New Jersey Assembly Bill ACR46

New Jersey 2024-2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/9/24
• Refer: 1/9/24

Caption

Proposes amendment to New Jersey Constitution to prohibit exclusionary zoning and clarify municipal obligations regarding affordable housing construction.

Impact

The proposed amendment is significant, as it seeks to overturn the Mount Laurel doctrine, which has driven New Jersey's affordable housing policy for over 40 years. This doctrine has historically mandated municipalities to provide opportunities for low and moderate income households to secure affordable housing. By amending the state constitution, ACR46 aims to eliminate what is termed the 'builder's remedy' — a legal recourse that has allowed developers to bypass local zoning regulations in certain circumstances by challenging municipalities in court. The resolution underscores a commitment to combating discriminatory zoning while potentially reducing the judicial enforcements that have led to court-mandated housing projects.

Summary

ACR46 is a concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the New Jersey Constitution aimed at prohibiting exclusionary zoning practices by municipalities. This amendment intends to clarify municipal obligations regarding the construction and availability of affordable housing. Specifically, it seeks to ensure that towns cannot engage in zoning practices that would prevent the development of low and moderate income housing units, addressing long-standing barriers to affordable housing access in the state. The amendment does not impose an obligation on municipalities to construct affordable housing units, thereby mitigating potential litigation related to forced construction of housing projects.

Contention

The conversation surrounding ACR46 is likely to evoke a diverse array of opinions and stakeholder interests. Supporters of the amendment might argue that it promotes better local control over housing policy, allowing municipalities to address their unique needs without being compelled by specific construction mandates. On the other hand, critics may view this amendment as a step back in the fight against discriminatory housing practices, fearing it may lead to an increase in exclusionary zoning tactics that could further inhibit the development of affordable housing. This tension between local autonomy and the need for equitable housing access is central to the discussions likely to unfold as the bill progresses.