• Home
• Links

An interesting message from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities.

SEVEN FATAL FLAWS OF THE COAH REGULATIONS

1. Negative and overwhelming burdens on the taxpayer in violation of the Fair Housing Act, which specifically provides that a municipality shall not be required to raise or expend municipal revenue in order to provide low and moderate income housing.
2. Unjustified and unsupportable adjustments to the first and second round numbers,which result in unachievable obligations for many municipalities.
3. Third round growth share obligations are based upon unreliable and inaccurate information and exaggerated projections which result from false and unsupportable
   assumptions in the expert reports relied upon by COAH.
4. The exaggerated third round growth share obligations are allocated based upon false and inaccurate vacant land analysis and speculative residential and non-residential
   growth patterns, which ignore unusable land and levels of low and moderate income households anticipated to be created through 2018.
5. The Third Round allocated obligations ignore the State Development and Redevelopment Plan and all aspects of Smart Growth and open space conservation.
6. Full compliance with the third round obligations is unachievable, but will nonetheless subject municipalities to excessive market rate housing to subsidize the inaccurate projections of low and moderate income housing.
7. The implementation of the regulations will hinder rather than promote the production of low and moderate income housing for the low and moderate income citizens in the
   State of New Jersey, now and in the future.

Share This

Charge may pay for state patrols
Thursday, August 07, 2008
By Trish G. Graber tgraber@sjnewsco.com

BUENA VISTA TWP. - South Jersey legislators and elected officials across the state are pushing back against charges for state police coverage imposed on rural municipalities with part-time or no police forces of their own.

About 40 locally elected officials from Cumberland to Hunterdon counties attended a news conference here Wednesday backing a plan to place a $40 surcharge on moving violations to offset the combined $12.6 million cost rural towns are required to pay for state police patrols under Gov. Jon S. Corzine’s budget.

Sen. Jeff Van Drew, the bill sponsor, said the measure would create a fund to defray the police costs in rural municipalities and provide grants to non-rural towns for property tax relief.

Without it, he said, small towns will suffer.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

Lebanon Borough received their letter from the State Treasurer explaining that they would be required to pay $92,548 for police services the other day.

As we reported in an earlier post, Lebanon Borough will be required to pay $48.81 per capita - the HIGHEST per-capita cost in Hunterdon County for it’s 1,896 residents.

The letter states the recently adopted Fiscal Year 2009 State Budget requires municipalities that receive rural policing services provided by the NJ State Police to enter into a cost-sharing agreement with the State Treasurer, or provide the Treasurer information on how the municipality will provide police services to its residents. Municipalities will have until December 15, 2008 to make this decision.

The letter further states details on the program, explanation of the calculation used to determine the amount of cost sharing agreement and copy of the budget language that defines the program.

Lebanon Borough’s portion of the program is calculated as follows -

The letter further provides a background on Rural Policing Cost-Sharing Agreements. Presently, 89 towns receive free rural patrol services -

- Actually, we all pay for these services through our taxes. In the case of Lebanon Borough, we pay for these services through our taxes, we also have an agreement for added patrols at a OT rate when available and in 2003 we signed an agreement to provide the use of our former police headquarters to include electricity, water and heat. These agreements and partnerships have been a win-win for both the State Police and the Borough of Lebanon.

76 receive full-time services (such as Lebanon Borough) and 13 receive part-time services (such as Holland Township). Full-Time patrols consist of 24/7 patrols.

According to the letter - FY2007, it cost the State of NJ $80M to provide services to these towns. Costs consist of personnel salaries, overhead expenses to operate each station, routine patrols, report writing and indirect administrative costs.

The budget requires the Treasurer to calculate a local share that will result in the State receiving approximately $12.5M (a reduction from the proposed $20.5M) Municipalities receiving State Police coverage will provide approximately 15.6% of the costs of this service (based on the 2007 cost).

The formula also meets a requirement that limits the local cost share to an amount that will not result in an increase of more than $100 in property taxes on the average residential property (based on 2007 taxes).

We will be following this issue closely and provide as much information as possible on our options.  I am sure many of you have seen the news articles providing some new legislation to help “soften” the blow of charging for rural police coverage.  It will interesting to see where these ideas go.

There is a NJSP Forum being hosted in Hampton Borough for public officials on Tuesday, August 12 that I will be attending. I hope to have more info to share after.

Share This

Small towns plan big revolt on State Police fees
Posted by cjrothma August 07, 2008 06:00AM

Here’s today’s brain-teaser from the age of Corzine:

Suppose a small-town mayor decides that his constituents can’t afford the big tax hikes needed to pay the fees the Corzine administration wants to impose for State Police service.

