Background. The State of New Jersey has a long-standing and well-established
commitment to maximizing the opportunities for the development of
housing affordable for very-low-, low-, and moderate-income households.
The provision of "safe, decent and attractive housing that [lower-income
households] can afford serves the community's interest in achieving
an integrated, just and free society and promotes the general welfare
of all citizens." De Simone v. Greater Englewood Hous. Corp., 56 N.J.
428, 441 (1970).
Notably, in the Mount Laurel decisions, the New Jersey Supreme
Court held that the state's Constitution makes it "plain beyond dispute
that proper provision for adequate housing of all categories of people
is certainly an absolute essential in promotion of the general welfare
required in all local land use regulation." S. Burlington Cty. NAACP
v. Mount Laurel, 67 N.J. 151, 179 (1975) (Mount Laurel I).
The Court thus found that "each . . . municipality [must] affirmatively
. . . plan and provide, by its land use regulations, the reasonable
opportunity for an appropriate variety and choice of housing, including,
of course, low and moderate cost housing, to meet the needs, desires
and resources of all categories of people who may desire to live within
its boundaries." S. Burlington City. NAACP v. Mount Laurel, 67 N.J.
151, 179 (1975) (Mount Laurel I).
The New Jersey Legislature itself affirmed this commitment when
it enacted the Fair Housing Act of 1985, which established that it
is in the state's interest "to maximize the number of low and moderate
income units by creating new affordable housing and by rehabilitating
existing, but substandard, housing in the State." N.J.S.A. 52:27D-302.
Accordingly, the New Jersey Supreme Court has determined that
"[a]ffordable housing is a goal that is no longer merely implicit
in the notion of the general welfare. It has been expressly recognized
as a governmental end and codified under the FHA." Holmdel Builders
Ass'n v. Holmdel, 121 N.J. 550, 567 (1990).
Since then, New Jersey's courts have consistently recognized
that "[t]he public policy of this State has long been that persons
with low and moderate incomes are entitled to affordable housing,"
and furthermore that those policies do not end when a municipality
has satisfied its minimum obligation under the FHA because "'[t]here
cannot be the slightest doubt that shelter, along with food, are the
most basic human needs.'" Homes of Hope, Inc. v. Eastampton Tp. Land
Use Planning Bd., 409 N.J. Super. 330, 337 (App. Div. 2009) (quoting
Mount) Laurel I, 67 N.J. at 178).