In March, Senator Anthony Bucco introduced legislation, S3739, which would delay the state’s fourth round of Fair Share Housing obligations by three years. Last week, that bill added several co-sponsors in Senators Jon Bramnick, Edward Durr, Holly Schepisi and Kristin Corrado, indicating some level of support for it.
The next ten-year round of affordable housing requirements is currently slated to begin in 2025, while the bill requests a delay to July 1, 2028. The COVID pandemic and related shutdowns, which have stymied municipalities from satisfying their third round obligations, was cited as the reason for the delay.
This certainly reflects the situation in Livingston, where the town is still dealing with legal battles related to its third round obligations.
Nearly two-and-a-half years ago, in January of 2021, a settlement was nearly reached with Fair Share Housing to satisfy the town’s requirements. Fair Share Housing Center is a group focused on finding affordable housing in municipalities by enforcing the Mount Laurel Doctrine. The agreement was to save the township from future unwanted development as a result of “builder’s remedy” lawsuits, where a developer cites the ability to create affordable housing as a way to force construction of a much larger project, and the township’s Council, Planning, and Zoning Boards lose control over what is built.
To give one example of what happens when a builder’s remedy lawsuit is filed, in 2019, township officials begged developers to include elevators for the multi-story affordable units that were being built in a larger housing complex. The developers refused, because it was not required by law; the affordable housing was only being built so that more profitable units could be built alongside it, and the developers apparently had no interest in spending any more money than necessary on those units.
In another example, in 2020, the Council heard from residents concerning a potential housing project to be located off South Livingston Avenue, near ShopRite, that was only being discussed because of the threat of a builder’s remedy lawsuit. Concerns of residents of the area included increased traffic and more densely populated schools. The Council members made it clear that they were being forced to consider the proposed development due to the amount of affordable housing that is required to be built in town. This particular ordinance ultimately expired at the end of the year (as ordinances cannot carry from one year into the next) and was reintroduced and approved with modifications in 2021.
Despite being close to an agreement years ago, the Council has dealt with continued litigation with Fair Share Housing, which is the topic of frequent closed session meetings. The community has been left in a state of limbo, unsure if the steady stream of ordinances that had been passed in recent years, many of them involving contentious debates with residents, has reached its conclusion.
All the while, another Fair Share round is looming in the not-too-far-off future. This is undoubtedly a concern for the Township Council, which will be tasked with approving places for new housing to fit in town, as well as the residents, who will see the makeup of their community continue to change as more housing is built in their backyard as a result of these obligations.
We must state, as we always do when discussing this topic, that while every implementation of it is not perfect, affordable housing, in and of itself, is certainly not bad. When it is being used not to force unwanted development, but rather for its basic purpose of helping those in need afford the living spaces they deserve, it is an example of good governance at work. But despite the good intentions at the root of affordable housing, a very flawed system has been created to support it in New Jersey, one that can be manipulated by developers with relative ease.
Under the proposed agreement with Fair Share Housing, Livingston was tasked with fulfilling an unmet need of hundreds of affordable units in town. But aside from the occasional single family affordable homes built in partnership with Habitat for Humanity, most of these units would come through construction of housing apartments and complexes. For developers to be willing to build affordable homes, they only want to offer a limited number of units at an affordable rate, allowing them to profit from the remaining ones. The state standard is that at least 20 percent of units be affordable; so, to fulfill the requirements for those affordable units in the third round of obligations, Livingston must find room for roughly 3,000 total new units in town.
The vast majority of those units have yet to be built, though they have been approved. While we do not yet know for sure how they will affect the town, it is a safe bet that it will lead to more crowded schools, increased traffic, and a need for more first responders. As a result, the town could be forced to build another school, or have to support a paid fire department, to name two extremely costly possibilities. Yet, despite this, in a few short years, Livingston may be tasked with finding somewhere for thousands of additional units.
Anything that can be done to delay this process, like the passage of this S3739, is something that we feel the Council should support. Affordable housing is important, but serious changes need to be made in how towns are told to make space for it. With a five year window before the next round, as opposed to two, perhaps that will give the time for the state to improve the system, and for the township to develop a better plan.
A compliance hearing with the state, to determine if Livingston is fulfilling its affordable housing requirements, is currently scheduled for May 31. Though these hearings have been delayed in the past (it was previously adjourned from March), perhaps we will have more clarity on where Livingston stands with respect to this current round after that meeting.