Who’s going to come and arrest the mayor? The State Police? “We’ve already told the state we’re not gonna pay,” Knowlton Mayor Frank Van Horn told me. “They’re gonna have to put the whole township committee in jail.”

As he was speaking to me on his cell phone the other evening, Van Horn was at a civic function attended by numerous state troopers. The small-town mayors and the troopers are on the best of terms. Both parties are happy with the current arrangement under which the troopers provide police services for rural towns that don’t need police forces of their own.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

Last night at the municipal building, we held a special planning board meeting. After many years and many meetings the Pizzo and Pizzo property known now as Presidential Place at Lebanon has been finalized and approved.

The property will be located on Cokebury Road across from the Kay-Bee Toy distribution facility (Lots 1 and 3, Block 3) and include 6 multi-family buildings or 150 units. 30 (20%) of these units will help satisfy our COAH obligation.

The property will be completed in 2 phases.

Phase 1 - The ability to secure building permits for site improvements (foundations and retaining walls) for garage structures -

One of the prerequisites for approval was to have permits from all outside agencies (water, sewer etc.) There is no final permit for water. Until the final water permit is issued - this allows the developer to move forward prior to the winter season and to lock in construction costs. Should the developer not be able to procure a final water permit from the DEP and not be able to build - they would restore the site back to it’s original condition.

Phase 2 - Bricks and Sticks/Completion of the project

We will keep you updated on the progress of the project as it occurs.

Share This

In preparation for the upcoming work session, I am proposing 2 Resolutions to the governing Body.

1. Resolution authorizing Hampton Borough to be the lead agency for a shared service feasability study for police coverage.
2. Resolution in support of NJDEP legislation for unmuffled engine braking (Jake Braking).

The feasibility study is being led by Mayor Rob Walton of Hampton Borough.  The state is waiving the fee for the study so there is no cost to the municipalities.  Due to the concern of what may be charged to rural municipalities, this study will prove beneficial in the research aspect of options available to municipalities such as Lebanon Borough.

The resolution in support of NJDEP legislation is being speaheaded by Road Noise Committee member Amy Switlyk of Clinton Township.  She is a strong advocate for improving conditions on I-78.  You can view her web site here:

I-78 Intrusion

As a reminder, there is a public work session the 2nd Monday of each month at 7:30PM at the municipal building.

Share This

Who didn’t see this coming??????????’

Affordable-housing pledge clashes with Highlands Act
Lawmakers and preservationists must decide how to reconcile competing goals
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
BY PAULA SAHA
Star-Ledger Staff

As many officials in northern New Jersey see it, the Highlands Act and the state’s affordable-housing laws are two noble causes that appear to be on a collision course.

On the one hand is a law intended to preserve a huge, environmentally sensitive swath of the state that provides water to more than half the region. On the other is the constitutional requirement that communities provide decent housing for low- and moderate-income residents.

Last month, the two issues oddly converged when, on the very same day the New Jersey Highlands Council adopted its regional master plan, Gov. Jon Corzine signed a bill revamping the state’s affordable-housing rules. The new rules include a provision that would require one-fifth of new development in the Highlands to be set aside as affordable housing.

The Highlands plan, a blueprint for future development of northern New Jersey, makes no mention of the bill. Sierra Club Director Jeff Tittel says the omission could be the plan’s downfall.

Corzine is now reviewing the Highlands Council’s plan. In a letter to the governor, Tittel says the plan’s failure to address the affordable-housing bill is reason enough for a veto. Combined with rules released earlier this year from the state Council on Affordable Housing (COAH), the plan, he writes, has “a loophole … (that) will be used to force high-density housing into the middle of the Highlands … under the guise of redevelopment and builders’ remedy lawsuits.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

Trooper fees mount while towns think
Thursday, July 31, 2008
By Warren Cooper

Towns that don’t have full-time police forces are beginning to get serious about how they’ll react to the idea of paying for heretofore free State Police rural coverage. As of today, many towns owe the state an as-yet-unspecified amount of money for their first month of paid State Police protection, but it is not yet known which towns will be charged nor what the rate will be when the bills come due in 2009. But if a town strikes a deal to share police services by Dec. 15, it won’t have to pay the state.

Mayors Rob Walton of Hampton and Mark Desire of High Bridge met Tuesday night with county Shared Services Coordinator Michael Capobianco to discuss the feasibility of creating a north county multi-municipality force. Mr. Capobianco had invited 13 municipalities from Alexandria east to Tewksbury; he speculated that short notice, rather than a lack of interest, was responsible for the lack of participants.

