Opinion ID: 1901249
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Subsidies

Text: Because the kinds of lower income housing subsidies available are subject to change  and have in fact changed often  it is more important to establish the municipality's general Mount Laurel obligation concerning subsidies than its required role as to any particular existing subsidy. The importance of defining that obligation may depend at any particular time on the then extent and impact of available subsidies; if anything, the quantity of housing subsidies varies even more than the kind. For example, the amount of lower income housing subsidies now available is substantially less than several years ago, and there is no indication that subsidies for lower income housing construction are likely to increase in the near future. They are, nevertheless, apparently a permanent part of the housing scene; the long-term importance of defining the municipality's Mount Laurel obligation in relation to such subsidies is that the construction of lower income housing is practically impossible without some kind of governmental subsidy. While Mount Laurel I did not come to grips with this issue, its clear import was that the Court at that time expected Mount Laurel, in addition to adopting appropriate zoning ordinance amendments, to take whatever additional action encouraging the fulfillment of its fair share of the regional need for low and moderate income housing [as might be] necessary and advisable. 67 N.J. at 192. The Court noted that Mount Laurel  at the least  had a moral obligation to provide lower income housing through a local housing agency. Simply facilitating subsidies granted by other levels of government is municipal action of a significantly lesser dimension, well within that contemplated by this Court when it noted that [s]hould Mount Laurel not perform as we expect, further judicial action may be sought. Id. at 192. The Court had previously recognized the necessity for such subsidies and optimistically stated its expectation that housing would become a reality through private or public enterprises, or both. Id. at 188 n. 21. Whatever the Court may have meant then, Madison made it clear that not only was public housing a moral obligation at most (rather than at least), but that some devices  which may in fact be absolutely essential if federal or state subsidies are to be forthcoming  must be summarily rejected, referring to tax concessions, among other devices. Oakwood v. Madison, 72 N.J. at 546. We were not, however, directly faced in Madison with the extent of a municipality's obligation, if any, to facilitate lower income housing subsidies available from other levels of government. The implication of the observation that lower income housing cannot be built without subsidies is that if the Mount Laurel principle requires municipalities to provide a realistic opportunity for such housing through their land use regulations but leaves them free to prevent subsidies through non-action, that obligation is a charade. Mount Laurel was never intended to produce the perfect model of a just zoning ordinance; it was intended to provide a realistic opportunity for the construction of lower income housing. We do not suggest that a municipality would be required to create a housing authority to meet its Mount Laurel obligation. We do, however, expect municipal officials in appropriate cases to do more than pass land use regulations conforming to Mount Laurel I. Where appropriate, municipalities should provide a realistic opportunity for housing through other municipal action inextricably related to land use regulations. On occasion, what is needed to obtain a subsidy may be as simple as a resolution of need stating that there is a need for moderate income housing in the municipality. N.J.S.A. 55:14J-6(b). In addition to the resolution of need, the most important federal program for providing lower income housing subsidies (the section 8 low and moderate income housing program; 42 U.S.C. § 1437f (1982 Supp.)) requires in New Jersey, as a practical matter, that the municipality grant tax abatements to developers. See N.J.S.A. 55:14J-8(f). [27] In evaluating the obligation that the municipality might be required to undertake to make a federal or state subsidy available to a lower income `housing developer, the fact that some financial detriment may be incurred is not dispositive. Satisfaction of the Mount Laurel obligation imposes many financial obligations on municipalities, some of which are potentially substantial. By contrast, a tax abatement for a low or moderate income housing project will have only a minimal effect on the public fisc. Thus viewed, the asserted fiscal reasons justifying the failure to provide a tax abatement may be nothing more than a red herring. The direct and immediate financial impact of a tax abatement agreement between the municipality and the developer may be unimportant when compared with increases in municipal and school district costs caused by the advent of lower income housing. The trial court in a Mount Laurel case, therefore, shall have the power to require a municipality to cooperate in good faith with a developer's attempt to obtain a subsidy and to require that a tax abatement be granted for that purpose pursuant to applicable New Jersey statutes where that abatement does not conflict with other municipal interests of greater importance.