MONTVALE—Vested interests are calling it “offensive,” “hurtful,” disappointing,” and effectively racist, but a coalition of towns—spearheaded by Montvale and Mayor Michael Ghassali—stands by its complaint filed in Mercer County Superior Court on Sept. 9, challenging a new law tied to the fourth round of affordable housing obligations as an unconstitutional mandate.
The coalition, Local Leaders for Responsible Planning, at last count includes Montvale, Denville, Florham Park, Hillsdale, Mannington Township, Millburn Township, Montville Township, Old Tappan, and Totowa. Other towns expected to join include Allendale, Oradell, River Vale, Washington Township, Westwood, Wharton, and Wyckoff. Sixteen towns have pledged funding in 2024 and 2025 to support the effort.
Pushback was immediate. Adam Gordon, executive director of Fair Share Housing Center, slams the complaint as “a smokescreen to undermine the new law and delay its implementation, possibly for years. That would hurt families, people with disabilities, and seniors who struggle to afford pricey rents and mortgages in a state that has 14 prospective renters for each vacant apartment and a shortage of more than 200,000 affordable housing units.”
Gordon asserts “Montvale is deeply unrepresentative of our state’s population, with less than 2% Black population and an 8% Latino population. Not surprisingly, the small percentage of New Jersey municipalities that have signed on include many of the ultra-wealthy communities that have fought the hardest against affordable homes like Millburn.”
In response, Ghassali said “It is shameful that the bill’s supporters are using race as an issue here. I am a first-generation immigrant and started, like millions before me, from absolutely nothing, and enjoy where I live and how I live; isn’t that the American dream? I wish the state and Fair Share Housing give that opportunity to others.”
At a noon press conference on Monday, Sept. 9, Michael Collins of King, Moench & Collins LLP, lead attorney for the lawsuit, outlined the lawsuit’s contention that the new affordable housing law “imposes obligations inconsistent with what was ever intended or mandated by our courts under the Mount Laurel Doctrine.”
At the 25-minute Zoom-only press conference, Collins emphasized that “the new law is not only unconstitutional, but it … exceeds what was ever required by the courts under the Mount Laurel Doctrine.” He added, “We look forward to litigating this case as part of a statewide effort to support local leaders in their effort to foster responsible planning for their residents.”
Collins highlighted both substantive and procedural issues with the new law. He argued that the law, signed by Gov. Phil Murphy in March, “goes against what the Mount Laurel II court decision said would be avoided,” including preventing development merely for development’s sake, avoiding poor local planning, stopping suburban sprawl, and preventing rural municipalities from being forced to encourage large-scale housing developments.
He said the lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment from the court on whether the new law aligns with the state constitution. Such a ruling, he said, would clarify whether the Legislature was correct in stating that the new terms are necessary to implement the Mount Laurel Doctrine. If the law is found unconstitutional, municipalities could challenge these mandates before the state Council on Local Mandates.
Collins also addressed procedural issues, claiming that the new law establishes an affordable housing dispute resolution program that improperly shifts powers from the executive branch (the prior Council on Affordable Housing) to the judicial branch, violating the separation of powers. He argued that the program’s appointment structure also violates the Constitution by allowing an administrative director to appoint judges and “so-called experts” without proper vetting or oversight.
Gordon, of Fair Share Housing Center, which advocates for affordable housing in legal cases statewide, predicted “The lawsuit will inevitably get thrown out in court. It’s purely a smokescreen to undermine and delay the implementation of New Jersey’s landmark new affordable housing law.” He characterized the lawsuit as a “thinly veiled attempt” to revisit arguments that had already failed in the political process.
He emphasized that New Jersey law gives towns multiple tools to create affordable housing in a way that best suits their needs. “Towns only lose their ability to be in control of the process when they refuse to find any place to create their fair share of affordable housing,” he said, adding that most towns cooperate with the process and retain the ability to decide on a housing plan that works best for their communities.
‘This isn’t about politics…’
Ghassali voiced broader concerns about the impact of the fourth-round affordable housing mandate, particularly regarding infrastructure strain. “This isn’t about politics—it’s about fairness,” he said. “Our communities lose the ability to plan for their future when they are mandated by Trenton to support the housing needs of other municipalities, often significantly larger in size, on top of our existing obligations.”
He also cited past examples to illustrate his points, such as a 2017 situation where the Fair Share Housing Center suggested housing be built on two acres identified via Google Earth, which turned out to be a service area of the Garden State Parkway. “You can’t make this stuff up,” Ghassali said.
He added, “The more towns we have on board, the more powerful our message will be to the courts and Trenton,” Ghassali said, stressing that the “one-size-fits-all approach” prevents local leaders from making decisions tailored to their communities’ unique needs.
Other voices
Quotes compiled from statements originally reported by New Jersey Monitor, Newsweek Online, NJ.com, Real Estate NJ, and The Center Square show not everyone is on board with Ghassali’s cause:
- New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin: “We are disappointed that a small group of towns are resisting New Jersey’s important new housing law, and we look forward to defending that law in court. The lawsuit’s claims are baseless.”
- State Sen. Troy Singleton (D-Burlington), Chair of the State Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee: “What is incredibly offensive, beyond using taxpayer dollars to fund this politically-driven, superfluous lawsuit, is the attempt to use the legal process to intentionally delay our affordable housing laws—not by weeks or months, but years. … Playing politics with people’s housing — a basic, human necessity — is simply shameful. Rather than waste time and taxpayer dollars on needless lawsuits, I would encourage these mayors to use our new law as a tool that can help them meet — not dodge — their long overdue affordable housing obligations.”
- State Rep. Yvonne Lopez (D-Middlesex), Chair of the Assembly Housing Committee: “We worked with mayors to ensure the law is workable and will give responsible local elected officials the tools they need to accomplish this goal. We passed legislation earlier this year that will tackle this issue and lead to the construction of safe, affordable housing for the next decade.”
- Jeff Kolakowski, CEO of New Jersey Builders Association: “NJBA is disappointed but certainly not surprised at yet another attempt by certain municipalities to get out of the constitutional obligation to provide their fair share of affordable housing. We are optimistic that the court will see through the real purpose of this lawsuit, which is obfuscation and delay.”
— With John Snyder