According to Mr. Capobianco, the charge for State Police coverage makes it “a good time to start discussions on where we are and what the next step could be.” Under his guidance, the Amwells and Lambertville have contracted with Blue Shield Consulting of Long Valley for a shared policing feasibility study similar to the one he proposes for the north county towns. Mr. Capobianco was able to secure a $38,975 state grant to pay for the south county study.

Even as that study proceeds, East Amwell is hedging its bets. See “E. Amwell to Raritan: Got Cops?” on this page.

Mr. Capobianco told the mayors Tuesday that a similar study for the northern county municipalities would cost them nothing. Recent changes in the state’s SHARE (Sharing Available Resources Effectively) program exempts municipalities with populations under 10,000 from the requirement to pay a 10% match for such feasibility studies. Only three Hunterdon municipalities (Raritan, Readington and Clinton townships) have populations greater than that, and none is among the 13 he hopes to convince to join the study.

Mayor Desire said about 30% of High Bridge’s $3 million budget funds its police force. The mayor acknowledged it’s “very expensive,” but, he said, “I can’t imagine the State Police would give the kind of coverage we get from our guys.” Everyone in town loves them, he said. He’d like to see the study address how small municipal forces like High Bridge’s could keep their local flavor as part of a regional police force.

Mayor Walton is mostly satisfied with the coverage the State Police provides Hampton. “If we have an emergency call they respond right away.” Troopers also drive through town on their regular patrols and will set up additional patrols if a particular problem arises, he said, like a stalker at the school. With only 1,600 people in the borough, crime statistics don’t support a full-time local police force, he said.

Although Hampton might not pay for State Police service under the budget, Mayor Walton worries that municipalities that use the troopers will see a reduction in service. “If we start paying for the State Police, do we have any control over them? I want to have some sort of say in patrolling and particular issues and problems.”

Opponents of the new fees argue that State Police rural services were established in 1921 especially to help rural areas. But Gov. Corzine has said it’s only fair that municipalities pay something for law-enforcement services.

Mr. Capobianco said he would again lobby for shared policing feasibility studies at a public meeting he’ll convene a few weeks from now to present the annual Chamber of Commerce shared services report. The date hasn’t been set.

Mr. Capobianco is an employee of the county Chamber of Commerce, which has taken a leadership role in helping local school districts and muncipalities share services.

According to a 2007-08 state Department of Law and Public Safety report, State Police provide full- or part-time policing to 13 of the county’s 26 municipalities. As a small part of his austere state budget, Gov. Corzine proposed in March to raise $20 million by billing municipalities that rely on State Police coverage. When the final budget was passed, the amount had been reduced to $12 million. Municipalities that do not act to enter into a cost-sharing agreement with another municipality by Dec. 15 could be charged for State Police coverage retroactive to July 1.

Local budgets would have to rise to come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for it. The exact figures for each municipality aren’t known yet, but in the spring, when the governor sought to raise $20 million, county municipalities were looking at tabs like $535,920 in East Amwell, $569,250 in Union and $527,340 in Alexandria,

The numbers were generated by multiplying the number of households in the municipality by $330 for full-time coverage and $230 for part-time. The bill in Holland Township, which only uses State Police coverage part-time, would be $446,660 according to the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services, which came up with the estimates.

There’s a chance that municipalities like Hampton, Bethlehem, Milford and Bloomsbury would avoid a bill for State Police services based on their lack of ratables, according to that OLS report.

©2008 Hunterdon County Democrat
© 2008 NJ.com All Rights Reserved.

Share This

Towns face charges for services of state cops

By LISA G. RYAN
Gannett State Bureau

Towns that depend on the New Jersey State Police for all or part of their police protection received letters this week indicating how much they’ll have to pay the state if they want to keep the service.

The 89 towns affected — mostly rural, lightly populated communities — have received the police service fee-free since the 1920s, when the State Police was created primarily to patrol rural areas.

Under the state budget adopted last month, the towns must now contribute $12.6 million toward the overall $80 million cost of the rural patrols. Gov. Jon S. Corzine has described the fees as a way to ensure towns are equitably sharing costs for services.

But critics, including local officials and some South Jersey legislators, blasted the billing move. They said Corzine neglected to consult with municipal leaders and that the governor was treating rural communities unfairly.

“There was no open discussion about this,” said Assemblywoman Dawn Marie Addiego, R-Burlington. “The administration simply mailed out a bill demanding payment, or police protection will cease.” State Sen. Philip E. Haines, R-Burlington, noted Corzine’s original budget plan called for Camden to contribute $800,000 for its State Police service, but that fee later was dropped.

“If rural communities must pay for state police services, then so too should large cities,” said Haines.

