Corzine’s 100,000 Low Income Housing Units: Another Nail in New Jersey’s Coffin

Ok, looked on page 17 and the list wasn't there, so I printed the report and having read most of it, most of programs listed are variations of what I worked with in Michigan at one point. While the supportive housing was one aspect of the report, it seems to be the crux of your argument.

It's important to note that those you leave off the list (that's actually on page 15) are survivors of domestic violence, disabled veterans, and high functioning developmentally disabled people. What supportive housing provides is the opportunity for those who can live independently, with a little help, to have a place to call their own at a fraction of the cost of institutionalization.

With more than 1 in 100 births today in NJ having autism, the State needs to start planning for when those kids' parents are dead. The highest functioning will more than likely be fine with jobs and housing, however the moderate to low functioning folks are going to need a place to live or they may become wards of the state.

When the populations you're using stigma to scare people with have the proper support services in place, they too are usually solid citizens once their housing situation is stabilized. In order to receive the funding to build or convert the units, these services must be in place before anything happens.

Granted, you'll have a bad seed every now and again, but in the units we developed I think we evicted two families in two years for not living up to their end of the support service plans. That was less than 1% of the units managed. The same as you argued against gun laws after VT, I'd argue you can't scrap an entire program because of one bad seed.

So that's the supportive aspect, however there's a whole host of programs looking at dealing with the at risk of homelessness population. Basically, that means anybody paying more than 30% of their gross household income for rent/mortgage, electric, gas, water/sewer, etc. Property taxes would be in here, too. Now, if/when your daughters are fortunate enough to graduate college and get an entry level job, let's say they make $40,000 to start. That means they top out at $1000 combined expenses. That's a pretty tough set-up to find in North Jersey, not impossible, but pretty tough.

Now, I'm against using eminent domain abuse to achieve these unit construction goals, however many of the funding sources and variations can achieve the goal largely through private investment. You noted at your YR speech that in a town like Bogota you're fully developed. Well, several of the programs would encourage land owners through tax credits and rental gap coverage to convert their existing units to fit the "affordable housing" label. They lose nothing, and in many cases your community gains a citizen whose only issue is that they don't make enough to afford rent.

There are also favorable mortgage programs that encourage redevelopment by providing below market mortgages, cost gap financing and additional tax-credits to developers for mixed income redevelopment. These are extremely helpful programs for seniors and young families.

I've gone on for too long I suppose. I'd be more than happy to continue this conversation off line. I'd just ask you to stop using NIMBY scare tactics based on stigma to make your case.

There's a lot of issues, and taxes are a huge problem. I know a number of folks who could buy a house, but can't reasonably afford the taxes on top of the mortgage, insurance and utilities. A buddy of mine wanted to buy his parent's house, but the $14K a year property tax bill put it out of reach. Because people like him are renting, instead of owning, it forces up rent. People on fixed incomes find themselves especially at risk with tax increases.

However, supporting supportive housing should lower taxes because it stabilizes at risk populations and those who can't help the situation they're in. Instead of using full time institutionalization or only getting medical care when in crisis, they're covered. A visit from a nurse once a day or week costs much less than a full time group home. The stability then provides the opportunity to hold a job and contribute more to the local community.

At least the programs I was involved with, the government was actually involved very little once the process gets going. While they acted as a compliance guide, provision of services was handled by non-profits, including faith-based groups, and private interests bought the tax credits to finance the construction.

The County DCH had to develop the treatment plans for the developmentally disabled, but that was pretty much it. They'd be doing that anyway, with or without supportive housing. All other services were handled by non-profits instead of county agencies, and the Memorandum of Understanding explaining who was doing what, without duplication, had to be in place before a single tax credit dollar became available.

The program really is a step in the right direction, and was born from the lessons learned from the mistakes Mayor Lonegan highlighted.

Corzine's initiatives may be worse than nothing. Rather than create boondoggles with the much potential for graft, the better way to help the poor is with vouchers which give them some choices and control over their lives instead of pure dependency.

More classic scare tactics from Mr. Lonegan. This is just the kind of race baiting subtext we can expect in a situation like this. But let's set aside the politics of fear and "NIMBY" for a moment. Where are working class folks supposed to live in this state with the rising cost of real estate and homes in NJ? Looking around here in my home county of Hudson, EVERYTHING being built is Luxury housing. Where is the schoolteacher just starting out supposed to live? The restaurant worker? The non-profit employee? Something needs to be done to encourage more development at the level that a non-Financial Industry/Web Millionaire can afford.

(and I'm not sure if Mayor Lonegan or politicsnj.com picked it out) is COMPLETELY false.

Under the HOPE VI program started under the Clinton Administration (and continued by President Bush), virtually all of the horrible high-rises have been torn down, in New Jersey and around the country. They are being replaced by townhouse-type housing. Yes, you can tell not quite as much money went into them as private-sector townhouses, but in general they are very attractive houses (examples can be seen in my hometown of New Brunswick along George Street and Route 18 -- replacing horrible high-rises like those in the stereotypical picture -- and in Elizabeth in Elizabethport) and seem to have far fewer social problems, given the poverty level of the residents, than the old horrible high-rises.

As for New Jersey's neighbors, Philadelphia -- which had by many counts the worst public housing in the country -- has knocked down ALL its high-rises and even decrepit low-rises and virtually rebuilt its entire public housing stock, winning architectural awards galore in the process.

THIS is what Gov. Corzine is talking about.

And, by the way, though I know Mayor Lonegan and many others oppose it, lest we forget there is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT from the Mount Laurel decisions for suburbs to build low-income housing. But at least today's low-income housing blends in seamlessly with Jersey's suburban townhouse landscape, rather than literally sticking out like a sore thumb like the old high-rises.

the disabled veterans helped by at least some of this proposal appreciate your support.