newjerseynewsroom.com

Share this Twitter Myspace Digg Del.icio.us Reddit Slashdot Furl Yahoo Technorati Newsvine Facebook Export PDF Print E-mail Tags coah housing homes produced towns bill development affordable state process today hope committee local government activists existing replacement sensitive environmentally

Sixteen housing, civil rights, environmental, religious, and special needs organizations Tuesday called on the Legislature to replace the state Council on Affordable Housing with a strategy they argue would produce more homes near jobs and transit, instead of approving what they see as a "deeply flawed'' Senate bill.

The Senate bill (S-1) is set for a public hearing before the Assembly Housing and Local Government Committee at 10 a.m.. Thursday at the Statehouse Annex in Trenton. The measure would abolish COAH and give cities and towns may power to decide their affordable housing needs.

Proponents hope to see the bipartisan bill approved by the full Assembly and sent to Gov. Chris Christie for approval before the Legislature recesses for the summer at the end of the month.

The activists hope the Housing and Local Government Committee will consider their alternate bill.

Kelly Francis of the NAACP State Conference, said and Camden County NAACP said, "We need to move forward in replacing COAH – not backward with S-1, which would be a de facto Jim Crow law."

Jeff Tittel, Sierra Club director, said, "We need a replacement for COAH that encourages new development in New Jersey through reusing shopping centers and office parks. S-1 puts a bulls eye on rural and environmentally sensitive areas like the Highlands and Pinelands."

David Zurheide, Newark Habitat for Humanity director, added, "Any replacement for COAH should make it easier for groups like Habitat for Humanity to build - S-1 makes it harder."

In their words, the activists offer these proposals:

Produce more homes than COAH – not fewer like S-1. COAH has produced over 40,000 homes since 1986. That is not enough to meet the state's housing needs. Our plan would have produced more than double what COAH has produced. S-1 would have produced far fewer homes – about one-eighth of what COAH produced – especially because S-1 allows a $10,000 payment instead of building housing.

A more transparent and simpler process – not a new COAH under a different name. Basic rules should be established by legislative change and enforced. S-1 encourages towns to go through a process of submitting paper plans to be reviewed by DCA – similar to today's COAH process under a different name.

Homes in the right places. S-1 would encourage sprawl development and discourage reuse and infill development, by making rural municipalities the most susceptible to builders' proposals. Instead, the proposal unveiled today would limit development in environmentally sensitive areas while encouraging reuse of existing developed land.

Recognize towns that are already diverse. S-1 requires towns that are already racially and economically diverse, like Pennsauken and South Orange, to do more. We propose that towns should be "inclusionary" based on their existing affordability – not based on arbitary criteria.