Election 2024: Candidates Talk Affordable Housing

Scarcity of affordable housing in Montclair is not new, but it’s been exacerbated by rising rents and housing prices, contributing to what’s being called an affordable housing crisis. There are long waitlists for affordable housing in Montclair, and long wait times — over two years.

According to the Township, some 785 affordable housing units created through a variety of programs that make up Montclair’s affordable housing inventory. That number would go up with the Lackawanna Plaza redevelopment, which is expected to bring more affordable housing to the Township – 20% of 300 units. The project, facing litigation, is years away from becoming a reality.

In February 2023, Montclair took a step toward more affordable housing options by passing an Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) ordinance. It permits homeowners to create an additional living space on their property, either attached or as a separate, smaller structure. ADUs can offer both an affordable housing option and an income stream to homeowners who want age in place by providing rental income.

Montclair Local readers have been sending in questions for the candidates. We asked the candidates to answer this question about affordable housing below, in 250 words or less.

Q. This month, Maplewood announced it would seek developers for housing with at least 50% affordable units. Is this something you would support in Montclair? If so, how would you make this happen? If not, how else do you plan to address the need for affordable housing?

MAYOR

Christina Thomas

Montclair’s affordable housing crisis is well documented, as is New Jersey’s.  Over the past decades, community engagement and changes to legal requirements have prioritized affordable housing initiatives. Maplewood invited non-profit and for-profit developers to express their interest (issued a Request for Expression of Interest, or RFEI) in development with at least 50% affordable units. In theory, turning a single family home into a two family home where half was rented or sold as an affordable unit might qualify. Developers could knock down one house and build three (as on Park Street), or decide to turn green space into a six story apartment building. The request was broad.

There is no real harm in Montclair issuing a RFEI specifically finding out if, how and where there is interest in development with at least 50% affordable units, and who will do it.  If there is interest, the next step would be an RFP (Request for Proposals), outlining terms for redevelopment plans.  

Any development must benefit the community and its citizens across multiple dimensions (sustainability, economically, financially, responsibly, socially, environmentally, etc.). Clear communication; stakeholder inclusion from the beginning; and adherence to rules and laws can help navigate potential challenges and avoid prolonged legal disputes. By fostering transparency and creativity, Montclair can pursue solutions that meet its housing needs while garnering broad support.  For every project, asking “Who benefits?” ensures alignment with Montclair’s goals. If the answer is “Montclair and its citizens,” and developer(s) are willing to do it, thoughtful consideration is appropriate.

Renee Baskerville

Montclair needs production and protection of safe, secure, affordable housing given our affordability crisis. In deciding how best to address the need for affordable housing, I would guide stakeholder discussions with the question: “What would it take to remake our neighborhoods to move ‘Together Montclair,’ integrated by race, color, religion, sex,  sexual orientation, gender identification, income, disability, senior status, family status, and military status; and to guarantee all Montclairions an opportunity to rent or buy a residence,  secure a mortgage, and reside in any Ward in the Township, and live a secure existence.

I would encourage a more strategic approach to preserving existing subsidized and “naturally occurring” affordable units, and aggressive anti-displacement measures that will keep existing low-income renters and homeowners and seniors who have grown to season in Montclair, in place, in the midst of intense market pressures.

I would ask stakeholders to consider the possibility of a Montclair Preservation Network (MoPreN) comprised of diverse representatives from Montclair housing agencies, HUD, community development, faith-based, those representing other vulnerable populations, affordable developers, landlords and tenants. MoPreN would provide recommendations to the Housing Commission of the most effective, efficient approaches for ensuring affordable housing amid naturally occurring housing transitions, and ensuring that market-rate housing is kept affordable and also in good repair. Besides tax abatements and exemptions, MoPreN could also consider ideas we have tossed around without fully fleshing out, like incentivizing Montclair frontline workers to live in town and facilitating them doing so (e.g. public safety employees, education professionals).  

