Dear Editor:
It’s been several months since Gov. Jim McGreevey turned up the volume in the debate over the future of development in New Jersey. However, the important issue of affordable housing has been lost among the deliberations about the market, economic, legal and constitutional implications of growth and the accompanying public policy. This must change because affordable housing is not only a key facet of growth, but of the state’s overall economy.
From a public policy perspective, no one disagrees with the need for more development in the urban areas of the state. Nor does anyone disagree with the need for meaningful dialogue on land-use issues. We must remember, however, that even if the most is made of urban opportunities, there will not be enough homes for our growing population in the city. We must find ways to provide homes in all parts of our state in a way that protects New Jersey’s lifestyle, reduces traffic and commuting times and preserves open space.
When the State Supreme Court’s Mt. Laurel II decision was published 20 years ago, opponents predicted the demise of New Jersey as we knew it. Inclusionary developments, opponents said, would pave over New Jersey with ugly affordable housing that would ruin the neighborhood. The facts, as presented by the State Supreme Court in last year’s Toll Brothers v. West Windsor decision, paint a remarkably different picture.
Towns that have complied with their Mt. Laurel obligations boast some of the highest property values, best rated school systems and are generally regarded as some of the most desirable towns in which to live.
New Jersey has been recognized as a national leader in the provision of affordable housing, despite the costly regulatory environment in our state. We should make sure that “Smart Growth” policies do not undermine our state’s leadership position and sacrifice affordability in the name of “looking smart.”
Peter S. Reinhart
Vice President and General Counsel
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc.