Why the Fair Housing Act

Clinton Township in Hunterdon County is the current poster town for the ills brought on by the enforcement of the State Supreme Court's 1975 Mt. Laurel decision.

First a little history. The State Supreme Court's 1975 Mt. Laurel decision held that "New Jersey’s municipalities have a constitutional obligation to provide for the “regional general welfare” – including the regional need for housing. The court held that every developing municipality must affirmatively provide its “fair share” of the region’s affordable housing needs." Link . Of course, instead of ignoring the court's egregious decision to insert court ordered changes into the real estate market, the State Legislature went immediately to work compounding a bad decision with bad legislation and in 1985 created the Fair Housing Act of 1985. A provision of the act created the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH)which has dramatically altered the real estate landscape of New Jersey.

Supporters of the Fair Housing Act, and COAH specifically, argued that people that worked in many communities couldn't afford to live in the areas that they worked and that the towns had an obligation to provide them affordable housing. In order to force towns into creating affordable housing, a relative term if I ever heard one, The Fair Housing Act had another provision called "the Builders-Remedy". Under the Builders-Remedy of the Fair Housing Act, a builder can file a Civil lawsuit against any town that has not filed a plan for affordable housing with COAH or a town that has not built the affordable housing required. The net affects of these suits is that a builder will find land in a town where there is a COAH issue and propose a development of hundreds or thousands of units of which a very small percentage (usually under 5%) will be "affordable".

Clinton Township in Hunterdon County is and has been facing the prospect of having 911 homes built because of a Builders-Remedy lawsuit brought by Pulte Homes after the planning Board denied their application to build 911 homes on 292 acres in the township. Although local residents have fought against the development by getting the planning designation of the area changed and making sure that a creek that runs through the property was designated as a class 1 stream and the town has spent large amounts of money on professionals, the town council recently voted to accept a compromise with the builder allowing approximately 350 age restricted units and 90 low income units to be built.

Why? Everyone had fought this development. No one seemed to think it was a good idea. Because, even had the township won in court or had the builder not been able to DEP approvals for sewer the town would have to build the low-income units somewhere or be open to another Builder-Remedy lawsuit and potentially a larger development.

It just seems wrong... doesn't it? What was the Fair Housing Act supposed to address? An increase in affordable housing so people that work in a community can live there? Since it's inception until 2001 only 26,000 affordable units had been built while 480,000 standard residential units were built. Link So clearly the law didn't fix that.

The NAACP along with others brought the original lawsuit. Was it to end segregation and allow minorites to flee urban areas? According to a recent article in the Star Ledger (sorry can't find the link) minorities tend to live in minority areas even when their income allows them to move to more expensive areas. So that's not it.

Does the State Constitution require the State provide home ownership for all residents? I think not.

Perhaps, and only perhaps, it is just another example of "do-gooders" dictating to everyone else solutions to a problem that never really existed.