N.J. need for affordable housing under debate
Kathy Ouellette sits at the dining room table in her townhouse in Moorestown, N.J. (Michael Bryant / Staff Photographer)
Andrew Seidman and Jonathan Lai, Inquirer Staff Writers Posted: Monday, February 9, 2015, 11:59 PM
As the New Jersey Supreme Court considers whether to intervene in the Christie administration's regulation of affordable housing, the case has brought into focus a debate over the need for such housing among low- and moderate-income residents.
Affordable-housing advocates say the state's estimates - included in proposed regulations that were ultimately rejected in October - lowballed true demand and violated the Supreme Court's landmark 1975 Mount Laurel decision that established municipalities' constitutional obligation to provide their fair share of the region's housing needs.
Asked about affordable housing during his radio show last month, Gov. Christie described the 1975 decision as an "abject failure."
Christie, a Republican considering running for president in 2016 who frequently laments that the high cost of living in New Jersey is forcing residents and businesses to leave, added: "I also don't think that we have this overwhelming need for affordable housing in the state, either."
Yet a review of U.S. Census Bureau data, as well as interviews with housing advocates and those who have searched for affordable housing, point to a different conclusion. Of the 1.2 million low- and moderate-income households in the Garden State, some 875,000 spend 30 percent or more of their income on housing, according to census data.
Such households are considered "cost-burdened" by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, because they have difficulty affording other essentials, such as food and clothing.
The state defines low-income households as those with income equal to or less than 50 percent of median family income for the county in which they live. A household is considered to have moderate income if it earns between 50 percent and 80 percent of the median.
"To me, the demand is undeniable," said Matthew Reilly, president and CEO of MEND Inc., a nonprofit owner and developer of affordable housing in Burlington County, where the median annual income is $78,446.
In neighboring Camden County, a 75-unit complex scheduled to open this month in Pennsauken has received more than 2,200 applications.
Wait times for MEND's properties are six months or more across the board, Reilly said.
Kathy Ouellette, 34, waited three years for an opening at one of MEND's Moorestown developments.
She moved into a three-bedroom townhouse with her two children, ages 11 and 6, in April.
"It takes so long, so you kind of figure it's not going to happen," she said.
Ouelette makes $35,000 a year working for PNC Bank. She was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2011, and doctors told her in December the disease had spread to her bones.
Now on disability, she pays $542 a month in rent, plus utilities.
"Now that I have it, it's amazing for me," she said of her housing. Of her illness, she said, "God will watch over me."
Joanne Infantado, 68, moved in May from her home in Port Richmond to a Moorestown senior citizens complex owned by MEND after a six-month wait. Infantado, a retired supermarket deli manager, makes $26,000 a year on Social Security and from two pensions, and pays $525 a month in rent for her one-bedroom apartment.
"I did have a desire for a long time to move to Jersey," Infantado said, but she couldn't afford it. Now, she lives closer to her son, who lives in Cinnaminson.
The Supreme Court's decision in Mount Laurel prohibited the discriminatory use of zoning powers and required municipalities to provide a reasonable opportunity for construction of affordable housing.
It does not require municipalities to account for low- and moderate-income people who currently spend more on housing than they can afford.
Therefore, any remedy the Supreme Court proposes would not come close to meeting the overall need for affordable housing in New Jersey.
The justices took up the latest case after the state agency tasked with developing affordable-housing regulations deadlocked on a vote to adopt new rules during its October meeting.
About a year earlier, the Supreme Court had struck down proposed regulations, ruling that they were inconsistent with Mount Laurel and the legislation that codified the court ruling into statute, the Fair Housing Act of 1985.
The court ordered the agency, the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH), to develop rules similar to those used until 1999, when the last ones expired.
Under those rules, as many as 60,000 affordable homes were built between 1985 and 2010, according to court documents.
The Supreme Court granted COAH an extension in March 2014 but said if the agency did not adopt and publish new rules by November, the court would consider lifting the protection provided to municipalities that shields them from exclusionary zoning litigation.
After COAH deadlocked in October, the Fair Share Housing Center in Cherry Hill sued, alleging the agency had violated the Supreme Court order.
The center asked the court to allow for litigation against towns and offer guidance to lower courts in developing a new methodology for determining municipalities' affordable-housing obligations.
The court heard oral arguments last month.
Fair Share and other organizations had criticized the proposed rules as arbitrary and inconsistent with the court's order to follow previous methodologies.
