This week’s devastating floods in New Jersey serve as a stark warning: the state’s relentless push for high-density development, driven by Governor Phil Murphy’s affordable housing mandate, is setting the stage for an environmental catastrophe.
While the intent behind the mandate—addressing a housing shortage estimated at 200,000 units—may be noble, its implementation ignores the ecological limits of an already densely populated state. The recent floods, which hit high-density urban areas hardest, expose the dangerous consequences of prioritizing development over environmental sustainability.
New Jersey’s Mount Laurel Doctrine, codified in 1975 and reinforced by a 2024 law signed by Governor Murphy, requires municipalities to provide their “fair share” of affordable housing. This has led to aggressive construction targets, with over 80,000 new units mandated by 2035.
But this one-size-fits-all approach fails to account for the state’s vulnerability to climate-driven flooding, exacerbated by overdevelopment. Posts on X from residents and local leaders echo this concern, pointing to the loss of farmland and natural landscapes as a key driver of worsening floods. As one user noted, “Razing woodlands and increasing pavement… causes flooding,” a sentiment shared by many who see the state’s development policies paving over the very lands that once absorbed stormwater.
High-density urban areas, like Jersey City, Camden, and Asbury Park, bore the brunt of this week’s flooding. These areas, already strained by impervious surfaces like concrete and asphalt, have lost the natural capacity to absorb rainfall.
The state’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has proposed Resilient Environments and Landscapes (REAL) rules, which designate expanded “inundation risk zones” based on projections of 5.1 feet of sea-level rise by 2100. Yet, these rules paradoxically make it harder to build affordable housing in some areas while failing to address the broader issue: unchecked development is destroying the state’s natural flood defenses.
The environmental risks are particularly acute in flood-prone regions. A Rutgers report found that New Jersey has 1,640 affordable housing units currently exposed to annual coastal flooding, a number projected to quadruple to 6,825 by 2050 under high-emissions scenarios. Building more housing in these vulnerable areas, especially without robust flood mitigation measures, puts low-income residents at a disproportionate risk.
Critics of the mandate, including a coalition of 26 suburban towns led by Montvale Mayor Mike Ghassali, argue that it strains local infrastructure and disregards environmental constraints.
Their lawsuits, filed in state and federal courts, highlight how the mandate exempts urban areas like Trenton and Passaic while burdening suburban communities with unrealistic quotas. This uneven application not only fuels resentment but also ignores the cumulative impact of statewide overdevelopment. The New Jersey Project, a grassroots group, has warned that rapid construction could encroach on green spaces, exacerbating flooding risks in a state already battered by storms like Superstorm Sandy, which caused $30 billion in damages.
The Highlands region, a critical watershed supplying 900 million gallons of water daily, faces particular strain. Ben Spinelli of the New Jersey Highlands Council noted that increased development reduces the region’s ability to manage water resources, threatening both local and statewide sustainability.
Meanwhile, the loss of farms and open spaces to housing projects—sometimes through eminent domain—further erodes natural flood buffers.
Now, towns are taking farmland to build more housing, as the seizure of a 175-year-old farm in Cranbury is a microcosm of the state’s shortsighted approach.
Proponents of the mandate, including the Fair Share Housing Center, argue that it addresses a critical housing crisis and promotes economic equity.
They point to the creation of over 75,000 affordable homes since 1975 as evidence of success. Yet, this progress comes at a cost. The rush to build has outpaced infrastructure upgrades, with roads, water systems, and schools struggling to keep up.
Republicans like Assemblymember Paul Kanitra have called the policy a “disastrous” overreach, predicting traffic congestion and spikes in school enrollment. Even in urban areas tasked with rehabilitating existing units, the lack of coordinated flood mitigation strategies leaves residents vulnerable.
The solution isn’t to abandon affordable housing but to balance it with environmental reality. New Jersey must prioritize development in less flood-prone areas, invest in green infrastructure like living shorelines and stormwater drainage, and preserve natural landscapes that absorb water.
The DEP’s proposed height requirements for new construction in flood zones—four feet above FEMA standards—are a step in the right direction but insufficient without broader reforms.
Municipalities should also be empowered to tailor housing plans to their unique ecological and infrastructural capacities, rather than adhering to rigid state quotas.
This week’s floods are a wake-up call. New Jersey cannot pave its way out of a housing crisis without drowning in the consequences.
Governor Murphy and state Democrats must rethink their development agenda before it becomes the Garden State’s greatest environmental disaster. By integrating climate resilience into housing policy, New Jersey can build a future that is both affordable and sustainable—before the next storm hits.