thumbnail of Special: The Battle Over Mt. Laurel; Frontpage New Jersey
Transcript
Hide -
<v Michael Aaron>Welcome to a special edition of Front Page, New Jersey. <v Michael Aaron>I'm Michael Aaron. The Mount Laurel housing issue was one of the most complicated we have <v Michael Aaron>in New Jersey and one of the most interesting on this program in the space of half an <v Michael Aaron>hour. We're going to try to lay it out for you. <v Michael Aaron>We'll show you how it began. What's at stake? <v Michael Aaron>We'll visit a town where it's already very far along. <v Michael Aaron>And along the way we'll hear from some people who are pretty passionate about the whole <v Michael Aaron>thing. So here it is. <v Michael Aaron>The battle over Mt. Laurel. <v Speaker>You will see that the plaintiffs are asking this court to devise a remedy <v Speaker>for over well over 50 percent. <v Speaker>As far reaching the Mt. Laurel Decision appears to be. <v Speaker>Middletown 88 hundred than I have in stock. <v Speaker>[voices talk over one another]
<v Speaker>Cranbury, an historic village in the center of New Jersey, surrounded by farmland. <v Speaker>At present, there are 750 homes here under the Supreme Court's Mt. <v Speaker>Laurel 2 ruling. There could be 4000 more by 1990. <v Betty Wagner>This is mind boggling. Little town like this with only seven hundred and fifty <v Betty Wagner>houses suddenly being increased to over 4000 units. <v Alan Danser>The impact on the farmland and the historic district, and <v Alan Danser>the municipal government and the school system would be tremendous. <v William Moran>In addition to that, we have the cost of expanding the sewer system. <v William Moran>The cost of expanding the water system and the cost of providing the additional <v William Moran>infrastructure. <v Speaker>Four developers are suing Cranbury for the right to build all those houses on the <v Speaker>farmland outside town. <v Speaker>A few farmers want it to happen. <v Speaker>They could get rich from selling their land. <v Edward "Buss" Simonson>Cranbury is a historic area. They want to keep Cranbury just like it's been in the last <v Edward "Buss" Simonson>50 years. They didn't want anything to come into Cranbury, whether it's the rateable or
<v Edward "Buss" Simonson>whether it's housing or period, if they want it to come in. <v Betty Wagner>I think that it's important not to destroy something that's been built <v Betty Wagner>up over the years. Our streetscapes are unbelievably <v Betty Wagner>compatible with our village, and when we were made a national historic <v Betty Wagner>district, it was stated that we are the best preserved 19th century community <v Betty Wagner>in Middlesex County. <v Speaker>What's happening in Cranbury is happening more or less in 87 towns in New Jersey. <v Speaker>They've been sued by developers and face court ordered housing construction. <v Speaker>Forty three hundred new units in Denville, for example. <v Speaker>Fifty eight hundred in Paramus, eleven thousand in Holmdel, thirty three <v Speaker>hundred and Moorestown. Some towns have given in and settled their cases <v Speaker>in others. There's defiance in the air. <v Speaker>This decision is ?inaudible? <v Speaker>We should fight it by doing absolutely nothing and let the supreme court challenge us. <v Speaker>Mount Laurel to a solution for the greedy, not for the needy.
