's why the failure of the state Legislature and the state's Council on Affordable Housing to come up with rational rules for low-income housing in New Jersey is so serious.

The council approved regulations in the spring that laid out an unworkable and outrageously expensive plan that is certain to generate for decades determined opposition to low-income housing construction in New Jersey.

The rules, if followed, will harm the environment, ruin the quality of life of millions of people and drain money from other vital programs needed for a strong economy and improved quality of life in our towns and rural areas. They will slow, not speed, construction of new housing.

Adding insult to injury, on June 25 the Legislature passed into law a bill that will cut off one of the only dedicated sources of money that could have been used to comply with those same regulations.

Instead of stimulating construction of more low and moderately priced housing, these incredibly misguided policies will make it harder for everyone — rich, poor or middle class — to buy and maintain a decent home in New Jersey.

The council has been known for providing unpredictable and seemingly arbitrary guidance to local officials. Not surprisingly, the council's research that led to adoption of the new rules was based on flawed data.

A survey of available land commissioned and accepted by the council based its findings on five-year-old aerial photographs. The survey determined low-cost housing could be built on the median strips and a rest area along Route 287; on the right-of-ways along the Garden State Parkway; on land within the Picatinny Arsenal; on the grassy areas between taxi ways and runways at local airports; on legally protected open space adjacent to our reservoirs, and, perhaps most outrageous of all, in the backyards of existing homes.

Based on this fantasy, the council determined thousands of homes for low- and moderate-income residents could be constructed in already overbuilt towns and cities. Then it used a flawed projection of population growth to determine that 115,000 homes were needed, at an estimated cost of a whopping $18 billion.

The Legislature then decided communities believing they lack the capacity for more housing could no longer pay other cities to fulfill their newly inflated quotas. That meant a large source of money for low-income housing projects in urban areas disappeared. And it sent the quotas for public housing in some already overbuilt suburban and rural communities surging by as much as 50 percent.

For years, environmentalists and planners have called all types of suburban development "sprawl," and urged redevelopment and renovation of aging towns and cities.

Now the state has implemented a policy that will dry up urban redevelopment funds, and not only encourage suburban development, but require it — no matter whether a community has the resources to handle the growth. Local governments and residents will have almost no input.

Not surprisingly, the new rules already have prompted a lawsuit. The New Jersey League of Municipalities is suing to have these so-called "third-round rules" suspended. The league's suit calls the new rules "fundamentally flawed regulations based on arbitrary growth projections and an invalid methodology."

No doubt this isn't the first lawsuit that will be filed over these regulations. Towns and cities will not sit still for these new rules because the outcry from residents will force them to resist.

The most likely result will be an even slower pace of all types of construction in our state since these rules can delay not only the building of homes, but of offices, warehouses and other business buildings as well.

If we want to get serious about solving our housing problems, we need first to overturn the overreaching Mount Laurel ruling by the state Supreme Court, and then pass reforms into law that will make it easier to build housing in the areas where it makes sense economically and environmentally.

The best housing plan is one that creates the economic development needed to generate good jobs with good wages. The council's policies discourage the economic growth needed to make that happen.

I urge residents to write to Gov. Corzine and state legislators and urge them to intervene and do away with these new rules and regulations. They will hinder, not help, the construction of affordable housing in the state.

State Sen. Sean T. Kean is a Republican representing the 11th District in the Legislature.

found at:
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080708/OPINION04/807080314/1030/OPINION

[atlanticville press]

http://atlanticville.gmnews.com/news/2008/0710/front_page/003.html

Mayor: What is state's affordable unit calculations?
COAH increases Eatontown's housing obligation to 490 units
BY DANIEL HOWLEY Staff Writer
The Eatontown Borough Council is requesting that the state Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) release the method used to calculate the borough's new affordable housing obligation.

The council filed an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request with COAH seeking that the agency release documents that explain how it was determined that the borough's affordable housing obligation be increased from 92 units to 490 units.

"We have decided to submit an OPRA request to COAH to get the information that they used to calculate that number of 490 units," Eatontown Mayor Gerald Tarantolo said at the June 25 council meeting.

Previous calculations by COAH called for the borough to provide 92 affordable housing units by 2018, but the agency's new round-three rules call for Eatontown's quota to jump to 490 units, according to Tarantolo.