The billing information went to 15 towns in Burlington County and one, South Harrison, in Gloucester County.

Southampton faces the largest potential payment — about $515,000. Four towns — Hainesport, Mansfield, Shamong and Tabernacle — would each pay more than $200,000.

Corzine originally proposed charging a statewide total of $20 million. He trimmed that amount to ensure that municipal payments for full-time service won’t result in more than a $100 increase per household over 2007 average residential property taxes. Home property tax increases would be capped at $71 in towns getting part-time service.

The state Department of the Treasury posted a list on its Web site Wednesday of potential charges for affected municipalities.

Towns have until Dec. 15 to decide whether to stay with the State Police or find other police protection.

“One of the reasons these things were set up was so that people could plan ahead and also maybe take alternative routes,” Corzine said. “Maybe they don’t need to go that route, they want to go another.”

Sen. Jeff Van Drew, D-Cape May, called the letters sent to towns disturbing.

“The reason I’m so aggravated is our whole vision and focus is to supposedly minimize property taxes, and this isn’t accomplishing that,” Van Drew said.

Earlier this month, Buena Vista and six other towns filed complaints with the state Council on Local Mandates. Since then, other towns have followed suit. They claim the state Police patrol fees violate the “state mandate, state pay” amendment to the state Constitution. The League of Municipalities plans to file a brief in support of the towns, said William Dressel Jr., the executive director.

Corzine said he is trying to be fair for all New Jersey residents.

“There are other people that are already paying for their law enforcement and public safety,” the governor said. “I’m pledged to make sure we work through these issues so that we’re sensitive to needs, but these charges have to be paid for and somebody’s getting the benefit of those charges.”

Ninety-six percent of the state’s population pays for their own town’s police service as well as service for the state’s rural communities, said Tom Bell, a Treasury Department spokesman. He said charges for State Police patrols would average $39 per person in the rural towns, whereas people living in municipalities that have their own police department pay an average $328 per capita for police protection.

“We think the way we’ve gone about this is more than fair,” Bell said.

Staff writer Jim Walsh contributed to this report. Reach Lisa G. Ryan at lgryan@gannett.com

Share This

Rural Central Jersey towns among 89 told to start paying for state police patrol

By LISA G. RYAN
GANNETT STATE BUREAU

Towns that depend on the New Jersey State Police for all or part of their police protection received letters this week indicating how much they’ll have to pay the state if they want to keep the service.

The 89 towns affected - most of which are rural, lightly populated communities - now get the police service fee-free, as they have since the 1920s, when the state police agency was created primarily to patrol rural areas of New Jersey.

Under the state budget adopted last month, the towns must now contribute $12.6 million toward the overall $80 million it costs the state to provide the rural police patrols. Gov. Jon S. Corzine has described the fees as a way to ensure towns are equitably sharing costs for services provided.

Corzine’s originally proposed charging the towns $20 million, then trimmed it to ensure the bill towns pay for full-time service won’t result in more than a $100 increase per household over 2007 average residential property taxes. Residential property tax increases would be capped at $71 in towns getting part-time service.

Sgt. John Harris of the Holland Township Police Department said he contacted the state treasurer’s office to see how he could submit questions about the funding formula, which he found puzzling.

Harris said he questioned why a six-member department such as Holland’s, which he said uses state police coverage for “less than a quarter of the day,” would be told to pay only slightly less than a neighboring municipality that lacks a local force.

For example, he said, Alexandria, which relies on the state police for full-time coverage, has been instructed to pay $183,263 for the service while Holland’s tab is $150,196.

The state’s bill, which is broken down by the number of parcels within a municipality, puts Holland’s cost at $71 per residential parcel, Harris said. The price increases for other types of property.

“We’re paying $71, and another town may be paying $71 too, but they may be using the state police more than we are,” Harris said. “To us, I really don’t think it’s fair. It should be based on how much you use the state police, not how much land parcels or property you have in the township.”

Lebanon Borough’s rate for full-time New Jersey State Police coverage dropped from $117,480 to $92,548, but the borough is paying $48.81 per capita - the highest per-capita cost in Hunterdon County - for its 1,896 residents.

“Everything is up, so any decrease would be helpful,” Lebanon Borough Clerk Karen Romano said about the announcement.

Romano said the Lebanon Borough Council had not met since the cost information was released. It’s unclear whether the rates would change how the borough would handle police services in the future, she said.

In Somerset County, Millstone saw its initial charge of $32,574 nearly halved to $16,745. In Rocky Hill, the proposed charge of $54,112 dropped to $29,227.