AT LARGE

Susan Shin Andersen

Exploring ways to provide diverse housing options for Montclair residents across all wards is an issue of importance to me and in my opinion, important in enhancing and preserving the diversity of Montclair. Although I would like to examine more data and/or a survey, based on conversations with residents so far, residents see the benefits of expanding stock of diverse types of housing (for purchase and rental) that is also affordable – including to low and moderate income residents. These include seniors on a fixed income who wish to age in place, those who need supportive housing, and younger post-college residents just starting out. 

I support initiatives to identify developers who are committed to including in their residential developments a higher percentage of affordable units. We may initiate conversations about possible re-zoning for multi-household residential buildings. We can consider amending the affordable housing ordinance to increase the percentage of low and moderate income rental units (for example) required of residential developers. If so, however, I think there may need to be economic incentives for the developer. There may be developers who specifically seek to create affordable units, so we should be open to potential partnerships, as long as the key goal is to ensure that all benefits and risks/costs to Montclair as a whole are weighed through data, reports, and resident input, and informed decisions are made. I do not think we will be able to fully address the need for affordable housing, but we should do what we can so current residents have more options.

Carmel Loughman

No. But I reject the premise of the question. A simple “yes’ or “no” response minimizes the complexity of the affordable housing issue.  Affordable housing is a function of developer funding to build or rehab, site availability, tax impact on town finances, fairness to other residents who pick up the costs generated by affordable housing, etc. There has been limited leadership from town government on affordable housing. Montclair looks at housing issues piecemeal without an overall unifying vision on what we want for Montclair.

We have a Housing Commission, a Rent Control Board, a Zoning Board, an Environmental Commission, a Section 8 officer, financial consultants who assist in financial calculations, a Town Council that wants 20% affordable and 10% workforce housing in new development, a Planning Board that drafts the Master Plan and recommends zoning laws, and a Town Planner who, among other tasks, works with developers on land use applications.  Very importantly, the state of NJ has just enacted legislation that will calculate for each town its numerical obligation to provide affordable housing.  So, with all this complexity,  I believe one of the new councilors should adopt the role of  “Housing Czar”  and be the specialist who leads all areas of housing in Montclair because right now it seems these areas all operate in their own silos. Working with these groups, and especially the community, a Housing Czar could help create and articulate Montclair’s housing vision.

Robert Russo

Affordable housing has been defined differently over the years,  with seniors being impacted the most by not being able to stay in Montclair,  due to high rents for apartments and taxes on their older homes, continuing to rise beyond their incomes.  So we capped the rent increases at 2.5% for seniors in apartments and have been trying to get the State to reduce our tax burden from inadequate and unfair school aid.  A 30% affordable unit requirement is what I support for all future developments, with a set-aside for more senior and workforce housing units, as Councilman Cummings and I advocated, but was rejected during recent voting on the Lackawanna plan.  

We must ensure that our growing population of “modern elders” can remain and age in place in Montclair, and that working families can rent and purchase moderately priced homes in the future.  Besides requiring affordable units in all developments, we need to save taxpayers from escalating costs of our local government by freezing all spending on outside law firms, cutting back on management consultants and redundant additional staffing to administer our government.   I have identified hundreds of thousands of dollars in unnecessary costs which can be saved. With a “PILOTS for Schools” requirement we can hopefully reduce the BOE budget burden and avoid future cuts and increased taxes for education.  Our public schools deserve the promised federal “IDEA” funding for special ed students which has never been realized, and would make living in Montclair more affordable for all! 

FIRST WARD

Erik D’Amato

I reached out to Victor DeLuca, the member of the Maplewood Township Committee who is leading the proposal, and from what he told me, it seems like a very worthwhile exercise aimed at discovering what a town needs to do to significantly increase the number of affordable units in a private development.

Something that needs more discussion in Montclair is a new state law (A-4/S-50) that may result in the Township being given a numerical target for new affordable units. I think Montclair and other municipalities should get creative in trying to hit those targets, or otherwise add affordable units in a way that limits the burdens on taxpayers and residents.