<v Peter Garibaldi>I'll go to jail before I'll surrender my town, to, to the courts, <v Peter Garibaldi>to the judges, to the land moguls and whoever else <v Peter Garibaldi>is attempting to jam this down the throats of the people. <v Ray Bateman>Branchburg is ill equipped to handle what it what has been said. <v Ray Bateman>We have to immediately handle and it's going to be just chaos. <v Speaker>I believe we must act to restore some semblance of order and reason to the current <v Speaker>proceedings. Judges should not be in the position of determining how much <v Speaker>housing is needed, where it should go. <v Michael Aaron>How did we get to this point? Well, it began here in Mount Laurel Township 15 <v Michael Aaron>years ago. Now, Laurel is a sprawling, semi-rural area about 12 miles <v Michael Aaron>from Philadelphia. It was mostly farmland until the 1960s when developers <v Michael Aaron>began to suburbanized the place. <v Speaker>Ethel Lawrence has lived in Mount Laurel all her life. <v Ethel Lawrence>Every time a developer bought a piece of land, somebody was
<v Ethel Lawrence>displaced. So therefore, you know, there just wasn't any affordable housing. <v Ethel Lawrence>And of course, the value went up and up and up. <v Speaker>Mrs. Lawrence was part of a group of Mount Laurel residents that wanted to build housing <v Speaker>they could afford for themselves, for their children. <v Speaker>Mrs. Lawrence has nine children. <v Speaker>The problem was zoning. Traditionally, suburbs are zoned like this one <v Speaker>single family house per acre or half acre. <v Speaker>Many people, however, can only afford housing like this. <v Speaker>Multi-family housing, seven or eight units to the acre. <v Speaker>Carl Bisgaier was fresh out of law school and working in a legal services office in <v Speaker>Camden. <v Speaker>When Mrs. Lawrence's group approached him, there was a <v Speaker>lower income minority community whose roots in Mount Laurel <v Speaker>went back well over 100 years, <v Speaker>who were attempting to provide lower some new lower income housing for themselves. <v Speaker>They were looking for about 30 or 40 units and they were
<v Speaker>told by the municipality that that wouldn't be possible. <v Speaker>At the same time, the township was approving 10000 units <v Speaker>of middle and upper income housing. <v Speaker>In 1971, Bisgaier's Office sued Mount Laurel on behalf of Mrs. Lawrence <v Speaker>the NAACP and others. <v Speaker>We didn't ask Mt. Laurel to build low income housing. <v Speaker>We only asked them to relax the zoning laws they're planning <v Speaker>to allow us the opportunity to build. <v Speaker>The case went to the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1975. <v Speaker>The court did what no other court in the nation had done. <v Speaker>It ruled that restrictive zoning of the sort practiced in Mount Laurel, discriminated <v Speaker>against the poor and thereby violated the state constitution. <v Speaker>Zoning, said the court, is a power delegated to municipalities by the state <v Speaker>and must be used to promote the general welfare, not just the welfare of town residents. <v Speaker>Between 1975 and 1980, the legislature did nothing to help implement <v Speaker>them out. Laurell doctrine. Gov. Brendan Byrne ordered studies of it.
<v Speaker>Meanwhile, developers would sue municipalities for the right to build multi-family <v Speaker>housing under this new doctrine, and the towns would appeal and appeal and appeal. <v Speaker>Six of those appeals came before the High Court again in 1980. <v Speaker>An unprecedented four days of oral argument, followed by two years of deliberation, <v Speaker>led to a unanimous 248 page decision written by Chief Justice Robert <v Speaker>Wilentz. <v Speaker>This court is more firmly committed to the Mount Laurel Doctrine than ever, and we <v Speaker>are determined to make it work. <v Speaker>Mount Laurel 2 said that every town in the growth areas of New Jersey, as designated by <v Speaker>a state government planning map, must take affirmative steps to provide its fair <v Speaker>share of the low and moderate income housing need in its region of the state <v Speaker>to stimulate that and to pay for it. <v Speaker>The court recommended something called the Builders Remedy. <v Speaker>Any builder who successfully challenged the town's zoning ordinance would be entitled to <v Speaker>build for regular housing units for every low cost unit he provided. <v Speaker>The profit from the four would help subsidize the low price of the one.
<v Speaker>It's the builders remedy that threatens Cranbury and the other towns with so many new <v Speaker>homes. <v Speaker>Now, the issue that you're raising in that regard is will this result in the <v Speaker>overpopulation of various misspelt is tremendous unplanned growth <v Speaker>and the resulting devastation of our suburban and rural enclaves <v Speaker>of the middle and upper class. <v Speaker>I think that there is virtually no reasonable concern that anybody <v Speaker>should have that that will happen this Geyer says. <v Speaker>The court took great care in Mount Laurel to to ensure that housing construction would be <v Speaker>well-planned and environmentally sound fiscal year. <v Speaker>Today, as a private attorney and a developer, one of the towns he's suing on behalf <v Speaker>of a client is Cranberry. <v Speaker>Cranberry, he says, is a growing town in a booming region. <v Speaker>The root one card or these are not rural agricultural communities <v Speaker>in the root one car. These are bustling, economically, developing <v Speaker>cadres of great employment in the state of New Jersey.
