Garden State Patriot

As if we needed any more evidence that COAH needs to be killed and buried deep underground never to surface again, here is more fuel to the fire.

COAH mandates are based on estimates of job growth and housing in New Jersey. Problem? COAH estimates of job creation have no basis in reality.

Municipal-level obligations to plan for affordable housing are now derived from projected growth in jobs and housing, although affordable-housing units are only required to be built or rehabilitated as actual growth occurs.

The state Council on Affordable Housing, which has identified a need to add 115,000 affordable units statewide between 1999 and 2018, projects New Jersey will add 790,000 jobs between 2004 and 2018. But actual performance combined with Rutgers University consultant Robert Burchell’s projection suggest job growth will be flat.

A municipality’s projected “growth share” includes one unit for every 16 new jobs. Stuart Koenig, an attorney for 20 municipalities appealing the COAH numbers, said projected job growth accounts for 49,000 of the assigned housing obligation.

“Those jobs they’re looking at are not real. . . . You would think COAH realizes we’re not going to be growing 52,000 jobs a year, but yet they steadfastly maintain that we will,” Koenig said.

“It reinforces what many people have been saying all along, that the numbers are way out of whack,” said Sen. Christopher “Kip” Bateman, R-Somerset. “This reinforces the need to start over. The numbers are unrealistic. In this economy in particular, you’re just not going to see those kinds of numbers being built.”

So, think about this: 49,000 COAH units (over 40% of the total requirement) are based on projected job growth that will not happen. This isn’t hard to believe considering New Jersey’s current lost decade, in which the state has not created jobs at all and the fact that our business climate remains the very worst in the nation.

Of course, the COAH fathead bureaucrats defend their little socialist scheme to the bitter end. Reminds me of the Reagan quote, “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”

Spokesman Chris Donnelly of the state Department of Community Affairs, which includes COAH and the planning commission, said it’s too soon to say whether the State Plan impact assessment presented March 25 ought to change COAH’s course.

“Dr. Burchell’s report has not been completed yet. In fact, he presented only a brief, seven-slide summary during the presentation on the status of his work as part of the evaluation of the State Development and Redevelopment Plan,” Donnelly said.

“The presentation provided no details which would allow for an understanding of his methodology, so it is impossible for anyone to make any kind of evaluation of his work based on this abbreviated summary,” Donnelly said. “We are awaiting the final report to determine any potential impact of its conclusions.”

Oh what a tangled web central planning and social engineering brings. Seems like a great model to apply to our health care industry, no?

By the way, I came across an interesting proposal regarding COAH by Spencer Peck of Clinton Township. Spencer says:

In the course of my remarks, I indicated that I believed we’ve been too passive for too long regarding COAH and Abbott. Both programs are fundamentally discriminatory and need to be abolished. I base my comment on the rationale that both programs tax one category of citizenry to provide a financial benefit to another; this is reverse discrimination.

To fight these programs in the state courts that have mandated them, could at best, only wound them and not end them. However, reverse discrimination is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

If we are to gain permanent relief, the better course would be to fight these mandates in federal court. This would require developing a broad consensus among communities statewide before any tangible action could take place due to the time, effort and expense involved.

Something else to consider as we fight to rid ourselves of this wrongheaded government program.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude! and Red County.

Just how unpopular is COAH across the state? Enough so that 251 of the state’s 566 municipalities have joined together to sue over latest COHA rules.

The State League of Municipalities said today it has gone to court to challenge the latest plan for low- and moderate-income housing put forth by the state Council on Affordable Housing.

The challenge claims the new requirements would bring “overwhelming financial burdens on property taxpayers.”

The league said its challenge is unprecedented because the group has worked with municipalities for more than 20 years to help them comply with COAH requirements.

“We did not take this lightly. This is not something we wanted to do,” said league Executive Director William Dressel.

He said the league decided to challenge the rules in state appeals court after meetings with the governor’s office, Department of Community Affairs Commissioner Joseph Doria and legislative leaders failed to address its objections to how COAH came up with the housing allocation numbers and how they were apportioned.

“It became apparent to us we weren’t able to get any administrative relief, any legislative relief or any sympathy from COAH regarding our concerns,” he said.

