JACKSON, NJ – In nearby Toms River, Mayor Dan Rodrick took the fight to Trenton, hired a competent fair share housing attorney, and won. A few other towns also fought and won favorable settlements. In Toms River, the township significantly reduced its Fair Share Housing requirement by using state law against the state and exploiting an affordable housing loopholethe state did not want to litigate.
In nearby Jackson, it was different. The township council agreed to settle with the state and build 1,000 more affordable housing units, which is approximately 5,000 new total housing units in the next ten years, which would increase the population by 25%.
Only one council person objected, former superhero vigilante Chris Pollak.
The rest of the council voted to approve the massive new wave of development, opting to use a local attorney to settle rather than hire a highly specialized affordable housing attorney to fight for Jackson as Toms River did.
Now, a coalition of 27 New Jersey municipalities has filed a lawsuit against the state, arguing that the latest “fourth round” affordable housing law unfairly burdens suburban towns while exempting urban areas from new construction requirements.
Neighboring Lakewood Township exempt from state’s affordable housing mandate
The coalition — which includes communities such as Millburn, Holmdel, Franklin Lakes, Montville, and Parsippany-Troy Hills — claims the law shifts the state’s affordable housing obligations almost entirely onto non-urban towns. The group contends that 47 “urban aid” municipalities, including Jersey City, Hoboken, and Lakewood, are fully exempt from building new affordable housing units despite accounting for about half of New Jersey’s population growth.
Under the coalition’s analysis, for every ten residents added to an urban aid city, nearby suburban towns must create affordable housing for four people in addition to meeting their own growth-related obligations.
The towns argue this formula is outdated and based on demographic assumptions from decades ago, when most population growth occurred outside urban centers.
The lawsuit also challenges how the state’s judiciary has been tasked with overseeing the implementation process. According to the coalition, a single judicial appointee — the Administrative Director of the Courts — has been given broad power to select “experts” who determine each town’s housing obligations. The towns allege that these appointments lack transparency and accountability and allow for potential conflicts of interest, as the selected experts are not bound by the same ethical rules as judges.
The complaint further accuses the process of favoring the nonprofit Fair Share Housing Center (FSHC), a longtime advocate for affordable housing in New Jersey. The coalition claims FSHC was given preferential access to review municipal housing plans before submission to the state, and that the administrative framework was designed to streamline the organization’s legal challenges against municipalities.
The towns are asking for judicial review of the law’s structure and its population-based formula, as well as an overhaul of how housing obligations are assigned and monitored.
In a statement, the coalition said it supports affordable housing “that can be planned responsibly” and that benefits “seniors, veterans, first responders, and recent graduates,” but opposes what it describes as state-mandated high-density development that strains local infrastructure, schools, and resources.
The lawsuit, filed under the name Local Leaders for Responsible Planning (LLRP) v. State of New Jersey, is the latest chapter in a decades-long debate over how New Jersey enforces its Mount Laurel affordable housing obligations.