The state Department of the Treasury posted a list on its Web site yesterday of all the municipalities affected and what they would be charged if they opt to keep the state police patrols. Towns have until Dec. 15 to decide whether to stay with the state police or find other police protection.

“One of the reasons these things were set up was so that people could plan ahead and also maybe take alternative routes,” Corzine said. “Maybe they don’t need to go that route, they want to go another.”

The cost figures surprised local elected officials, some state lawmakers and New Jersey State League of Municipalities officials who were under the assumption they would help develop the cost-sharing formula.

“Essentially, they sent these letters out even though we were supposed to have the opportunity to meet with state officials,” said Mayor Chuck Chiarello of Buena Vista Township in Atlantic County, which is looking at a $303,521 fee. “It’s kind of like putting the cart before the horse. It would have been nice to have had a discussion about these patrols before they came up with a cost-sharing formula.”

Mayor Nancy Grbelja of Millstone Township in Monmouth County said her community’s state police charge of $348,152 would have a “devastating impact” on the township’s tax rate.

“We would probably have to pass that on to our taxpayers,” she said.

Towns were charged $178 for every residential parcel and $534 for every nonresidential parcel. The state then reduced the total charge if average taxes exceeded $100 in the case of towns getting full-time state police protection and $71 in the case of communities receiving part-time service.

“They basically took a number and tried to make it work,” said Assemblywoman Marcia Karrow, R-Hunterdon, who represents a number of towns that rely on state police response.

Sen. Jeff Van Drew, D-Cape May, called the letters sent to towns disturbing and a failure on the part of the Corzine administration to involve the small towns in the decision-making process.

“The reason I’m so aggravated is our whole vision and focus is to supposedly minimize property taxes, and this isn’t accomplishing that,” Van Drew said.

Earlier this month, Buena Vista and six other towns filed complaints with the state Council on Local Mandates on the matter. Since then, other towns have followed suit. They claim the state police patrol fees violate the “state mandate, state pay” amendment to the state constitution. The League of Municipalities plans to file its own brief in support of the towns, said William Dressel Jr., the executive director.

Corzine said he is trying to be fair for all New Jersey residents.

“There are other people that are already paying for their law enforcement and public safety,” the governor said. “I’m pledged to make sure we work through these issues so that we’re sensitive to needs, but these charges have to be paid for, and somebody’s getting the benefit of those charges.”

Ninety-six percent of the state’s population pays for their own town’s police service as well as service for the state’s rural communities, said Tom Bell, a Treasury Department spokesman. Bell also noted the charges for state police patrol would average $39 per person in the rural towns, whereas people living in municipalities that have their own police department pay an average $328 per capita for police protection.

“We think the way we’ve gone about this is more than fair,” Bell said.

On the Web: tinyurl.com/NJSPrural

Courier News Staff Writers Brandon Lausch and Kara L. Richardson contributed to this story.

Share This

Captain Jon steers for two more icebergs
Posted by pmulshin July 19, 2008 12:20PM

You know that cliche about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?

Jon Corzine just did it one better. Actually he did it two better.

As if our economy weren’t sinking fast enough, the Corzine administration last week found a couple of ways to make it worse.

First there was that awful “affordable housing” bill the Guv signed. You know the one I mean, the bill that will actually make construction in this state less affordable by tacking on all sorts of fees and regulations.

“The fact is, this legislation holds much promise for the thousands of New Jerseyans who want to stay in their hometown — to work there and raise their families there — but simply can’t afford to live there,” Corzine said in a press release.

No, it doesn’t. In reality it makes New Jersey less affordable for working New Jerseyans by chasing away the businesses that hire them. It also makes it harder for towns to attract commercial tax ratables, thus driving up property taxes.

The new law imposes a 2.5 percent housing fee on any businessman dumb enough to want to build stores or offices here in Jersey amid all the other nutty taxes and regulations imposed by the past two Democratic administrations.

By the way, the dumbest quote on the new law came once again from Assemblyman Albert Coutinho. Coutinho, a Democrat from Newark, only recently entered the Legislature but who has quickly amassed an impressive reputation for idiotic utterances:
“New Jersey cannot continue as a state comprised of towns where a lack of affordable housing blocks police, firefighters, or teachers from living in the communities they serve,” said Coutinho.

This guy needs to get out more. In the ‘burbs, those public jobs are the good jobs with the best benefits. The people having a hard time making ends meet are those struggling to get by in jobs in private industry, where they don’t have guaranteed benefits and pensions. And Corzine and crew have just made those jobs a bit scarcer.

What do they care? As the Coutinho quote shows, their constituency is not those of you who work in the free market. It’s government itself. As I’ve noted in the past, the Democrats run the state not for the benefit of the public but for the public employees.

