Judge rejects scrapping NJ affordable housing law
By: Michale L. Diamond
Asbury Park Press
USA today Network - New Jersey
TRENTON - A state judge has dismissed a lawsuit by more than two dozen suburban towns, including Holmedel and Wall, that were seeking to overturn New Jersey's affordable housing law.
.....
Superior Court Judge Robert Lougy in Mercer County said September 30 [2025] that the towns filed the complaint lacked standing because the program was voluntary. He rejected the towns' argument that they had little choice but to participate; otherwise they would open themselves to lawsuits form developers.
..... "The Legislature is permitted to establish carrots and sticks regarding municipal compliance," Lougy wrote. "Such incentives and disincentives do not render the gram involuntary."
..... The decision means the law signed by Governor Phil Murphy in March 2024, spelling out towns' obligations to provide affordable housing during the next decade, will move forward.
.....
The lawsuit was the latest step in a longstanding battle hat has pitted critics of over development against advocates who say the cost of housing is getting out of reach of even moderate-income families.
..... In New Jersey, residents need to make nearly $40 an hour to comfortably afford the state's fair market rent of $2,079 a month for a two-bedroom apartment, said a recent report by the National Low Income Housing coalition, a research group.
..... Lougy's ruling won applause from housing advocates, who said law has been a catalyst for suburban towns to build more affordable housing.
..... "This lawsuit is nothing more than a political smokescreen from the same wealthy towns that have fought affordable housing for decades," said Josh Bauers, director of exclusionary zoning litigation for Fair Share Housing Center, an advocacy group.
.....
"The vast majority of municipalities are embracing New Jersey's new law and using it to build homes in ways that work best for their communities."
..... Montvale Mayor Mike Ghassali said he and the other plaintiffs would appeal.
..... "The trial court's rogue decision held that municipalities and mayors cannot even challenge the affordable housing process because it is optional," Ghassali said. "We are appealing because there is noting optional about mandating hundreds of thousands of new unites in our communities."
..... "We know it will be a multi-year effort to fight 50 years of disastrous Mount Laurel doctrine law," he said. "Our consortium of over 30 municipalities, representing over half a million New Jerseyans, looks forward to bringing this case to the Appellate Division while continuing our equal protection challenge in federal district court."
..... Towns in New Jersey are required to provide their fair share of affordable housing through the Mount Laurel Doctrine, established 50 years ago by the state Supreme Court. The fourth round of the doctrine, setting out obbligato through 2035, was set in motion last March [2024] when lawmakers enacted a law.
....
All told, the law calls fro an additional 80,000 to 84,000 units statewide and provides more leeway in the types of projects that can qualify. for example, towns can re-purpose abandoned malls or offices.
..... Towns aren't required to participate in the program, but those that don't adopt a plan risk being sued by the builders and advocates, leaving them vulnerable to a court order mandating them to clear the way for higher-density projects with less say over what gets built.
..... Some 37 municipalities joined a lawsuit hat was fired a year ago that challenged the new law, calling it unconstitutional, even as some of them, including Holmdel and Wall, approved an affordable housing plan.
.....
They argued they did have standing to bring the case since they would be harmed by the law.
.....
their claim: The program is voluntary in name only. If they didn't participate, they would risk losing their municipal zoning laws through builder's remedy lawsuits.
..... Lougy disagreed, noting dozens of towns have opted out.
..... "Plaintiffs contended that the risk of losing immunity from litigation renders participation 'Hobson's choice,' and not truly voluntary," he wrote.
..... "However, the mere fact that participation in the program confers a benefit on plaintiffs - that is immunity from exclusionary zoning litigation - does not render it involuntary."