<v Speaker>We've got some development out here now and there's so much need for help <v Speaker>come moving into the township and there's no place for a lower income people <v Speaker>to live here. <v Speaker>It makes absolutely no sense from a planning point of view to have in the same place <v Speaker>a phenomenally growing industrial commercial Carter. <v Speaker>On the one hand and a rural enclave on the other. <v Speaker>It seems to me that that's a poor reason. <v Speaker>We're a poor excuse for destroying a valuable. <v Speaker>A natural asset and a valuable historical asset. <v Speaker>In a moment, the builders remedy inaction. <v Speaker>It's often said that the real beneficiaries of Mt. <v Speaker>Laurel are the lawyers, and this man is usually included in any such discussion. <v Speaker>He's Henry Hill of Princeton.
<v Speaker>He sues towns on behalf of developers and he's been quite outspoken about how <v Speaker>easy it is. <v Speaker>I once stated actually in a law review article that <v Speaker>municipalities who are faced with Mt. <v Speaker>Laurel litigation are not unlike baby harp seals <v Speaker>during the periodic Canadian massacres. <v Speaker>They can slither and they can squeal, but not for very long. <v Speaker>Al Ferguson, a Newark attorney, has defended a number of towns against Mount Laurel <v Speaker>suits, including one against Henry Hill. <v Speaker>For lawyers it was fun. You got to understand, we had great expert witnesses and they <v Speaker>disagreed. We tried cases. That's what lawyers get paid to do for the town. <v Speaker>It is a nightmare because the town doesn't know what to do. <v Speaker>The town says to us, what do we do to get rid of this town? <v Speaker>He said on more than one occasion, Ferguson, you're through. <v Speaker>As soon as we can get rid of you, you're out of a job. <v Speaker>And I say you're right. <v Speaker>Where Ferguson opposed Hill was Bedminster, a wealthy community of estates and horse
<v Speaker>farms. Today, it's the only place in New Jersey where Mount Laurel housing actually <v Speaker>exists as a result of a builder's remedy. <v Speaker>The only other Mount Laurel housing is a mobile home park in Mount Laurel itself. <v Speaker>Of the twelve hundred eighty seven homes here so far, 260 are set aside for <v Speaker>low and moderate income buyers. <v Speaker>It's called the Hills and it's the result of a 10 year court fight that got settled. <v Speaker>John Kerwin is the developer. <v Speaker>Well, we've invited a number of municipalities that are that are themselves trying to <v Speaker>plan for and accommodate that laurel to visit our community. <v Speaker>Many have done so. And I think they go back with a different view of network housing <v Speaker>can be done to be it will be made attractive and to be to be operated successfully. <v Speaker>The low income units sell for as little as twenty seven thousand dollars. <v Speaker>Virtually the same units sold to a moderate income buyer goes for forty eight thousand <v Speaker>dollars. Regular market price housing here ranges from eighty thousand dollars <v Speaker>on up to three hundred thousand. <v Carolann Auger>This is an old Chryste unit. It's a two bedroom with a walkout basement
<v Carolann Auger>and it probably will sell anywhere from two twenty five to thirty five. <v Carolann Auger>The Mount Laurel unit was built with the <v Carolann Auger>same type of insulation, the same type of basic <v Carolann Auger>construction that we're building all of our units at the Hill. <v Carolann Auger>The difference probably is one of size mostly. <v Speaker>To qualify for a low income unit, a family of three must have income below fifteen <v Speaker>thousand two hundred dollars for a moderate income unit below twenty four thousand <v Speaker>three hundred dollars. The catch, if it is one, is that in either bracket, one must <v Speaker>be able to secure a mortgage. <v Speaker>First item, as a down payment already of 10 percent. <v Speaker>She's a female head of household. She worked for 18 teachers from an urban area and she <v Speaker>just needs closing costs. <v Speaker>A nonprofit housing corporation runs the Mount Laurel program at the hills, as <v Speaker>one will in every town where Mount Laurel housing gets built. <v Speaker>On its board, two representatives from the town, two from the state public advocate's
<v Speaker>office, and three representing Hill's management. <v Speaker>Together, they make sure the program adheres to the terms of the court settlement. <v Speaker>Second applicant, has two children, 4 years old, 7 years old. <v Speaker>She has an income of 12,5 And makes some overtime. <v Speaker>Most of those people who are qualifying are applicants who live <v Speaker>within a 20 mile radius of the area, they're <v Speaker>generally single women who have children. <v Speaker>The first Mount Laurel occupants are just beginning to move in. <v Speaker>One we spoke to requested anonymity. <v Speaker>I think it's wonderful. It offers people a decent place to live. <v Speaker>Nobody really wants to live substandardly. <v Speaker>And a lot of people today are people who are hardworking, people who <v Speaker>could do better if they didn't have to spend everything they earn on rent. <v Speaker>This couple had selected their home and we're waiting for mortgage approval. <v David Bohannon>We like it. I like it. It saved us a lot of money. <v Noreen Beischer>We wouldn't be able to afford to live in this area.