So let’s try to be inventive, while also being smart. DeLuca said that Maplewood had decided that 50% affordable seemed like a right number to justify such a program, while mixed-income buildings were preferable, which sounds right to me. But Maplewood’s use of non-cash preferences like expedited building inspections and permits are less attractive to me, since homeowners here often face months-long delays in getting building permits. We should look carefully at such tradeoffs before making decisions. Either way, I think this is a good effort, and I look forward to seeing what response our friends in Maplewood get after the deadline for expressions of interest, which coincidentally is the day after our election here.

Shivaun Gaines

No, it seems like Montclair might need a different approach tailored to its specific circumstances. Crafting a comprehensive affordable housing plan with a clear vision and direction is indeed essential. While promoting affordable housing is crucial for ensuring diverse and inclusive communities, implementing a similar initiative would require careful planning and consideration of local needs and resources. 

SECOND WARD

Ilmar Vanderer

If every new development in Montclair has a ratio of 20% “affordable” housing versus 80% “unaffordable” housing, then it is no wonder that growth of new affordable housing does not keep pace with growth of new unaffordable housing. Equalizing the ratios between affordable and unaffordable is the only tangible hope for closing, or at least narrowing, the gap. It should go without saying that this must be supported in Montclair.

Using Maplewood’s model as a prototype, Montclair also might consider assisting developers with expedited construction reviews and inspections, supportive municipal zoning and regulatory changes, property tax incentives, and identification of potential building and rehabilitation sites, including within redevelopment areas.

Additionally, Montclair should initiate a holistic, comprehensive, town-wide housing market assessment which incorporates neighborhood-level data on income, costs, and taxes with the goal of developing strategic policy guidelines for encouraging, incentivizing, and fast-tracking community-wide affordable housing development.

Eileen Birmingham

Affordable housing is a complex topic. Maplewood provides an example that might stimulate certain groups or people to develop affordable housing, particularly for rehabilitation of existing buildings. Note: Maplewood maintains a 15% set aside for most development projects, compared to 20% in Montclair. In Montclair, it’s possible that with incentives, non-profit developers might be encouraged to rehabilitate housing. There are several Montclair churches or nonprofits that own property who might be interested in turning it into affordable housing. If so, can we develop a program that might assist them in doing this? We should look at things that encourage development of small-scale affordable housing projects. 

Governor Murphy recently signed a new affordable housing law; communities will have their fair share units recalculated. Montclair is one of the few communities in the state that has consistently met its fair share in prior rounds, while other communities have pushed back over many years. Towns that meet their fair share should be eligible for things like low interest loans to meet the infrastructure needs of providing more housing. As it is now, the incentives are for towns not to build. This results in continued unmet need. Montclair embraced construction of affordable housing over 50 years ago, when other towns did not. We now must acknowledge that these buildings need to be maintained and repaired. We should be careful about making sure that happens. A key to keeping housing affordable is to acknowledge our taxes are high already and many people cannot afford higher.  

THIRD WARD

Rahum Williams

Yes, I would support an initiative that spurred residential development with at least 50% affordable housing. However, I am conscious of overdevelopment in certain parts of town, principally the 3^rd and 4^th Wards. I will work with the rest of the council to make sure that all of the wards share in our commitment towards developing affordable housing and that Montclair maintains an equitable deal with the respective developers so the arrangement is mutually beneficial.

Roddy Moore

I strongly support increasing affordable housing in Montclair, similar to Maplewood’s recent announcement. My extensive experience structuring deals and managing multi-billion-dollar portfolios of commercial real estate loans equips me uniquely for this challenge. One effective method could be utilizing Montclair’s AAA credit rating to secure low-cost financing, potentially through municipal bonds tailored to support affordable housing developments. This is a more taxpayer-centric solution compared to tax cuts via PILOT programs. Montclair should also act as a central hub, connecting developers with federal and state resources and fostering essential partnerships with relevant stakeholders. Engaging our community to ensure these developments are empathetic to their concerns and meet their needs, and addressing potential zoning and regulatory challenges head-on will be key to our success. By implementing these strategies, we can make a meaningful impact on our community’s accessibility and inclusivity. My expertise in real estate finance sets me apart from the field and provides a strong foundation to participate in these initiatives effectively.

