Opinion ID: 2365370
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mount Laurel and Affordable Housing Litigation

Text: In 1975, this Court decided Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Mount Laurel Township, 67 N.J. 151, 336 A. 2d 713, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 808, 96 S.Ct. 18, 46 L.Ed. 2d 28 (1975) ( Mount Laurel I ). In that opinion, we held that developing municipalities are obligated under our State Constitution to provide a realistic opportunity for the development of low and moderate income housing. [1] Id. at 174, 187, 336 A. 2d 713. Two years later, the Court created the builder's remedy as an incentive for the institution of socially beneficial but costly litigation such as ... Mount Laurel.Oakwood at Madison v. Township of Madison, 72 N.J. 481, 550-51, 371 A. 2d 1192 (1977). The builder's remedy permitted builders to seek court approval for construction of the housing project they proposed to the township prior to or during the pendency of the action, pursuant to plans which, as they originally represented, will guarantee the allocation of at least 20% of the units to low or moderate income families. [ Id. at 551, 371 A. 2d 1192 (footnote omitted).] Despite Mount Laurel I and the subsequent creation of the builder's remedy, the years that followed saw many municipalities fail[ing] to comply with the clear mandate of Mt. Laurel I. Holmdel Builders Ass'n v. Township of Holmdel, 121 N.J. 550, 555, 583 A. 2d 277 (1990). Thus, in Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Mount Laurel Township, 92 N.J. 158, 456 A. 2d 390 (1983) ( Mount Laurel II ), [w]e clarified and reaffirmed the constitutional mandate set forth in Mt. Laurel I, imposing an affirmative obligation on every municipality to provide its fair share of affordable housing. Holmdel, supra, 121 N.J. at 555,583 A. 2d 277 (citing Mount Laurel II, supra, 92 N.J. 158, 456 A. 2d 390). Most relevant to the instant matter, the Court also clarified the conditions under which a builder's remedy may be granted. We began by acknowledging that [b]uilder's remedies have been one of many controversial aspects of the Mount Laurel doctrine. Mount Laurel II, supra, 92 N.J. at 279, 456 A. 2d 390. Notwithstanding that controversy, however, we found that [e]xperience ... has demonstrated to us that builder's remedies must be made more readily available to achieve compliance with Mount Laurel. Ibid. Yet, because of concerns about land use planning, we urged the trial courts when formulating a builder's remedy to make as much use as ... [possible] of the [municipal] planning board's expertise and experience so that the proposed project is suitable for the municipality. Id. at 279-80, 456 A. 2d 390. We also cautioned that [t]rial courts should guard the public interest carefully to be sure that plaintiff-developers do not abuse the Mount Laurel doctrine. Id. at 281, 456 A. 2d 390.