Opinion ID: 2365726
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: limited agreement with majority

Text: I concur in the majority holding that the 1973 Madison Township zoning ordinance is invalid. Contrary to the constitutional precepts of Southern Burlington Cty. NAACP v. Mt. Laurel Tp., 67 N.J. 151 (1975), appeal dismissed and cert. den. 423 U.S. 808, 96 S.Ct. 18, 46 L.Ed. 2d 28 (1975) (hereinafter Mt. Laurel ), the instant ordinance fails to make realistically possible the opportunity for an appropriate variety and choice of housing for all categories of people who desire to live there, particularly persons of low and moderate income. In this opinion for the Court, Judge Conford details the ways in which the Madison Township ordinance falls short of the obligation under Mt. Laurel. The township has failed to zone adequate amounts of vacant and developable land for multi-family housing and for homes on very small lots, and has imposed undue cost-generating features which raise the rental or purchase price of new housing units above levels affordable by lower income families. Consequently, the majority concludes that the township has failed to foster or promote the construction of new, least-cost housing. I am in substantial accord with these findings. I also agree with the majority that [c]onsiderations bearing upon the public interest, justice to plaintiffs and efficient judicial administration require immediate, specific relief and judicial supervision of all remedial efforts. Unquestionably, it is time that we begin to steer our energies toward good faith implementation of established principles. I differ with the majority, however, as to the nature and scope of judicial remedies made available for the trial court during the remedial stages of the litigation. In cases of this nature, I conceive that powerful judicial antidotes may become necessary to eradicate the evils of exclusionary zoning. For this reason, I would proceed less gingerly than the majority; I would go further and faster in outlining for the trial judge the full arsenal of judicial weaponry available for this purpose. I will first analyze the need for stronger, more effective judicial relief in exclusionary zoning cases and then enumerate the various remedial weapons which are or should be available to the trial judge upon remand.