The proposal presented in April by a state consultant to COAH's board called for about 42,000 new affordable-housing units to be built over the next decade.
By contrast, Fair Share's plan called for about 175,000 units.
COAH received 3,000 comments on its plan.
"We said those numbers are the product of fairly radical statistical manipulation, starting with using population projections that the state uses for no purposes other than this," said Stephen Eisdorfer, a lawyer who represents the New Jersey Builders Association in the affordable-housing lawsuit against the Christie administration.
"Things got stranger and stranger the farther you got down the process of actually determining housing need," he said.
In another change, COAH proposed reducing the minimum share of affordable housing to 10 percent of units, down from 20 percent.
Fair Share also charged that the state artificially reduced its housing production figures by assuming the state economy would grow at recession-era levels through 2024.
During the recession, the number of new housing construction projects fell to the lowest level since the Census Bureau and HUD began tracking building permits. Since then, the market has rebounded, and 28,119 permits were issued last year - the greatest number since 2006.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Community Affairs, which houses COAH, declined to comment.
Spokesmen for Christie did not respond to requests for comment.
At COAH's Oct. 20 meeting, some council members said they didn't think the proposed rules would sustain a legal challenge or move affordable housing forward in New Jersey.
"This, in my opinion, is not a resolution that will meet the requirements of the Supreme Court," board vice chair John L. Winterstella said, according to a transcript of the meeting.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/20150209_N_J__need_for_affordable_housing_under_debate.html#1Y8tqP4QSELFVE6c.99
Kathy Ouellette sits at the dining room table in her townhouse in Moorestown, N.J. (Michael Bryant / Staff Photographer)
Andrew Seidman and Jonathan Lai, Inquirer Staff Writers Posted: Monday, February 9, 2015, 11:59 PM
As the New Jersey Supreme Court considers whether to intervene in the Christie administration's regulation of affordable housing, the case has brought into focus a debate over the need for such housing among low- and moderate-income residents.
Affordable-housing advocates say the state's estimates - included in proposed regulations that were ultimately rejected in October - lowballed true demand and violated the Supreme Court's landmark 1975 Mount Laurel decision that established municipalities' constitutional obligation to provide their fair share of the region's housing needs.
Asked about affordable housing during his radio show last month, Gov. Christie described the 1975 decision as an "abject failure."
Christie, a Republican considering running for president in 2016 who frequently laments that the high cost of living in New Jersey is forcing residents and businesses to leave, added: "I also don't think that we have this overwhelming need for affordable housing in the state, either."
Yet a review of U.S. Census Bureau data, as well as interviews with housing advocates and those who have searched for affordable housing, point to a different conclusion. Of the 1.2 million low- and moderate-income households in the Garden State, some 875,000 spend 30 percent or more of their income on housing, according to census data.
Such households are considered "cost-burdened" by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, because they have difficulty affording other essentials, such as food and clothing.
The state defines low-income households as those with income equal to or less than 50 percent of median family income for the county in which they live. A household is considered to have moderate income if it earns between 50 percent and 80 percent of the median.
"To me, the demand is undeniable," said Matthew Reilly, president and CEO of MEND Inc., a nonprofit owner and developer of affordable housing in Burlington County, where the median annual income is $78,446.
In neighboring Camden County, a 75-unit complex scheduled to open this month in Pennsauken has received more than 2,200 applications.
Wait times for MEND's properties are six months or more across the board, Reilly said.
Kathy Ouellette, 34, waited three years for an opening at one of MEND's Moorestown developments.
She moved into a three-bedroom townhouse with her two children, ages 11 and 6, in April.
"It takes so long, so you kind of figure it's not going to happen," she said.
Ouelette makes $35,000 a year working for PNC Bank. She was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2011, and doctors told her in December the disease had spread to her bones.
Now on disability, she pays $542 a month in rent, plus utilities.
"Now that I have it, it's amazing for me," she said of her housing. Of her illness, she said, "God will watch over me."
Joanne Infantado, 68, moved in May from her home in Port Richmond to a Moorestown senior citizens complex owned by MEND after a six-month wait. Infantado, a retired supermarket deli manager, makes $26,000 a year on Social Security and from two pensions, and pays $525 a month in rent for her one-bedroom apartment.
"I did have a desire for a long time to move to Jersey," Infantado said, but she couldn't afford it. Now, she lives closer to her son, who lives in Cinnaminson.
