JACKSON – The Jackson Township Council has adopted an ordinance that amends land use and development regulations in the Multifamily Affordable Housing 8 zone. The ordinance was adopted with a 3-2 vote on March 13.
Council President Ken Bressi, Councilman Scott Martin and Councilwoman Ann Updegrave voted yes on a motion to adopt the ordinance.
Council Vice President Robert Nixon and Councilman Barry Calogero, both of whom voted no on a motion to introduce the ordinance several weeks earlier, voted no on the motion to adopt the law.
Martin said there was no disagreement among the five members of the council. He said New Jersey’s affordable housing law is “bad law.”
“This is basically a situation where you have a choice between a bad choice and a really bad choice,” Martin said. “So while we can all be upset about it, we can all be appalled by it, what we cannot do is ignore it and expect there not to be consequences if you do ignore it.”
Martin said the decision regarding the action came down to a choice.
“You have a court order sitting in front of you and you can adopt (the ordinance), or we can (tell the state no) and thumb our noses at it, but we cannot do that without expecting consequences. The consequences here is that instead of 1,000 affordable housing units, that can easily jump to 4,000 affordable housing units, instead of 5,000 houses, (it could) jump to 15,000 houses, so the economics become a heck of a lot worse if we decide to go in that direction,” Martin said.
He reiterated there are “no good choices” and said the council members who voted to adopt the ordinance do not like the affordable housing laws.
Nixon said, “I was elected to vote my conscience, not to vote because the court tells me I am supposed to do something, not to benefit the New Jersey Builders Association or the Fair Share Housing Center. Those people get to wander off after these decisions are made and they get to cash their checks, build their houses and take off their black robes and we have to live with the consequences.”
Nixon said Martin is “100 percent” correct in his assessment of the choices elected officials sometimes have to make and said he respects his fellow councilman’s position.
“But this (ordinance) is not something I think benefits the community. I do not think any of these (affordable housing) ordinances benefit our community. We do not have an affordable housing problem in this town,” Nixon said, adding that Jackson is a “very affordable” town.
“While I have no problem with building affordable housing in Jackson, I think it is a necessity for sure all over the state, this is another example of someone who comes in and they want to maximize their profit and then they want to leave and the consequences be damned,” the councilman said.
Nixon said he understands the risks in voting for or against an affordable housing ordinance, but said, “I have to vote my conscience. I respect my colleagues, but I have to continue to vote no when these things are brought before me.”
Bressi said rejecting the ordinance could mean Jackson would have to provide for more affordable housing units than the town will have to allow if the law was adopted. He said that decision would be gambling with the future of the municipality.
Two different locations are zoned for multifamily affordable housing. One zone is on West Veterans Highway with the rear of the zone on Prospertown Road, and the second zone is on Perrineville Road, according to municipal officials.
According to the ordinance, in 2015, Jackson officials sought a declaration that the township’s Housing Element and Fair Share Plan adequately addressed the municipality’s obligation to provide opportunities for the development of affordable housing.
An entity known as EL at Jackson intervened in the matter in reference to a site which was included in Jackson’s prior round affordable housing obligation as an age-restricted inclusionary development (a mix of market rate and affordable housing). Officials were required by a court to introduce an ordinance permitting EL at Jackson’s property to be developed as a non-age restricted inclusionary development.
Once Jackson officials adopted an ordinance that established the MF-AH-8 zone, representatives of EL at Jackson filed a motion in state Superior Court, alleging that the MF-AH-8 zone as adopted did not provide a realistic opportunity for the development of low and moderate income housing, according to the ordinance.
A judge required the parties to mediate the terms of the ordinance and the ordinance that was adopted on March 13 represents the agreement between the township and EL at Jackson to modify certain provisions of the MF-AH-8 zone in order to facilitate the development of an inclusionary development.