“In my 35 years of lobbying, I’ve never seen an issue galvanize municipal opposition like I’ve seen on this issue,” said Dressel, adding the opposition comes from urban, suburban and rural municipalities.

The league claimed COAH’s conclusion that 115,666 additional affordable housing units would be needed by 2018 was based on “fatally flawed” estimates of future market housing and employment growth. It also criticized a “false and inaccurate analyses of vacant land” on which housing can be built.

Isn’t socialism and central planning fun?

While I fully support the law suit it isn’t the answer. Abolishing COHA – that is the answer.

As I’ve been reporting on this blog, COAH regulations are eating at the quality of life in New Jersey. Fiscally, the program is already costing taxpayers greatly with the burden only forecast to increase to some $2 Billion a year per town. And in numerous cases, the housing is not going those it was intended for, but to former criminals and sex offenders.

But it’s even more than this. COAH is a regulatory nightmare that is undermining the authority of municipalities across the state and hampering their ability to run themselves and meet their obligations.

Perhaps nowhere else in the state is this more of an issue than in Hunterdon County (via NJ.com):

Hunterdon municipal officials whose towns lie in part or entirely within the environmentally sensitive Highlands region learned a few weeks ago they could get a one-year extension to the Dec. 31 deadline to develop their affordable housing plans if they agreed to follow the more stringent rules governing preservation areas in their town’s planning areas.

Now Highlands towns have been told they cannot approve any new residential development application unless it sets aside at least one-fifth of the homes for middle- and low-income families.

The “scarce resource restraint order” issued Nov. 12 by the state Council on Affordable Housing affects 15 Hunterdon municipalities and takes effect immediately.

For that reason, Ms. Karrow called the order “unconscionable.”

“It condemns Highlands municipalities to tax hell,” she said. “How are my municipalities expected to pay for new growth or annual increases in utilities, insurance and pension obligations without the ability to grow ratables?”

It does not prevent municipalities from granting permits for single-family or duplex units on existing lots. It also does not explicitly exclude commercial developments from the 20% rule.

The order prevents municipalities from granting development approvals, water and wastewater allocations until and unless they can demonstrate to COAH that those resources “have been dedicated on a priority basis for the production of affordable housing,” Ms. Vandenberg wrote, but gave no details.

According to Ms. Karrow, it means, “You can’t even build a Wawa or a gas station until you prove you meet your COAH requirement.”

Clinton Township Mayor Nick Corcodilos said by requiring towns in the Highlands to allocate the use of scarce resources for COAH housing before anything else, “It locks down and takes over all your land-use rules.” He said attorney John Drill advised the township Planning Board to explain to applicants that their approvals are subject to COAH’s rules, even if they change.

In truth, the order will have little impact on municipalities like Clinton Township, where developable land, sewer capacity and water availability are already in short supply, Mayor Corcodilos said Monday. “We’re already imposing a restriction on ourselves,” allocating what is left of these resources to COAH housing, “because we have to.”

Two pending township plans would yield 100 units, he said, practically tapping out township sewer and water opportunities. “Anyone who comes to Clinton Township and wants to build something must go to a private entity to get sewer capacity.”

This is what you get when you put in place socialistic policies in the name of the public good. In essence, we have tyranny of the state government over local branches of government. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And until we repeal COAH, New Jersey will be feeling hotter and hotter.

Also, check out this related COAH story from the pressofatlanticcity.com. In particular, we agree with this quote from Atlantic County Executive Dennis Levinson:

“Is it a good idea to have affordable housing?… Of course. But I’m going to give you a better deal. How about an affordable state to live in? If you have an affordable state, you have affordable housing.”

I came across this post from Diane Sterner at NJ.com regarding COHA. According to the socialistic Sterner:

It is only fair that every New Jerseyan have the opportunity to live in a decent home in a decent community, reasonably close to their place of employment. The new rules from the state Council on Affordable Housing, because they more accurately estimate the amount of New Jersey residents currently being denied that opportunity, constitute a step in the right direction. Their implementation should not be delayed.

Is this sinking in? It’s only fair for those of us who work hard every day to pay for others to live in a decent home, in a decent place.

Well, I responded to Miss Sterner and so did a lot of other fellow Jerseyans. Check it out.