The basics:
- NJ faces a shortfall of over 200,000 affordable housing units
- Architects advocate for “Missing Middle” design as a viable fix
- Innovative zoning overlays and adaptive reuse drive progress
- Case studies in Princeton and Maplewood highlight successful projects
This article is the first in a planned three-part series on affordable housing.
According to data from the National Low Income Housing Coalition, New Jersey faces a shortfall of more than 200,000 affordable units. Viewed in this light, the Fourth-Round obligations under the Fair Housing Actrecently upheld by a state court – totaling more than 84,000 units to be developed and built by 2035 – could be viewed as insufficient to meet the considerable need. Seen another way, building that number in 10 years is quite ambitious, practically a moon-shot. Since the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1985, just 75,000 affordable units have been built for renters and homeowners, including family, senior and supportive housing.
While the will to develop and build certainly exists, along with the resources and talent, there is always resistance. Famously, state and local laws were used in the 20th century to create “exclusionary zones” that made development of affordable housing nearly impossible in many towns. One lawsuit against Mount Laurel Township made its way to the state’s Supreme Court, which ruled in 1975 that such exclusionary zoning laws are unconstitutional and that municipalities must allow their “fair share” of affordable housing — a ruling that was upheld and reinforced in 1983 in yet another case brought against the same town. Known as the Mount Laurel Doctrine, these rulings led the state Legislature to pass the Fair Housing Act in 1985, which established a process for determining a formula for each “round” of obligations.
In the contentious Third Round more than 300 cities and towns sought and received adjustments to their obligations under the law, ultimately delaying the round from 2004 to 2015. Now, as the rubber meets the road in the Fourth Round, so far two dozen municipalities challenged their Fourth-Round requirements in the courts but have so far been rebuffed. Meanwhile multiple others have filed for adjustments to their obligations – a matter that was ruled on by a panel of judges on or before March 31. After that, all municipalities will have until June 30 to create a proposal for meeting their obligations.