COAH had previously proposed to increase Eatontown's obligation from 92 units to 447 units. Then the figure was increased to 490 units, Tarantolo explained

"We received some adjusted numbers on our round-three obligation," Tarantolo said. "It went from 92 units to 447 units to 490.

"As you can see, the increments are unjustified and we are requesting from COAH the method by which they are calculating the new numbers," he said, adding, "We want to know what exactly they used in those calculations."

Tarantolo said that the borough is seeking the documents on how the affordable housing mandates are calculated in order to determine if the figure is reasonable and correct.

COAH has released information to the borough, explaining that one of the contributing factors that the agency uses to determine a municipality's affordable housing obligation is the amount of jobs available within the town, according to Tarantolo.

The agency has determined that over the course of the next 14 years, the projected job growth in the borough is estimated at about 7,000 jobs.

"Part of the information we received indicated that [COAH] is anticipating a job growth here in the borough," Tarantolo said. "Something close to 7,000 jobs.

"I think, based on the available land, that there is no way we could ever generate 7,000 jobs," he added.

Tarantolo said he believes that COAH included the number of jobs that could be created as a result of the closure of Fort Monmouth when calculating the borough's affordable housing obligation.

"My guess is that they included some of the Fort Monmouth data in these numbers," Tarantolo said. "We have already received, from the Department of Community Affairs, an indication that in the legislation, Fort Monmouth will be treated as a regional entity as it relates to COAH.

"So, the 7,000 jobs that [COAH] is projecting, obviously have to be part of the projection for Fort Monmouth, which should have been separate from [the borough].

"We will wait and see what the data they used to calculate our 490-unit figure, and then we will challenge it based on that criteria.

"This is critical legislation for the borough," he said, adding, "We've been working very diligently from 1999, right up to the present, to formulate a plan that meets the criteria established by the state and yet does not have an adverse impact on Eatontown."

The increase to the borough's affordable housing obligation comes in the wake of revisions made to COAH's round-three growth share element.

According to COAH's original roundthree growth share requirement, a town's affordable housing obligation must increase in relation to increases in population and job growth.

Under the original regulations, Eatontown was required to provide one unit of affordable housing for every eight units of market-value housing developed within the borough, Tarantolo explained.

Under the new round-three regulations, the borough must provide one unit of affordable housing for every four units of market value housing, Tarantolo said.

COAH's revised regulations also call for one unit of affordable housing to be developed for every 16 jobs created in the borough.

Under previous round-three regulations, one unit of affordable housing was required to be built for every 25 jobs created in the borough.

Tarantolo said that the only large piece of property available for development in Eatontown is the recently sold Old Orchard Country Club on Route 36.

Tarantolo said that the borough is already 97 percent developed and the only way the borough would be able to meet its affordable housing obligation is to build high-rise-style housing.

During a May council meeting, Tarantolo said that the borough would be issuing a challenge to COAH, alleging that the agency skewed the amount of available vacant land in the borough, which inflated its affordable housing obligation.

According to Tarantolo, COAH officials used a geographic information system (GIS) to map out the available land in the borough where affordable units can be constructed. The GIS uses various forms of statistical information, and maps it onto a geographic location.

Tarantolo explained that when COAH used the GIS to map the available vacant land in the borough, it did not take into account areas that were already designated for green space.

As a result, the agency labeled several parks and open space reserves within Eatontown as buildable land, Tarantolo said.

The borough is also charging that because property lines were not taken into account when the GIS mapping was done, COAH could be including private property as buildable space.

If COAH removes the acreage from the borough's parks and open space from the vacant land calculations, Eatontown would see a significant reduction in its affordable housing obligation, Tarantolo explained.

In addition to its own issues with the agency, the borough has also joined with the New Jersey League of Municipalities (NJLM), in an effort to challenge the revisions made to COAH's round-three guidelines.

In May, the council voted unanimously to authorize a resolution, pledging $500 from its legal fund to help support the NJLM in its legal battle against COAH.

The NJLM is a voluntary association consisting of members from each of the 566 municipalities in the state. The league's goal is to better facilitate communication between towns by pooling information resources and brainpower from each of the municipalities in the state.

