Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Westfield candidates say they will defend affordable housing plan but oppose new pilot tax deals
Summary
Candidates at the forum voiced support for Westfield's recently adopted bipartisan affordable housing approach to satisfy Mount Laurel obligations, while most said they oppose additional pilot agreements or future tax abatements and suggested using existing pilot revenues to benefit schools.
At the candidate forum, affordable housing obligations under New Jersey's Mount Laurel framework drew bipartisan support for the council's recently passed plan, but most candidates said they would not back new pilot agreements or further tax abatements.
"The current bipartisan affordable housing plan that just passed in council...helps us remain compliant with the Mount Laurel agreement," said Reshma Adwar, the Ward 1 Democratic candidate. "I will defend this plan because I don't want to get into legal jeopardy with the state of New Jersey."
Multiple candidates—Democrats and Republicans—said they supported meeting Mount Laurel obligations while minimizing density where possible and protecting neighborhoods. At the same time, several speakers criticized pilot programs offered to developers and said they should not be pursued going forward. "A resounding no" to future pilots came from Jason Sevets, Ward 2 candidate, who said pilots are a "gimmick" for Westfield and that the town should not be treated as blighted for redevelopment purposes.
Candidates discussed how to spend revenues already generated by existing pilot agreements. Jen Gilman (Ward 3) and others suggested using pilot revenues to offset school district debt service from a recent bond referendum or to fund town services that directly relieve resident tax burdens. Vic Pinketturaman noted that an existing pilot (Westfield Crossing) supplied funds for fields and asked the council to decide how to allocate those revenues.
Ending: Forum participants framed affordable housing as a legal obligation to be met responsibly while urging restraint on new pilot or abatement incentives and proposing targeted use of existing pilot revenues; no formal legislative actions were taken during the event.
