The ruling rejects an argument by a consultant for more than 280 towns in New Jersey over how affordable units are calcuated
NEW BRUNSWICK -- A ruling that trashes a study that hundreds of New Jersey towns are using to determine how many affordable units they must legally provide will likely resonate in courtrooms across the state, housing experts say.
More than 280 municipalities are relying on the recommendations of Econsult Solutions to determine their affordable housing obligations but a Superior Court Judge in Middlesex County last month rejected those findings as "inconsistent with common sense" at times.
In siding with housing advocates to determine how many low- and moderate-income units South Brunswick has to provide, Judge Douglas Wolfson said Econsult relied on methods that were designed to reduce the township's obligation.
After the New Jersey Supreme Court last year sought to clarify how towns can address their affordable housing requirements, 286 towns collectively hired Econsult to conduct a fair housing study throughout the state.
That study had its first major test when South Brunswick, rather than settle with housing advocates, took the matter to court.
Some N.J. towns call McMansions affordable housing | Editorial
The Econsult plan relied, in part, on calling homes that sold for between $350,000 and $500,000 "affordable" for low- and moderate-income buyers if the buyers put up less than a 20-percent downpayment, didn't pay principal on their mortgage, had a 2-percent mortgage interest rate and didn't have homeowners' insurance.
But Wolfson said that method of calculation was not credible.
Kevin Walsh, executive director of the advocacy group Fair Share Housing Center, said the ruling may only affect Middlesex County, but other judges will reference it in future decisions.
While Wolfson did not label the type of housing described as affordable in Econsult's report, Fair Share Housing called them "McMansions.'
"Judge Wolfson's decision shows that towns which rely on Econsult's flawed study will see their arguments rejected by the courts. It relies on outlandish claims that are detached from the reality of the New Jersey housing market, such as calling homes 'affordable' to lower-income families that cost up to a half million dollars," Walsh said. "This ruling is an important step forward in the fight for fair housing in New Jersey, and we expect other judges throughout the state to reject these deeply flawed arguments."
Michael Cerra, assistant executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities, said Fair Share Housing representatives are "overstating" the implications of the ruling when they say it will prompt more towns to settle their cases rather than take their challenges to court.
"Towns may or may not settle, but I don't know if it's going to be as a result of this decision," Cerra said.
The case still may be appealed, which could affect the weight of Wolfson's ruling, he said.
MaryAnn Spoto may be reached at mspoto@njadvancemedia.com. Follow her on Twitter @MaryAnnSpoto. Find NJ.com on Facebook.