Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Riverside backs NJILGA proposal to change how affordable‑housing obligations are calculated

Riverside Township Committee · December 16, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Riverside Township Committee adopted Resolution 2024‑#134 asking the New Jersey Legislature to adopt a CO‑based methodology recommended by the New Jersey Institute of Local Government Attorneys to calculate municipal affordable‑housing obligations, arguing the current standard imposes unrealistic burdens.

Riverside Township — The Riverside Township Committee voted Dec. 16 to ask the New Jersey Legislature to adopt an amendment to the Fair Housing Act recommended by the New Jersey Institute of Local Government Attorneys (NJILGA) that would change how a municipality’s prospective affordable‑housing need is calculated.

Resolution 2024‑#134, adopted by roll call vote, requests that the Legislature define prospective need using a certificates‑of‑occupancy (CO)‑based methodology rather than the current “household change” approach. The resolution argues the CO‑based method, which focuses on development and growth reasonably likely to occur, would produce more realistic municipal obligations and reduce incentives to overdevelop to meet statutory targets.

The resolution cites Round 4 prospective need figures and asserts current calculations “impose overwhelming burdens on municipalities,” saying a CO approach would better align affordable units with market demand.

Why it matters: changing the statutory calculation would affect how the state and municipalities allocate and plan for affordable housing obligations, potentially reducing the projected requirements for some towns. The resolution is a formal request to the Legislature; it does not change local land‑use rules.

The committee’s action was a policy position from the governing body; no formal state action follows the resolution until the Legislature considers any amendment.