Our coalition of 27 municipalities is suing the State of New Jersey to address the unfairness of the Fourth-Round affordable housing law.

Know the Facts About the Fourth Round Affordable Housing Law

Our coalition of 27 municipalities is suing the State of New Jersey to address the unfairness of the Fourth-Round affordable housing law.

Here’s why:

High Density Housing: Overburdening Towns

  • The current system favors wealthy developers, and overdevelops our communities with high density housing. Our coalition is opposed to high density housing, which overburdens our communities infrastructure and public schools

  • We support affordable housing that we can plan responsibly for, and that benefits our local seniors, veterans, first responders and recent college graduates

Urban Aid Exception: Unbalanced Mandates

  • The law exempts 47 urban aid municipalities, which account for 50% of New Jersey’s population growth, from building affordable housing, shifting 100% of their needs onto 517 non-urban municipalities.

  • Non-urban towns face inflated quotas, while the formula ignores thousands of affordable units already being built in urban aid areas.

Dispute Resolution: No Accountability

  • A judicial appointee has sole power to handpick panel members deciding each town’s housing obligations.

  • These decisions are made by unelected individuals, bypassing oversight from elected officials.

Fight Back

  • Join Local Leaders for Responsible Planning.

  • Demand legislators reform the law now!

Let’s ensure affordable housing laws are fair and respect all communities. 

TEN TROUBLING FACTS OUR LITIGATION HAS REVEALED

We have filed a lawsuit challenging the unfair and unreasonable Fourth Round affordable housing law. As we pursue these claims, it is important for New Jerseyans to know about what we have learned from our legal efforts thus far.

1. URBAN AID MUNICIPALITIES (SUCH AS HOBOKEN, JERSEY CITY, AND LAKEWOOD) ARE COMPLETELY EXEMPT FROM BUILDING ANY NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING DESPITE CREATING 50% OF NJ’S POPULATION GROWTH.

The new law completely exempts urban aid municipalities from any “prospective need” obligation that requires new units.[1] Our experts have proven that New Jersey’s population growth is exactly 50%/50% between urban aid and non-urban aid municipalities.[2] This exception was developed 40 years ago when the growth was -2% in the urban aid municipalities and 102% in non-urban aid municipalities. Our State has changed – but the outdated Mount Laurel approach has not.

2. FOR EVERY 10 PEOPLE THAT MOVE INTO AN URBAN AID MUNICIPALITY, THE SURROUNDING SUBURBS MUST CREATE NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR 4 PEOPLE.

That’s the formula.[3] For every 10 people that move into an urban aid municipality such as Hoboken, Jersey City, or Lakewood, the surrounding non-urban aid suburbs are required to create affordable housing for 4 people. That is in addition to the affordable housing obligation created by their own population growth.

3. MUNICIPAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING OBLIGATIONS WILL BE DECIDED BY SO-CALLED “EXPERTS” HAND-PICKED BY A RETIRING TRENTON BUREAUCRAT.

Each municipality’s affordable housing obligations will be decided by people hand-picked by the Administrative Director of the Courts (ADC), a judicial bureaucrat in Trenton that serves at the pleasure of the Chief Justice, and who announced his retirement this past week one day before LLRP was in court challenging his Directive.[4] He can pick anyone he wants to decide your community’s affordable housing obligations as long as he thinks they are “experts.”[5]  These appointments all take place outside of the State Constitution’s advice and consent process for justices and judges.

4. THE TRENTON BUREAUCRAT IS ALLOWING THE SO-CALLED EXPERTS TO HAVE OUTSIDE INCOME WHILE THEY DECIDE EACH TOWN’S AFFORDABLE HOUSING OBLIGATIONS.

The ADC exempted his hand-picked experts from having to comply with the code of judicial conduct – even though the law requires it.[6] This means they can have outside income and engage in political activity while deciding each town’s affordable housing obligations.[7] In the last decade, claims were made against a judge who decided Mount Laurel obligations while receiving 25 free vacations from a developer.[8] The ADC’s Directive putsNew Jersey more at risk for unethical behavior.

5. THE TRENTON BUREAUCRAT GAVE FAIR SHARE HOUSING CENTER SPECIAL TREATMENT TO REVIEW MUNICIPAL PLANS.

The ADC is requiring towns to submit their fair share plans to Fair Share Housing Center before submitting them to the Program.[9] By taking this step, theNew Jersey judiciary has expressed favoritism for Fair Share Housing Center as compared to anyone else under the law. The LLRP is concerned that the ADC coordinated with FSHC on his rule making, contrary to the judiciary’s supposed independence.

