Dear Editor:
The Secaucus Reporter published an article, on May 10th, entitled “Numbers Game.” As the town’s Affordable Housing Board Administrator, I was surprised that I was not contacted regarding some of the issues contained in the article. For the record, I was directly involved in:
1. Negotiating the affordable housing agreement with the developer of the Xchange at Secaucus Junction project;
2. Affirmatively marketing the units in strict conformance with requirements of the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing; and
3. Certifying the eligibility of the applicants.
I am writing this letter in order to raise awareness as to the real facts surrounding the affordable housing obligation generated by this project.
The developer of this project approached the town during COAH’s second round rules, in 2004, in order to ascertain their affordable housing obligation. The town accurately and correctly calculated the developer’s affordable housing obligation based upon the COAH rules in effect at that time. Subsequent to this calculation, the Council on Affordable Housing adopted its third round rules which were based upon an entirely new concept known as “growth share.” In November of 2005, the developer, the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission, the Council on Affordable Housing and representatives of the Town of Secaucus met in order to establish the affordable housing requirement for this entire project. The affordable housing obligation was significantly increased based upon the “growth Share” concept. An agreement was executed between the town and the developer stipulating that 230 affordable rental units would be constructed at this site. The written agreement was based the input of all parties present at the November 2005 meeting.
The Fair Share Housing Center now contends that the developer should construct 415 affordable housing units based upon COAH’s revised third round rules. The Town of Secaucus executed a legally binding agreement with the developer stipulating that their requirement would be 230 units prior to the implementation of COAH’s revised third round rules. The town’s insistence on a higher set-aside would be in breach of this recorded agreement. Our position is quite simple. We have a written agreement that was negotiated with by all relevant parties, including COAH and the Meadowlands Commission. How can the town breach this agreement without being sued by the developer? Where is the equity and fairness in requesting that a developer subsidize an additional 185 units after executing an agreement and commencing with construction?
The Fair Share Housing Center’s statement that “Fraternity Meadows and Secaucus are merely trying to skirt the law” is totally inaccurate and offensive. In 2008 this extremist advocacy group filed a motion against Secaucus for a scarce resource order. Mr. Walsh made similar unfounded accusations in this motion. The record also reflects that the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) found in favor of the Town of Secaucus and the scarce resource order was denied. I am very confident that the town will prevail in its current dispute with the Fair Share Housing Center; the facts support our position.
Your article also quotes a Clarendon Street resident as stating: “I applied to get in (Xchange), but they turned me down. I’m mad, I don’t know a single person from Secaucus that got in there… I can hardly pay my rent now.” Our records indicate that only two persons from Clarendon Street applied for this program. Both applicants were offered units. One applicant accepted a unit and the other applicant turned the unit down. As such, this is a totally inaccurate quote and should have been verified before it was printed.
Let me also point out that the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing has very specific requirements for affirmatively marketing these units. The units had to be marketed in Bergen, Hudson, Passaic and Sussex counties based upon their rules and regulations. There are no preferences for people living or working in Secaucus. Mr. Walsh is well aware of these requirements. The FSHC supports COAH’s affirmative marketing requirements. Therefore, Mr. Walsh’s statements regarding his concern for the town’s lower income residents and employees would seem to be in conflict with their position on affirmative marketing. How may people living in Sussex County actually work in Secaucus? The COAH rules provide that an applicant from Secaucus has the same status as someone living in Sparta, West Milford or Mahwah.
William F. Snyder
AHB Administrator