Tarantolo, who serves on the league's executive board, said the $500 pledge to the NJLM would allow the borough to join the hundreds of member towns in its legal battle against COAH's revised round-three guidelines.

COAH is a state agency that determines the number of affordable housing units that each municipality in the state must provide.

Its affordable housing obligations are the result of a 1983 state Supreme Court decision that called for municipalities to take action to meet their fair share of lowand moderate-income housing needs.

COAH's previous round-three regulations were originally accepted by the NJLM in August 2003 and emphasized the concept of growth share.

COAH's round-one regulations focused on creating reasonable opportunities for affordable housing through the municipal zoning ordinances. The agency's secondround regulations focused primarily on the rehabilitation of existing housing stock.

Affordable housing is defined by the state as housing that can be bought or rented with 30 percent or less of a person's income.

[Cranbury Conservative]

Group sees broad support for RCA ban
Your Turn

THE NEW JERSEY REGIONAL COALITION Guest Column

Recently, we have heard many predictions of destruction and doom with calls for resistance from towns vowing to fight the recent legislative action to ban Regional Contribution Agreements (RCA) - the loophole in our fair housing law that for two decades allowed New Jersey's wealthiest towns to pay poor communities to take their affordable housing.

Statements have filled our papers with exaggerations and falsehoods designed to stir up fear in order to prolong resistance to open housing. Some have been misleading and unnecessari ly divisive at a time when our state should be coming together to make our housing policies work for us all.

As members of the New Jersey Regional Coalition - the statewide interfaith organization that fought to ban RCAs - we feel compelled to set the record straight

The New Jersey League of Municipalities claims that "municipal governments throughout New Jersey are preparing to fight" the new housing laws. They report that "cities and suburbs are united" against RCA repeal. This is simply not true. In fact, RCA abolition has had broad grass-roots support from homeowners and taxpayers in cities and suburbs across New Jersey. Hundreds of people converged on the statehouse to support banning RCAs. Thousands have rallied in meetings organized by the New Jersey Regional Coalition. In passing the RCA ban, legislators were responding to voices in their communities not acting against them.

David Rusk, nationally known author and expert on housing policy, said, "Passage of the omnibus housing reform bill, including RCA repeal, is the most momentous success of community organizing that I have participated in over the past dozen years. Indeed, in terms of fundamentally changing the 'geography of opportunity,' it is the greatest success that I know about anywhere."

Mayors from across the state backed RCA repeal. At legislative hearings more mayors testified in support of scrapping RCAs than the handful testifying in favor of them. A diverse array of suburban mayors from Pennsauken, Montclair, Gloucester Township, Maplewood, Franklin Township and Kearny all testified against RCAs, praising Speaker Joseph Roberts Jr. and Majority Leader Watson Coleman for their courageous stand on an issue of justice and fairness. At a U.S. Conference of Mayors event, Trenton Mayor Doug Palmer told national television how he was working with the New Jersey Regional Coalition to eliminate RCAs. Mayor Palmer later testified in support of the bill.

The handful of towns vowing to fight the RCA ban are some of the most well-off and exclusive towns in the state. These towns felt fine approving new corporate headquarters, relocated hospitals, sprawling subdivisions, and mega warehouses. But when workers from these developments want to live there, they bemoan the loss of their town's "character."

William Dressel, who heads the N.J. League of Municipalities, says the new laws will raise property taxes. If affordable housing was the cause of our high taxes, New Jersey would have some of the lowest in the country. The league's 20-year campaign against fair housing has certainly not kept taxes down. Numerous experts have testified that RCAs have contributed to segregation and the concentration of poverty while putting growing fiscal and social pressures on more diverse suburbs driving up their tax rates. Assemblyman Peter Barnes put it well, saying, "When towns like Cranbury use RCAs, it's towns like Edison, Hamilton and Cherry Hill that bear the brunt."
Several commentators claim there is no money to pay for all this affordable housing. But it's not affordable housing that is costing us - it is the resistance to affordable housing that has exacted such a high cost on taxpayers. The best way to pay for affordable housing is through inclusionary zoning - zoning for a mix of housing driven by the private market. Developers all over the country and throughout New Jersey have paid for hundreds of thousands of affordable units without a cent of government subsidies, and are willing to continue to do so. The only thing that would make affordable housing expensive is the continued resistance to private development through selfish zoning practices.