As for private industry, where will those jobs go? Don’t worry, businessmen. Next door in Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell is doing the exact opposite of Corzine. He’s busy finding ways to lure businesses from high-cost New Jersey to low-cost Pennsylvania.

But say, for example, you’re a hard-headed businessman who still wants to build in New Jersey even though the Governor wants to make you pay to build houses for the workers you’ll be hiring.

You forgot about the Highlands Act. The Democrats didn’t. Last week the Highlands Council approved a master plan that chokes off growth in what could be the most prosperous region of the state. The new plan effectively bans development in a huge area by requiring lot sizes as high as 88 acres. So forget about those office parks with those clean, high-income jobs. They’ll be built in Bucks County. Forget about having those Wall Street millionaires move to high-income subdivisions. Those subdivisions will be built in Connecticut.

Corzine of course is not directly responsible for the Highlands maser plan. But he could effectively veto it if he had desired, just as he could have vetoed that awful housing bill.

Instead he once again sold out to the special interests, the urban Democratic machines and the public-employee unions that are bankrupting the state. By the way, what do you think those politicians do with their big pensions when they retire? They move to their second homes in Florida. What’s that cliche about rats deserting a sinking ship?

As for the rest of us, those who pay the taxes to support the listing ship of state,
our captain just steered us into two more icebergs.

All I can say is, forget about the deck chairs. Start looking for the lifeboats.

Share This

Corzine signs affordable housing overhaul

By GREGORY J. VOLPE
Gannett State Bureau

In a scene reminiscent of a Southern Baptist tent revival, Gov. Jon S. Corzine signed legislation on Thursday overhauling the state’s affordable housing policy that advocates called landmark and critics called another property tax raiser.

It “is the most important housing reform legislation enacted in the nation, in the past two decades,” said David Rusk, a housing consultant retained by the New Jersey Regional Coalition.

With gospel music, sweltering summer sun and sermonesque speeches, officials, clergy and advocates touted the measure, which Corzine signed at the Ethel R. Lawrence townhouse community named for the woman whose lawsuit led to the Supreme Court decisions that said every town has an obligation to set aside affordable housing.

“This is a day of hope, but it’s also a day of accepted responsibility,” said Corzine, adding. “The right to an affordable home in New Jersey is just that — it’s simply a right.”

The legislation most notably bans regional contribution agreements, or RCAs, the process in which richer towns can sell off their affordable housing obligations to poorer ones.

“It concentrates the poor in the most impoverished cities, locking them into enclaves of disadvantage,” said Bishop Joseph Galante of the Diocese of Camden. “Out of sight and out of mind with jobs and opportunity out of reach.”

Among other provisions, the new law also levies a 2.5 percent tax on nonresidential developers to build affordable units and sets aside a portion of affordable units for very low income families — those earning less than 30 percent of median household income.

Peter J. O’Connor, executive director of the Fair Share Housing Development Inc., which litigated the case spurred by Lawrence, who died 14 years ago, said his 40-year effort is neither a legal nor legislative issue.

“It is a moral issue of how we as people treat each other,” O’Connor said.

Medford Mayor Chris Myers, running against state Sen. John H. Adler, D-Camden, for Congress, and a handful of other Burlington County state and local officials attended the signing to voice their opposition.

“This is essentially an unfunded mandate,” said Myers, saying the development fees won’t be enough to build homes; towns won’t get any relief for the increased demands on schools, police and other services new affordable mandates would bring; and that the new construction fee could drive developers from New Jersey to surrounding states.

The legislation, coupled with new rules from the Council on Affordable Housing that doubled the amount of affordable homes New Jersey municipalities would be obligated to build, have drawn protests from local officials.

The New Jersey State League of Municipalities, with the support of about 180 mayors, filed a challenge to those rules, saying officials erred in their calculations. Some 19 other towns filed a separate protest.

The league, which opposed banning RCAs, said it cautiously encouraged by a statement from Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts, D-Camden, who said he wants to ensure the state’s new goals are appropriately calculated.

“It would be naive to believe that, left unaddressed, this will not negatively impact taxpayers,” league executive director William G. Dressel Jr. said in a statement.

Reach Gregory J. Volpe at gvolpe@gannett.com

Share This

Rocky Hill challenges bill for State Police patrols
The number of towns challenging a provision in the new state budget that bills them for previously free State Police patrols has grown to seven, including tiny Rocky Hill in Somerset County.

Ed Zimmerman, the unpaid mayor of Rocky Hill Borough, said today the annual $90,000 bill for State Police patrols would translate into a $300-a-year increase in property taxes. He challenged it as an “unfunded state mandate” that violates a 1995 amendment to the state constitution.

