'Fair Share' Housing Rules Need a Redo, Court Says

April 2007
Planning;Apr2007, Vol. 73 Issue 4, p35
Trade Publication
The article focuses on the response to the January 25, 2007 ruling of the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. The Appellate Division invalidated the Third Round rules of the State Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) for determining how towns comply with their Mount Laurel affordable housing obligations. The court put on hold the 297 current Mount Laurel proceedings. COAH has six months to come up with new rules in line with the court's opinion. COAH will undertake rule-making in response to the Appellate Division's opinion. To ensure that the revised rules will be based on the best possible data and analysis, COAH is reaching out to experts and specialists in the fields of affordable housing, economics, demographics and planning.


Related Articles

  • High Court to Hear Superfund Case This Month.  // Planning;Apr2007, Vol. 73 Issue 4, p36 

    The article discusses the ruling of the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court that the growth share method violated both the Mount Laurel doctrine and the Fair Housing Act. The Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) is lacking sufficient reliable data about the availability of...

  • Affordable homes package found wanting.  // Planning (14672073);12/12/2008, Issue 1799, p22 

    The article reports on the ruling which turned down a proposal for affordable housing in Cornwall, England stating that the site is inappropriate and no assurance of its affordability in perpetuity. The appellant described the project as low-cost housing and that it would be provided through a...

  • Flood risk outweighed by housing need.  // Planning (14672073);5/2/2008, Issue 1767, p23 

    The article reports that the British secretary of state has agreed that a 74-flat affordable housing project in Berkshire, England should be approved because it passed the sequential and exception tests in the Government published planning policy statement 25 (PPS25). The secretary of state has...

  • Is the Administration's Home Building and Public Housing Policy Sound? Con. High, Douglass // Congressional Digest;Nov46, Vol. 25 Issue 11, p287 

    Opposes the public housing policy of the U.S. government. Issue of socialism in public housing; Contention of rent subsidy for every family under the public housing program; Onerous obligation of the U.S. government once the approval of the Wagner-Ellender-Taft bill is approved.

  • Illusion is rampant when it comes to 'affordable' housing. Sowell, Thomas // Enterprise/Salt Lake City;2/9/2004, Vol. 33 Issue 33, p22 

    Expresses opinion on public housing provided by the U.S. government. Law created to provide public housing in 1937; Percentage of income spent by Americans for housing; Reasons which make it impossible to build affordable housing in some places.

  • Afraid to ask?  // EG: Estates Gazette;1/22/2005, Issue 503, p66 

    Answers questions on housing policy in Yorkshire, England. Scope of the restriction on housing development introduced in the city; Explanation on the property scheme.

  • Affordability flaws raised.  // Planning (14672073);5/2/2008, Issue 1767, p2 

    The article reports on the failure of local authorities in Scotland to achieve planning guidance's 25% affordable housing provision on developers' sites. From 2005 to 2007, developers were noted to provide only an average of 22% affordable housing, which most of which were entirely financed from...

  • Low-income homeownership: American dream or delusion? Shlay, Anne B. // Urban Studies (Routledge);Mar2006, Vol. 43 Issue 3, p511 

    This paper is a critical analysis of recent US policy to promote low-income homeownership. It examines the ideology and assumptions buttressing this policy, evidence on the effects of low-income homeownership and the viability of homeownership as a strategy for low-income families. Evidence...

  • Developer digs in heels on viability. Ivory, Trevor // Planning (14672073);1/28/2011, Issue 1901, p29 

    In this article, the author discusses the move of the Courts of Appeal to uphold an inspector's decision to grant permission for luxury flats in west London without any affordable housing provision.


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics