Judge rejects delay on N.J. affordable housing law

Mercer County Assignment Judge Robert Lougy has denied a bid by 26 municipalities to stay the implementation of the state’s new affordable housing law.

A bipartisan coalition of local governments filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new law passed by the legislature in 2024, claiming the new mandates exceed the mandated requirements. The lawyer, Michael Collins, alleged that the structure of the newly created Affordable Housing Dispute Resolution Program, which allows the acting director of the administrative office of the courts, Glenn A. Grant, to pick the panel members, is unconstitutional.

Lougy said he denied the stay for failing to establish irreparable harm, not meeting the burden of challenging “the validity of a legislative enactment,” and failing to show reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of the case.

“The public interest and balancing of the equities overwhelmingly favor (the state),” Lougy said.

“At its core, the legislation represents the Legislature’s stated intention to transform the framework and processes by which municipalities meet their constitutional Mount Laurel obligation to provide realistic opportunities for low- and moderate-income housing,” he stated in his 68-page opinion.

“Our Coalition remains steadfast in challenging a law that imposes unfair affordable housing obligations upon New Jersey’s suburban municipalities – while exempting the urban ones – for each 10-year decade into perpetuity,” said Montvale Mayor Mike Ghassali, who leads the municipal coalition.  “In Region 1 alone, 75% of the growth occurred in exempt urban municipalities, with communities like Montvale forced to absorb all of the resulting high-density housing obligations. No one court decision will affect our resolve to continue litigating this matter as far as necessary to protect our communities from forced urbanization.”

A hearing is scheduled for January 31 to consider whether to dismiss the lawsuit altogether.|

Collins said they would appeal Lougy’s ruling.

“The Court held that the Program is optional, which avoided the obvious constitutional violation presented by a court administrator picking so-called ‘experts’ to render affordable housing decisions,” Collins noted. “Because the municipalities see nothing optional to the January 31, 2025 deadline and corresponding Program process prescribed in the law, they will be pursuing an emergent appeal on this issue.”

The coalition will seek to amend its complaint to challenge Grant’s recent guidance.

“Our courts are not acting impartially and are actually giving favored treatment to favor Fair Share Housing Center against the municipalities,” said Ghassali. “This proves that the ‘fix is in’ against our communities and no wonder Fair Share Housing Center called the new law the ‘best-in-the-nation.’”