6. FAIR SHARE HOUSING CENTER ADMITTED IN COURT THEY BENEFIT FROM THE BUREAUCRAT-LED PROGRAM BECAUSE IT SAVES THEM MONEY.

In FSHC’s motion to intervene into the LLRP’s lawsuit, they said they have a “unique interest” in defending the new law because if it fell, FSHC “would be forced . . . to engage in costly litigation.”[10] LLRP believes that the law’s unfair processes were designed to benefit FSHC and save it resources, which streamlines their ability to challenge each town’s affordable housing obligation.

7. THE TRENTON BUREAUCRAT ISSUED RULES THAT MAY FORCE MUNICIPALITIES TO FIGHT EACH OTHER OVER AFFORDABLE HOUSING OBLIGATIONS.

The law states that multiple objections to the same town’s affordable housing determination can be consolidated.[11] The ADC expanded this to include different “cases” involving “similar facts or legal issues.”[12] LLRP is challenging this requirement and believes it is intended to allow FSHC and others to pit municipalities up against each other in determining affordable housing obligations.

8. THE TRENTON BUREAUCRAT CREATED NEW COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NOT CONTAINED IN THE LAW.

The ADC imposes all sorts of new compliance requirements that are not even contained in the law. For example, the Directive requires each town to have adopted fair share ordinances and resolutions by June 30,2025,[13] even though the law only requires drafts to be submitted to the Program by that date.

9. HMFA ISSUED UHAC REGULATIONS WITHOUT ANY NOTICE OR COMMENT, BUT SPENT SIX MONTHS DISCUSSING THEM WITH SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS.

The law required HMFA to issue new Uniform Housing Affordability Controls regulations by December 20, 2024. HMFA issued these rules without any notice or comment, even though the statute titled “UHACUpdate” required the UHAC update to be adopted through notice and comment.[14] HMFA told the court that the regulations were not adopted in a vacuum because they spent six months holding “roundtables” with “housing advocacy organizations” – which LLRP suspects includes FSHC.[15] HMFA had the time to engage stakeholders it wanted to talk to, but did not bother to allow notice or comment allowing municipalities to offer their thoughts.

10. THE NEW LAW REPEATS THIS SAME FLAWED PROCESS EVERY 10YEARS INTO PERPETUITY.

The new law repeats this same process every 10 years into perpetuity.[16] That means that unless something changes, each non-urban aid suburb will be required to create affordable housing for 40% of the population growth in each urban-aid municipality forever. We must stop a law that will mandate the urbanization of our entire state.

[1]N.J.S.A. 52:27D-304.3.

[2]E-Consult Report.

[3]N.J.S.A. 52:27D-304.3.

[4] https://newjerseyglobe.com/judiciary/grant-retiring-as-state-court-director-blee-named-as-successor/

[5] N.J.S.A.52:27D-313.2.

[6]ADC Directive at 8; N.J.S.A. 52:27D-313.2(g).

[7] CJCCanons 6-7.

[8] In re South Brunswick, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, A-3344-20(July 12, 2023).

[9]ADC Directive at Addendum Page 2.  

[10] FSHCMotion to Intervene at 3.

[11]N.J.S.A. 52:27D-304.1.

[12]ADC Directive #14-24 at 3.

[13] ADCDirective at Addendum Page 2.

[14]N.J.S.A. 52:27D-313.3(b).

[15]HMFA Certification at ¶¶ 9-10.

[16] N.J.S.A.52:27D-304.1.

Key Documents

Our Coalition Municipalities:

BOROUGH OF MONTVALE, TOWNSHIP OF DENVILLE, BOROUGH OF FLORHAM PARK, BOROUGH OF HILLSDALE, TOWNSHIP OF MANNINGTON, TOWNSHIP OF MILLBURN, TOWNSHIP OF MONTVILLE, BOROUGH OF OLD TAPPAN, BOROUGH OF TOTOWA, BOROUGH OF ALLENDALE, BOROUGH OF WESTWOOD, TOWNSHIP OF HANOVER, TOWNSHIP OF WYCKOFF, BOROUGH OF WHARTON, BOROUGH OF MENDHAM, BOROUGH OF ORADELL, BOROUGH OF CLOSTER, TOWNSHIP OF WEST AMWELL, TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON, BOROUGH OF NORWOOD, TOWNSHIP OF PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS, BOROUGH OF FRANKLIN LAKES, TOWNSHIP OF CEDAR GROVE, TOWNSHIP OF EAST HANOVER, TOWNSHIP OF HOLMDEL, TOWNSHIP OF WALL, TOWNSHIP OF LITTLE FALLS