Unfortunately, Mr. Dressel, says he will mount yet another costly protracted battle in the courts against affordable housing. These endless wars over 20 years have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars while failing to sway the courts. Each successive fight has led to more complicated and punitive remedies against recalcitrant towns.

Our elected leaders, led by Speaker Roberts, are finally taking this issue out of the courts and addressing it through the political process with all the stakeholders, including the League of Municipalities, invited to the table. We know that banning RCAs does not solve all the problems of affordable housing in New Jersey.

Much more needs to be done but Roberts deserves our praise for taking this bold first step in building the coalition of urban and suburban legislators and elected officials seeking solutions instead of the endless and costly war against affordable housing.

The Rev. Rodwell G. Thom
Holy Trinity Lutheran Church
East Orange

The Rev. Charles Stephens
Unitarian Universalist Church
Washington Crossing

The Rev. Clabon Bogan Jr.
First Baptist Church
of Jericho
Deptford

Paul Bellan-Boyer
NJRC Housing Chair
and Deacon
St. Matthew Lutheran
Jersey City

http://atlanticville.gmnews.com/news/2008/0710/editorials/012.html

[Guest]

"The Rev. Rodwell G. Thom
Holy Trinity Lutheran Church
East Orange

The Rev. Charles Stephens
Unitarian Universalist Church
Washington Crossing

The Rev. Clabon Bogan Jr.
First Baptist Church
of Jericho
Deptford

Paul Bellan-Boyer
NJRC Housing Chair
and Deacon
St. Matthew Lutheran
Jersey City "

Who are these church people?

[??]

"Assemblyman Peter Barnes put it well, saying, "When towns like Cranbury use RCAs, it's towns like Edison, Hamilton and Cherry Hill that bear the brunt."

RCA is a mutual agreement between two towns, right? If so, the two towns must consider the agreement mutually beneficial. It seems Assemblyman Barnes considers RCA harmful for the receiving town, if so the receiving town should not have signed the agreement in the first place.

BTW, here is Barnes Wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_J._Barnes

[Guest]

What their really saying is harmful is the effective result of the RCA"s, not the RCA's themselves. For example, Cranbury makes deals with Townships not near us. The affordable housing we pay for in these other places is not occupied by people working in our community. Therefore the larger townships that are in our area absorb those working class people instead. In other words, our exclusivity polarized the economic classes and drags down those local townships already less affulent than ourselves.

I am not agreeing with this position, just explaining it. It is of course based on numerous faulty premises and bad public / social policy ideas. It falsely pretends we really have that large a local workforce at the awrehouses which is untrue, for starters.

At its core what it is about is that the townships that didn't manage growth well and ended up with lots of housing relative to industry, like Hamilton, are jealous of townships like Cranbury that have managed to find a balance of industry income and controlled housing growth and are more affulent as a result. Also, there is an implied charge of racism in the charge. These poorer communities have large minority populations and their leaders love to blame all their troubles on the rich white man keeping them down. Cranbury is the rich white man who is sitting pretty in our houses while they suffer and it is an injustice. They are convinced we are somehow cheating them and earning our prosperity on their backs. It is complete BS but just like with Hitler in 1930's Germany, what they preach is well received by their audience since it allows them to blem their troubles on someone besides themselves. And the politicians love it because it allows them to smokescreen their actual interests in the cloak of a social cause. Roberts doesn't care about fixing the ills of society -- he wants power and the unions and developers give it to him. But he and his gang can fool these people into believing they are acting in their interests and really advance those of their true patrons.

[Cranbury Conservative]

FRom:New Jersey State League of Municipalities

July 1, 2008
Re: I. Affordable Housing
A. League Challenge of COAH Regulations
B. Mayors’ Housing Policy Committee


Dear Mayor:

In the light of the passage of A-500/S-1783 and the promulgation of the new COAH regulations, I write to you update you on the status of affordable housing policy and local governments.