Tom Vincz, a spokesman for the state treasury, said the Legislature revised the budget so “the maximum impact” would be a $100 increase in average annual property tax bills in towns billed for part of the cost of State Police services.

Zimmerman said, “I don’t have any confirmation of that.” He said his latest information is that property taxes would go up much more in his borough of 680 residents.

It is one of 92 towns — mostly in rural parts of South Jersey and Hunterdon, Warren and Sussex counties — that are patrolled by State Police. As of today, seven of those towns have filed complaints with the Council on Local Mandates, according to its executive administrator, Patricia Meyer. The six others are all in the southern part of the state.

Vincz said billing towns that get free State Police patrols for a portion of their cost — roughly 15 percent — is only fair to the majority of towns with paid police departments.

“The bottom line is 96 percent of the population pays for their own police services as well as police services for 4 percent of the population,” Vincz said.

Zimmerman said Rocky Hill pays the South Bound Brook police department, which is 13 miles away, about $45,000 a year for 50 hours a month of traffic enforcement. But the State Police “are still the official police department,” Zimmerman said.

“They do a super job,” he added.

Share This

Mixed reactions to census report in Somerset, Hunterdon counties

STAFF REPORT

Officials had mixed reactions to the release of figures by the U.S. Census Bureau that shows, in some cases, significant growth in Somerset and Hunterdon counties between 2000 and 2007.

In the four-county region covered by the Courier News, Middlesex County’s population grew 5.1 percent from 2000 to 2007, compared with statewide growth of 4.46 percent. Somerset County grew 8.76 percent, Hunterdon County 6 percent and Union County 0.4 percent in that time period.

Somerset County has grown by 26,062 since 2000, an 8.76 percent spike, and by 3,482 in from 2006 to 2007, a 1.1 percent jump.

The fastest-growing municipalities in Somerset County since 2000 have been Montgomery (5,542 more residents, 31.7 percent growth) and Green Brook (1,266 more residents, 22.4 percent growth).

Hunterdon County, meanwhile, has has grown by 7,359 residents since 2000, which represents a 6 percent swell. The county population remained relative stagnant from 2006 to 2007, increasing by just 0.1 percent.

“I’m not sure exactly how accurate those numbers are,” Lebanon Borough mayor Mark Paradis said in response to being told his borough had the quickest growth rate in Central Jersey, to 1,896 residents in 2007 from 1,065 in 2000. “There has been growth, and we do have one development, the Heights, where the majority of our growth is, but that’s only 120 units and permits have been issued for all but two buildings.

“We have another development on the other side of Route 22 that will be 150 units but it’s a false sense of population since no permits have been issued for those yet,” Paradis said. “It’s going to really skew your figures. It’s a great community to live in, but I think it’s giving the census bureau a false sense of what we currently have by basing it on permits issued instead of on occupancy. We’re one square mile and the official population is 1,650, so adding 831 sounds high. There are also a lot of people living in Clinton Township and Tewksbury who have Lebanon addresses, which is also hard to track.”

Bill Corboy, mayor of West Amwell, was surprised at first to hear that the population in his township jumped to 2,930 in 2007, from 2,383 in 2000. That’s an increase of 547 residents.

“We only have about 900 homes in the township, but we have had one large development with I believe about 98 homes, and another with 48 homes,” Corboy said.

“We’ve pretty much committed ourselves to be a farming and open space community, and we’ve done a good job. Every community is going to experience growth, and given our 21 square miles, that’s probably not really bad at all.”

Lambertville saw its population decrease, according to Census figures, from 3,868 residents in 2000 to 3,744 seven years later.

Mayor David Del Vecchio blames Lambertville’s population decrease on empty nesters and lack of room.

“We’re all built out, and we’re the least percentage of school age children any place in the county,” Del Vecchio said. “We just purchased one of the last pieces of land this past year on an open space question, one development, Orleans, was downsized from four townhouse units to an acre to 2.2 units to an acre. It’s been the same for two different censuses, we haven’t moved much either way for probably about 15 years.”

Some towns in Somerset County have seen population increases, including Montgomery, Raritan Borough and Warren.

Raritan Borough Mayor Jo-Ann Liptak said her community’s population surge is likely due to a large number of seniors moving out and young families moving to town.

According to Census figures, Raritan’s population climbed to 6,970 in 2007, compared with 6,338 in 2000.

“It could be a double-edged sword,” Liptak said, noting that more people could mean a need for more police and rescue services. Conversely, she said, new people bring “fresh talent” to the town.

Montgomery Mayor Cecilia Xie Birge pointed to the effects of development as a reason for its population boom.

