TABLE OF CONTENTS
In 1975, the state of New Jersey passed the Mount Laurel Doctrine, a constitutional obligation requiring all NJ municipalities to provide their fair share of affordable housing. As NJ prepares to enter yet another cycle of affordable housing policy nearly three decades later (with the implementation of its Fourth Round), the sociocultural sentiments immersed within the roots of the original doctrine only continue to grow more relevant. The same NIMBY attitudes that spurred the Mount Laurel Doctrine’s conception continue to permeate residents, policymakers, and communities today. Although economic, political, and geographic obstacles all inhibit the creation and integration of affordable housing, it is primarily a cultural issue that resides at the heart of the problem. If its residents do not make efforts to overturn this key cultural barrier, NJ will continue to experience the same legislative difficulty it has over the past few decades on its journey to eradicate exclusionary zoning, regardless of where and how those battles are fought.
To fully understand the threat this cultural barrier poses to the progress of affordable housing, one must return to the historical origins of New Jersey’s zoning policies. The Mount Laurel Doctrine was created because Ethel R. Lawrence, a then-50-year-old woman who had lived in Mount Laurel for the majority of her life, filed a class action lawsuit against the township over their exclusionary zoning practices. Not only were the beloved members of her community being forced to move out due to a lack of affordable housing, racist and discriminatory beliefs held by certain residents towards her and other African-Americans further threatened their safety. In response, Lawrence began a civil rights battle that would eventually culminate in the 1975 Mount Laurel Doctrine as well as NJ’s 1985 Fair Housing Act. For her efforts, she is hailed today as the “Rosa Parks of affordable housing.”
The exclusionary sentiments Ethel R. Lawrence fought against thirty years ago still persist today, and are now often described under the umbrella term NIMBY (not in my back yard). First popularized in the early 1980s, the acronym characterizes residents that are opposed to real estate development in their geographic proximity for a variety of economic, social, and cultural reasons. Many proponents of NIMBY believe (rather irrationally, according to basic supply and demand) that constructing more affordable housing will drive up homeownership rental prices, and that increased socioeconomic diversity is detrimental to their quality of life.
These incorrect beliefs stem from a misunderstanding of who truly benefits from the supply of affordable housing. New Jersey is the 7th most expensive state to live in, has the 6th highest median home price in the country, and ranks 9th highest in Gini index, a measure of income inequality across a region. In these harsh homeownership conditions, the target audience of affordable housing often includes community workers such as policemen and firefighters, or secretaries/teachers at the local elementary school. These prospective residents are not “undesirables” who contribute to increased crime rates, increased property tax rates, or decreased economic opportunity. They are simply seeking a place to come home after work that is within their budget. Unfortunately for them, the current status quo is one in which pervasive protectionist myths continue to bleed into existing communities. These sentiments then manifest into economic and political barriers that directly inhibit lasting legislative change. Without proper funding from financial institutions and independent investors, without politicians who are willing to hear the voices of those beyond simply their primary voting bloc, and without a conscious effort by residents themselves to dispel these misconceptions from the ground up, NJ policymakers will continue to experience many of the same structural obstacles to affordable housing they have since the Mount Laurel Doctrine’s conception.
So where does this leave us today? New Jersey’s Third Round of affordable housing, which began in 1999, has been largely ineffective since 2015. Since then, housing matters have almost entirely resided in the court system. This legalistic setting has meant that any progress is significant, but also painstakingly slow. The upcoming Fourth Round is scheduled to begin on July 1st, 2025, and could signify a new landscape of affordable housing policy making, but only if NJ residents make it so. Organizations such as the HCDNNJ and Community Heart & Soul are already making great strides in taking a proactive stance against exclusionary zoning, and a true dissipation of the cultural resistance NJ has around affordable housing must come from the ground up. Education to produce a more open-minded attitude towards the types of homes and homeowners is necessary to reach our policymakers and ultimately the legislature. Getting involved in local issues, speaking with members of different communities, and connecting with stakeholders makes it clear that a single-family home with a backyard and two cars parked in the driveway is not the only housing unit that belongs in NJ. In Philadelphia and Boston for example, people live in row homes and triple-deckers, respectively. There is no reason that these creative forms of housing cannot be implemented in NJ as well, other than a stubborn adhesion to keeping communities the way they are that continues to serve as a roadblock to the change our state desperately needs.
It is in times like these that it is helpful to return to the emotional truths behind affordable housing present even in Ethel R. Lawrence’s era. She fought for democratic ideals: that people should get to choose where they live, and that we shouldn’t be able to segregate our society based on race nor wealth. Housing is a human right, and it is only through a grassroots philosophy that communities can uphold this right for those who are currently being deprived of it.
Submitted by
Steven Chen