New twist in N.J. affordable-housing saga
The planning consultant for hundreds of New Jersey municipalities has more than doubled to 72,000 its estimate of how many affordable-housing units towns might have to zone for statewide over the next decade.
The planning consultant for hundreds of New Jersey municipalities has more than doubled to 72,000 its estimate of how many affordable-housing units towns might have to zone for statewide over the next decade.
The 37,000 additional units are the firm's estimate of need if the state courts should rule that municipalities had a legal obligation to make room for low- and middle-income households between 1999 and 2015.
In December, the Philadelphia firm, Econsult Solutions, had estimated the statewide obligation at slightly more than 35,000 units. Its new report was issued March 24.
Econsult asserts in both reports, however, that it does not believe municipalities had a legal duty to provide for affordable housing during those 16 years, because the state did not have a working formula for calculating those obligations.
Many townships are using Econsult's argument in the courts as they seek approval of their legally mandated fair-share housing plans.
But Ocean County Superior Court Judge Mark Troncone ruled in February that the failure of the state's Council of Affordable Housing (COAH) to generate a formula during the 16-year "gap period" did not erase municipalities' obligation.
Troncone instructed Econsult to develop a methodology for determining the number of affordable-housing units that towns and cities should have zoned for during the gap years.
Econsult's 95-page March report in response to Troncone's order contends that not a single municipality in the eight counties closest to New York City has any gap-period obligations.
Enough housing stock in Bergen, Hudson, Passaic, Sussex, Essex, Morris, Union, and Warren Counties lost value between 1999 and 2015, it says, to become within reach of all the lower- and middle-income families that the state's 1985 Fair Housing Act seeks to serve.
And yet Econsult's gap calculations are significantly higher for 10 townships in Burlington County, and 18 towns in Camden County, than even those generated by the Fair Share Housing Center, an advocacy group for affordable housing based in Cherry Hill.
For example, Econsult's estimate of Haddonfield's combined "prospective need" and gap obligation is 570 units by 2025, whereas Fair Share puts the borough's share at 501.
Glassboro's obligation is 440 in Fair Share's estimate, but 987 in Econsult's. And while Pennsauken's obligation is zero in Fair Share's estimate, it is 325 in Econsult's - a number that Township Administrator Ed Grochowski called "ludicrous."
"What did they do - fly over the town and look at our open space?" he said. "We don't have room for anything like that."
In most cases, however, Fair Share's calculations of gap obligations are far higher than Econsult's.
Adam Gordon, a litigator for Fair Share Housing Center, said he was baffled by Econsult's methodology.
"I don't see how they can say there is no affordable-housing need in the New York suburbs despite really high growth and housing demand. It's weird. Think of what you know of Hoboken and Jersey City," he said.
Econsult referred questions about its methodology to Jeffrey Surenian, a Brick attorney who represents the consortium of 284 municipalities that hired the firm last year to generate an alternative analysis to Fair Share's calculations of need.
Surenian said in an email that the depreciation and deterioration of housing stock, called "downward filtering," explains Econsult's determination that about 220 municipalities near New York have no gap obligation.
Filtering is a "well-accepted" phenomenon in affordable-housing analysis, said Surenian. "The reason that Econsult reported a zero obligation for the gap in any given region is presumably because it would have shown a great deal of filtering was taking place" during the past 16 years.
He said Econsult's and Fair Share's wildly different analyses of gap are explained by their very different pictures of how filtering worked across the state during that time.
Econsult concluded that nearly 32,000 aging units deteriorated in value, making them available to low- and middle-income housing, Surenian said. But Fair Share's analysis concluded that nearly 47,000 existing units had appreciated in value, further putting them out of reach of those households.
As a result, the two entities are 78,500 housing units apart on the statewide gap obligation, according to Surenian.
Townships that prefer Fair Share's gap calculation over Econsult's are free to use the former, he said, even if they have presented Econsult as their planning consultant in appearances before the judges reviewing their plans. "None of us knew where we would end up," he said of Econsult's calculations.
But he said that he believed Troncone's February ruling that townships have a gap obligation did not set precedent for other Superior Courts around the state, and that he has filed an appeal of that ruling on behalf of Barnegat Township in hopes of overturning it.
"Each trial judge is free to decide the gap issue as he sees fit" said Surenian. "Therefore I will advocate to every other judge presiding over any [Mount Laurel] action . . . not to follow the decision of Judge Troncone."
856-779-3841