As you know, the League is preparing a legal challenge to the new COAH regulations, which were effective on June 2. The League has been accepting pledges from municipalities, and if you have not yet submitted a pledge but would like to, the pledge form is online at: http://www.njslom.org/COAH-3rd-round-pledge.pdf

We have until mid-July to file with the Court, and the League will file in advance of that deadline. For more on the forthcoming League challenge of the COAH regulations, please see our Dear Mayor letters of June 10, April 18 and March 25. Questions on the challenge can be directed to Mike Cerra at mcerra@njslom.com or at (609) 695-3481 x120.

As you know, the State Legislature, despite opposition from the League and the Urban Mayors Association, passed A-500/S-1783. This was done in spite of the fact that the 2.5% commercial fee will not pay for the housing COAH projects will result from commercial development. This was also done in spite of the fact that the legislation eliminated a compliance mechanism, regional contribution agreements, but failed to put in place any new mechanisms or financial incentives to facilitate the construction of affordable housing.

Because of this and other deficiencies in the new law, the sponsors have indicated that they will introduce legislation in the fall to address some of these concerns. While we have asked the Governor to veto, or at least conditionally veto, this legislation, prudence demands us to prepare in the event the Governor signs the bill as the Legislature passed.

Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the concerns of local leaders be heard as the Legislature seeks reform. While it is unlikely we can reinstate RCA agreements, we can push for new ways for local governments to comply with their housing obligations, and we can push for new incentives to accommodate such housing.

Thus, League President Robert Bowser has directed us to reformulate our special RCA committee as a new “Mayors’ Housing Policy Committee,” and to designate our existing COAH Committee as a subcommittee of the new Mayor’s Committee. The purpose of this committee will be to advocate a new housing policy for the State, reviewing the principles of the Mount Laurel decision, the intent of the Fair Housing Act, the State Plan and the principles of home rule and sound planning.

Mayor Bowser will co-chair the Committee, and has appointed Bridgewater Mayor Patricia Flannery as co-chair. Any Mayors interested in joining this committee should contact Mike Cerra at the contact information above.

We will continue to advise you of all developments. Thank you.


Very truly yours,



William G. Dressel, Jr.
Executive Director

http://www.njslom.org/ml070108.html

[??]

[??]

BTW, I don't consider myself wealthy. We are a two-income family trying to make ends meet. I am fortunate to have a good education and be able to find a good job.

[Guest]

Can you imagine if cranbury was like hightstown and east windsor? TIME TO MOVE OUT!!!!!!!!!!

[James]

I was a journalism major in college which meant that I could take a wide range of classes. Aside from picking up a minor in history I fell a few credits short of minoring in economics and anthropology as well.

One of my sociology professors was very smart and also not in line with established thinking among college professors at the time and today. He actually felt subsidized housing outside of the cities did more harm then good and the direct result led in part to the decay of the cities. Which in turn leads to more need for social programs and helped to support the poverty cycle.

The primary building block in any society is the social structure. The problems with the places like Wilmington, Camden, Trenton, etc... is mainly crime and education. Solve those problems and the benefits will come.

If we take subsidized housing and place it in the suburbs what you are doing is taking the responsible and hard working people out of the city. In turn what this does is weaken the social structure within the community. People who are doing the damage are not applying for COAH or subsidized housing because they could care less. It is the responsible hard working individuals that apply. Why? Because they want to leave the city and provide opportunity for their family elsewhere and COAH type programs allow for this to happen. Why do they want to leave? Because the social structure is in decay. Just like the reason we want to live in Cranbury.

When this happens you have a migration of people to other areas and an erosion of the people who can make the positive influence on society.

The stronger method to building the inner cities is to make sure there are clean, upkept houses and apartments that would be attractive to the individuals who do work hard. They then remain in the community and build a better social structure. It is a long term plan, but on a solid foundation. If the individual chooses to save and move then that is absolutely fine. However, the subsidized housing being in the city allows for individuals to gain a comfortable home and contribute.

The problem is that this type of thinking and planning is unattractive to many groups and to many political donors.

[Guest]

"Assemblyman Peter Barnes put it well, saying, "When towns like Cranbury use RCAs, it's towns like Edison, Hamilton and Cherry Hill that bear the brunt."

I have friends living in Edison and Cherry Hill. These towns are pretty good. I don't understand why Peter Barnes singled them out...