“The majority of this increase is from the huge amount of housing construction approved by our Planning Board in late 1990s and early 2000s in Montgomery; therefore, the beginning of this decade carries a significant share of this growth,” she said. “Since then, we have successfully controlled growth by aggressively preserving open space, partnering with nonprofit groups and other governmental agencies to reduce the cost to our taxpayers.”

Under Commiteewoman and former mayor Louise Wilson’s leadership, Birge said the township also has adopted “smart planning” concepts to help direct growth away from “environmentally sensitive portions of town, and diversify its ratable base while avoiding ratable chase as seen in other towns.”

Warren has seen the addition of 1,636 residents in the past seven years, according to Census numbers, and Mayor Gary DiNardo quickly ticked off the approximate number - 1,600 - when asked about the increase and what accounted for it.

“Since Warren is such a desirable place to live - it’s between Route 78 and Route 22, nestled within the Watchung mountain range - so it has a lot of green,” DiNardo said. “We’re very protected.”

DiNardo said new residents, whom he generally described as homeowners, could have also been attracted to the township because of its “tough zoning laws” aimed at preserving open space and Warren’s proximity to New York City.

Although DiNardo said traffic in the township has increased in recent years, he attributed the added congestion to nonresidents who cut through Warren to get to neighboring towns.

The mayor also said the township has not seen any notable increase in crime.

“We’re fortunate, but we do need to be careful because obviously it’s a nice community,” DiNardo said. “And we have a wonderful police department that has really focused that undesirables stay out and that communities are well-policed.”

Courier News staff writers

Brandon Lausch, Walter O’Brien, Kara L. Richardson and

Pamela Sroka-Holzmann

contributed to this report.

Share This

Census reveals population growth for Central Jersey towns

By ERICA HARBATKIN
STAFF WRITER

The populations in Middlesex, Somerset and Hunterdon counties have grown more quickly than the state population since 2000, according to U.S. Census estimates released today. Union County’s population, meanwhile, has remained relatively constant.

The Middlesex County population grew 5.1 percent from 2000 to 2007, compared to statewide growth of 4.46 percent. Somerset County grew 8.76 percent, Hunterdon County 6 percent and Union County 0.4 percent in that time period.

Somerset County has grown by 26,062 since 2000, an 8.76 percent spike, and by 3,482 in from 2006 to 2007, a 1.1 percent jump.

The fastest-growing municipalities in Somerset County since 2000 have been Montgomery (5,542 more residents, 31.7 percent growth) and Green Brook (1,266 more residents, 22.4 percent growth).

The slowest growth in Somerset County has come in Millstone (2 residents, 0.5 percent) and Bound Brook (38 residents, 0.37 percent).

Hunterdon County, meanwhile, has has grown by 7,359 residents since 2000, which represents a 6 percent swell. The county population remained relative stagnant from 2006 to 2007, increasing by just 0.1 percent.

Lebanon Borough has experienced the quickest growth rate in Central Jersey, with 831 additional residents composing a 78 percent population boom since 2000. West Amwell grew by 535 residents in that time period, a 23 percent boost.

Lambertville, Clinton Town, Bloomsbury, Califon, High Bridge, Stockton and Frenchtown have all seen their populations decline since 2000, with Lambertville experiencing the largest drop at 3.21 percent.

In Middlesex County, Middlesex Borough saw its population decline nominally, dropping by 0.16 percent (22 residents). On the whole, Middlesex County grew by 38,467 residents from 2000 through 2007, and by 5,258 (0.7 percent) from 2006 to 2007.

Union County has grown by 0.4 percent (2,117 residents) since 2000, while the population dropped by 0.03 percent (141 residents) from 2006 to 2007. Sixteen of the county’s 21 municipalities have seen their numbers fall since 2000, at rates ranging from 0.06 percent to 3.83 percent. Rahway, meanwhile, experienced the most growth in the county since 2000 with a 6.37 percent spike.

For non-Census years like 2007, the Census Bureau estimates the number of housing units in each municipality using building permits, construction estimates, mobile home shipments and housing-loss estimates. The bureau then uses the occupancy rate from the most recent Census to multiply by the estimated number of housing units. That means the 2007 estimates assume each municipality’s occupancy rate hasn’t changed since the 2000 Census.

Population changes

Here’s the population of each Central Jersey county and the percentage the population has increased since the 2000 census.

HUNTERDON - 129,348; 6.03 percent
MIDDLESEX - 788,629; 5.13 percent
SOMERSET - 323,552; 8.76 percent
UNION - 524,658; 0.41 percent

Town by Town Population Chart

Share This

• Social Web
• E-mail