The Supreme Court's decision in Mount Laurel prohibited the discriminatory use of zoning powers and required municipalities to provide a reasonable opportunity for construction of affordable housing.
It does not require municipalities to account for low- and moderate-income people who currently spend more on housing than they can afford.
Therefore, any remedy the Supreme Court proposes would not come close to meeting the overall need for affordable housing in New Jersey.
The justices took up the latest case after the state agency tasked with developing affordable-housing regulations deadlocked on a vote to adopt new rules during its October meeting.
About a year earlier, the Supreme Court had struck down proposed regulations, ruling that they were inconsistent with Mount Laurel and the legislation that codified the court ruling into statute, the Fair Housing Act of 1985.
The court ordered the agency, the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH), to develop rules similar to those used until 1999, when the last ones expired.
Under those rules, as many as 60,000 affordable homes were built between 1985 and 2010, according to court documents.
The Supreme Court granted COAH an extension in March 2014 but said if the agency did not adopt and publish new rules by November, the court would consider lifting the protection provided to municipalities that shields them from exclusionary zoning litigation.
After COAH deadlocked in October, the Fair Share Housing Center in Cherry Hill sued, alleging the agency had violated the Supreme Court order.
The center asked the court to allow for litigation against towns and offer guidance to lower courts in developing a new methodology for determining municipalities' affordable-housing obligations.
The court heard oral arguments last month.
Fair Share and other organizations had criticized the proposed rules as arbitrary and inconsistent with the court's order to follow previous methodologies.
The proposal presented in April by a state consultant to COAH's board called for about 42,000 new affordable-housing units to be built over the next decade.
By contrast, Fair Share's plan called for about 175,000 units.
COAH received 3,000 comments on its plan.
"We said those numbers are the product of fairly radical statistical manipulation, starting with using population projections that the state uses for no purposes other than this," said Stephen Eisdorfer, a lawyer who represents the New Jersey Builders Association in the affordable-housing lawsuit against the Christie administration.
"Things got stranger and stranger the farther you got down the process of actually determining housing need," he said.
In another change, COAH proposed reducing the minimum share of affordable housing to 10 percent of units, down from 20 percent.
Fair Share also charged that the state artificially reduced its housing production figures by assuming the state economy would grow at recession-era levels through 2024.
During the recession, the number of new housing construction projects fell to the lowest level since the Census Bureau and HUD began tracking building permits. Since then, the market has rebounded, and 28,119 permits were issued last year - the greatest number since 2006.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Community Affairs, which houses COAH, declined to comment.
Spokesmen for Christie did not respond to requests for comment.
At COAH's Oct. 20 meeting, some council members said they didn't think the proposed rules would sustain a legal challenge or move affordable housing forward in New Jersey.
"This, in my opinion, is not a resolution that will meet the requirements of the Supreme Court," board vice chair John L. Winterstella said, according to a transcript of the meeting.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/20150209_N_J__need_for_affordable_housing_under_debate.html#1Y8tqP4QSELFVE6c.99
Goldspirit realizes and cherishes the value of the Human Soul. Our out reach touches every level of Humanity.
It's simple, we have so much compared to the those who have lost everything in the recent typhoon to obliterate parts of the Philippines.
A $1 or more donation of your money could help save a life and you also get a chance to win a Goldspirit T-Shirt! Send your Pictures and Show the world that you made a difference!
A $1 or more donation of your money could help save a life and you also get a chance to win a Goldspirit T-Shirt! Send your Pictures and Show the world that you made a difference!
Disaster Victims
To develop innovative housing and shelter assistance models that generate sustainable interventions for people vulnerable to or affected by disasters or conflicts. In addition, Disaster Response builds the capacity of the global Habitat community in the areas of disaster mitigation, preparedness and recovery through education, training and partnerships.
Assisting the Homeless
The mission is to lead the hungry and homeless to self-sufficiency by providing food, shelter, housing, education and compassion through the strength of our community.
Affordable Housing for Low income Families
Our mission is to create start up communities for new couples with growing families to provide a favorable start with Affordable home ownership Program. To achieve this goal, Goldspirit works with investors to provide the support to create these neighborhoods.
Creative Employment development
We are expanding our team over the coming months and will be opening our doors to many exciting creative job opportunities. As we move into the New Year we plan to double the size of our team so if you’re dreaming of a career in graphic design, web development or studio life in general then take a look at current vacancies and apply today online.