The doctrine requires that municipalities use their zoning powers in an affirmative manner to provide a realistic opportunity for the production of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households.
With no realistic alternative other than moving to the slums of Camden or Philadelphia, many residents grew increasingly concerned about the rising pressure to leave.
[1] Lawrence was connected through a local minister to Carl S. Bisgaier, director of Camden Regional Legal Services who had been looking for a plaintiff for the Mt.
A municipality which elected to participate in COAH's administrative process prior to being sued was provided with protection from litigation and especially the builder's remedy.
From the municipal point of view, the advantages of COAH's administrative process included the use of a formula to calculate fair share that might produce a lower obligation than the court would impose, the availability of the regional contribution agreement to reduce the number of units and the ability to determine where in the municipality that affordable housing ought to be developed rather than being forced to permit a development as a reward to a successful builder-plaintiff.
Those municipalities that chose not to participate in COAH's administrative process remained vulnerable to exclusionary zoning lawsuits and the prospect of the builder's remedy.
While the Mount Laurel decision mandates a state constitutional obligation for every municipality in a "growth area" to provide a fair share of its region's present and prospective housing needs for low and moderate income families, there is no funding source specified for low or very-low income families, in a state that already has some of the nation's highest property taxes.
The trial courts were directed to conform their rulings with regard to calculation of each municipality's obligation and how to meet it to COAH's regulations and the statute was found facially constitutional and interpreted to grant COAH ample authority, such as restraining the use of scarce resources (sewer capacity, potable water, land) for other than providing affordable housing, to assure that affordable housing might actually be built.
[5] A "builder's remedy lawsuit" is a New Jersey lawsuit filed by a real estate developer in an attempt to force a New Jersey town to allow the construction of a large, multi-family housing complex that includes some affordable housing alongside ordinary apartments Usually, the developer's court papers will make specific mention of the Mt.
Some have argued that developers exploit the Mount Laurel doctrine with the builder's remedy and prevent town efforts to combat overdevelopment and sprawl.
[6] Some recent "builder's remedy" lawsuits or related concerns include: In 1985, the Fair Housing Act created the now-repealed Regional Contribution Agreement system.
[23] In 2008, at the behest of the Fair Share Housing Center's Peter O' Connor and over the objections of some suburban Democrats, Governor Jon Corzine signed a law barring RCAs.
[31][32][33][34][35]In its January 2017 opinion, the NJ Supreme Court welcomed the legislature to re-approach the affordable housing issue: "We recognize, as we have before, that the Legislature is not foreclosed from considering alternative methods for calculating and assigning a municipal fair share of affordable housing, and to that end, we welcome legislative attention to this important social and economic constitutional matter," Justice LaVecchia wrote.
[36][37] A Morris County Freeholder candidate, Harding Committeeman Nicolas Platt, proposed in May 2017 that all mayors state-wide conduct a sit-in in Trenton and refuse to leave the statehouse until legislators acted to reduce the overdevelopment impact of the builder's remedy issue.
In the summer of 2017, Schepisi held the first of several planned public hearing in Paramus with various civic leaders on mandated affordable housing with local mayors and other state assembly members.
[40] "It is long past time for the Legislature to act, and block [the nonprofit group Fair Share Housing Center] from their objective of destroying our suburban communities," said one mayor at the hearing according to the press.
"[44] In June 2018, NJ 101.5 radio host Bill Spadea advocated for a constitutional amendment to revoke the doctrine, arguing the imposition of unnecessary development increased tax burdens unfairly.
[45] In the summer of 2017, the mayors of five Bergen County towns announced they were "teaming up to take a regional perspective on affordable housing, in an effort to find reasonable solutions that will protect the integrity of their communities.
[52] This suggestion mirrors the open refusal to comply with the Mount Laurel Doctrine I, which requires the municipality to provide housing for people of multiple income brackets, which was common between 1975 and 1981.
This development will require the removal of 18 trees on the skate park property and is slated to exceed the allowed building height in the township by 2.98 feet.
The City of Newark is "working with the Urban League to identify vacant or abandoned properties that can be sold to small developers to then sell at cost to residents.