Statement by the Hon. Patricia Flannery, Mayor, Township of Bridgewater
On A-500, Before the Assembly Housing and Local Government Committee
Thursday, May 22, 2008, 10:00 AM

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Assemblymen and women, I’m Patricia Flannery, mayor of Bridgewater Township and  I thank you for the opportunity to comment on Assembly Bill 500.

I agree with the position of the League of Municipalities on A-500, and ask that it be held. As Mayor my main concern has been to control taxes and the impact on the taxpayer of this legislation cannot be ignored.    

My comments will center on two issues contained within the proposed legislation that will have a direct negative effect on municipalities throughout the State.  The message sent by approving this legislation is that suburban municipalities are using regional contribution agreements to transfer their obligation for creating affordable housing to urban communities in order to uphold discrimination.  My observation is quite the contrary, based on my experiences as Mayor of Bridgewater.

Bridgewater Township is a community of approximately 45,000 residents, located conveniently near Routes 287, 78, 202, 206, 22 and 28.    This central location and convenient access to transportation has fueled tremendous growth.  Our strong commercial base remains the engine that drives our growth and includes a substantial presence in the pharmaceutical, insurance and retail industries.   This  growth in turn spurred a demand for housing within our borders which presented a serious challenge. 

In particular, Bridgewater met and exceeded its 2nd round housing obligation by 333 units, when other communities did nothing.  None of those affordable housing units were credits established through an RCA.    Based on our originally submitted 3rd round plan, we would have again exceeded our obligation through 2014.  But with the current status of the COAH regulations, we will now be required to provide an additional 989 affordable units.  This is a number we will challenge through all means available to us, but I know that is not your concern for today. 

We have, and plan to continue, to collected developers’ fees to be used on such worthy programs as rendering units more affordable, housing rehabilitation, the purchase of vacant units to maintain affordable and, if able, to enter into regional contribution agreements.  Prior to the changing of the COAH rules I had spoken to several Mayors from both within Somerset County and outside our County borders who expressed an interest in receiving RCA’s from Bridgewater to construct affordable housing in their communities.

I find it unfortunate that some in this debate seek to pit cities against suburbs.   The implication is, of course, that the suburbs don’t do their fair share.   It’s an unfair criticism.  It has been a tremendous challenge, when you consider the myriad of issues that local officials confront:  balancing the need for housing and affordability with environmental, budget, public safety, education and quality-of-life issues, and yet we have met our obligation.   Due to the geographic constraints, suburban communities like Bridgewater lack the amenities such as mass transit and walkable neighborhoods which are prevalent and offer benefits for individuals with limited financial resources in the urban areas.

Another item I must object to is the requirement that our housing trust funds be spent within 4 years.  There are innumerable restrictions on how we can spend this money.  The bureaucracy and difficulty of putting together a feasible project make 4 years a very difficult objective.  The community that is burdened  with non market-driven development needs to have the funds available to address those impacts.  At the least, any monies should remain available in the community where generated throughout the 3rd Round.

As an example I offer a recently completed agreement for Habitat for Humanity to construct 9 affordable units in Bridgewater, although we currently exceed our obligation for affordable housing by some 300plus units.  In the past four years we have met with several potential non-profit developers, and were eventually able to hammer out an agreement to assist Habitat in the construction of 9 qualifying units.   Legitimate constraints due to the lack of buildable residential land in the township and a desire to have the housing fit the basic zoning of the community, as well as time tied up in receiving COAH approvals, led to the length of time the project took to accomplish.  This is not different than any other project that gets approved in our municipality and I would presume, many others who are similarly built-out. If we are to continue to explore and assist worthy non-profit organizations such as Habitat, we must be given the opportunity to do so within the time frame of the entire third round.  Otherwise I am left with the idea that this part of the  legislation is merely an attempt to raid municipal housing trust funds to satisfy other state obligations.

Finally, a comment on developer fees being collected statewide- I believe this to be a good and fair policy.  However, all analysis show this fund will not be able to meet the development obligation of all the municipalities’ assessed commercial  housing component.  The bottom line is that this means the property taxpayer will be forced to foot the bill, and that will be the ruin of this great state.

For these reasons, I urge you to oppose A-500.

Thank you.