However, it’s important we not only support affordability and diversity in terms of renting but also in terms of owning. Montclair can’t have lasting diversity without diverse ownership. The biggest roadblock to maintaining diverse ownership and affordability in my opinion is Montclair’s notoriously high property tax burden. If this is something we genuinely want to improve, then we have to be honest about the drivers of that burden’s stickiness and be willing to take a long-term, strategic approach to budgeting to chip away at this challenge over time.

Wendy Tiburcio

Yes, I support prioritizing affordable housing in Montclair, akin to Maplewood’s initiative. Collaborating with developers to build development with a significant portion of affordable housing would require careful planning, negotiation, and incentivization.

• First, we would need to establish clear goals and develop a comprehensive plan aligned with our inclusionary zoning regulations and affordable housing policies. Factors such as our existing infrastructure, impact to residents, and proximity to public transportation and amenities need to be considered.
• In terms of engaging a developer, I would recommend a proactive approach like Maplewood’s, and solicit proposals through a request for proposals (RFP) process, understanding the town would need to offer technical and financial support/incentives to make the development feasible for the developer. 
• We also need to take the appropriate steps – whether through deed restrictions, regulatory agreements or other methods – to ensure the affordable housing units remain affordable over the long term and maintain affordability for future generations.

Throughout this process, it’s imperative that we engage with our community and stakeholders to gather input, address concerns, and ensure that the development aligns with the needs and priorities of residents. By actively soliciting and attentively listening to the concerns and perspectives of our constituents, we can ensure that our efforts are not only responsive to the needs of the community but also reflective of its values and priorities.

FOURTH WARD

Zina Floyd

The 4th Ward’s significant amount of affordable housing uniquely positions us to lead discussions on this critical issue. I am committed to actively engaging both homeowners and renters from the 4th Ward. Their input is essential in crafting a sustainable vision for affordable housing in Montclair’s future. Understanding the current landscape and long-term sustainability of our existing properties will be my initial step.

Affordable housing is vital for maintaining the vibrancy and diversity of our community, ensuring that all residents have opportunities to live and thrive. After assessing our current housing solutions, we can consider various strategies to support our approach. This could include offering incentives for developers/landlords such as tax abatements or expedited permitting processes, and identifying suitable public land for future affordable housing projects. Additionally, revising zoning laws to better support and encourage affordable housing will be crucial.

Moreover, the overall quality of life and health of our community is important.  Implementing community beautification initiatives will not only boost mental well-being but also bring environmental benefits. The introduction of more green spaces, such as trees and flower gardens, promotes healthier living conditions.

Ensuring that no resident fears being priced out of Montclair is a priority.  The approach to affordable housing should reflect our commitment to unity and inclusivity, not separation. By fostering a community built on solidarity, we can ensure that Montclair remains a welcoming place for everyone.

Patricia Hurt

I would definitely support a plan similar to the Maplewood affordable plan. In order to proceed with such a plan, developers would be looking for many concessions such as tax breaks to make the idea attractive. 

Aminah Toler

The initiatives taken by Maplewood to guarantee that at least 50% of housing units are affordable are commendable. It would be advantageous for Montclair to adopt a similar approach, ensuring that a minimum of 50% is agreed upon with developers, while also considering the state median income guidelines instead of the county’s role of coordination & support. Our current redevelopment plan is offering 20% affordable housing which is the minimum required by the state. However our current town council could have negotiated for 30% or even 40% to ensure more affordable housing units were available. Councilor Cummings suggested removing workforce housing units from the current Lackawanna Redevelopment Plan and include senior and/or veteran units, which is a more viable option.  

In March, 2024, Governor Phil Murphy recently approved groundbreaking affordable housing legislation to assist towns in fulfilling their affordable housing responsibilities, furthering his administration’s commitment to establishing a more equitable, affordable state for all New Jersey residents. This legislation introduces a new framework for municipalities to comply with their “Mount Laurel affordable housing” requirements, replacing the current court-based process. This bill establishes a formula to assist towns in determining the required number of units to fulfill their constitutional requirement for low and moderate income families.  A well-balanced mandate that doesn’t burden taxpayers is essential.

Related