<v Noreen Beischer>Bedminister people sell their homes that are $250000 homes <v Noreen Beischer>to move into a condominium just out of Bedminster address in this area. <v Speaker>Others have been disappointed. Veronica Aponte, for example, earns just a bit too <v Speaker>much for a low income unit, but was told she could get a moderate income unit for herself <v Speaker>and her two children. <v Speaker>And all I had to do was put in for a mortgage. <v Speaker>Well, that's where my problem came in. Unfortunately, they told me I didn't make enough <v Speaker>money to qualify for a mortgage. <v Speaker>They required me to have a down payment of twenty seven thousand dollars, <v Speaker>which is more than 50 percent of the total cost of housing. <v Speaker>You're in a situation where you have a fairly narrow window of opportunity. <v Speaker>On the one hand, you cannot earn over a certain amount of income by. <v Speaker>Various according to the household size, having passed that first qualifier, <v Speaker>you then, in making your application to the to the to the lenders, to the mortgage <v Speaker>companies, you've got to prove yourself in their mind to be credit worthy. <v Speaker>In Mt. Laurel to the court expressed the hope that as a result of its decision, the urban
<v Speaker>poor would start moving out to suburbia. <v Speaker>That's not happening here because of the mortgage requirements and because the trial <v Speaker>judge in this case gave priority to people already in the Bedminster area. <v Speaker>Maybe in another town and with rental housing instead of housing for sale, it could <v Speaker>happen at the same time. <v Speaker>It's not just the urban poor who need affordable housing. <v Speaker>It's also divorcées, retirees, young couples. <v Speaker>It's a good example of what happens when you open up a marketplace <v Speaker>where none has existed before. <v Speaker>Houses. There's a huge pent up demand for multi-family housing in the summer sandhills, <v Speaker>which no one has been able to need and tell the zoning and Bedminster <v Speaker>was broken through Mt. Laurel litigation. <v Speaker>Once all of Bedminster was zoned like this one house per every five acres. <v Speaker>Corporations moved into the area. <v Speaker>Only their top executives could afford to live nearby. <v Speaker>It was an example of the most atrocious form of of
<v Speaker>exclusionary zoning. Here to flood. <v Speaker>Try that. Nobody could live in Bedminster unless they bought 5 acres and lived <v Speaker>on a lot. That was no less than five acres. <v Speaker>After the town agreed to reason this site for multi-family housing, the value of the <v Speaker>land jumped from 5 million to $30 million. <v Speaker>A half interest in it was sold to an Arab investor for 15 million. <v Speaker>That profit ensures that the developer will not lose money on Mount Laurel units. <v Speaker>I think that if you want to encourage Mt. <v Speaker>Laurel Litigation as the Supreme Court does, you've got to reward the risk. <v Speaker>He took substantial risk. <v Speaker>I think that risk was rewarded. <v Speaker>That profit does not bother Al Furguson as much as the whole idea of a constitutional <v Speaker>right to housing. <v Speaker>Many, many lawyers and judges, though, say that we are getting into a very, very <v Speaker>troublesome area and it's a slippery slope. <v Speaker>If you have to have a fair share of housing units today aught one to <v Speaker>have a constitutional right to a fair share of whatever tomorrow, what?
<v Speaker>For example, Chevrolet's if you have a fair share housing unit <v Speaker>and you have a fair share job, do you have to have a fair share <v Speaker>Chevrolet to get from one to the other? <v Speaker>Meanwhile, at the hills, what did the neighbors think? <v Speaker>Whatever. I just see it as part of a balanced community. <v Speaker>As a matter of fact, my daughter's college roommate is moving into Village green, <v Speaker>which is part of the Mount Laurel to community here. <v Speaker>And we're just looking forward to having her as a neighbor. <v Speaker>And what do the people of Bedminster think? <v Speaker>I do not like it. I think a blot on the landscape. <v Speaker>I'm not thrilled about it. <v Speaker>I wonder what it's gonna look like in front of 15 or 20 years. <v Speaker>I feel marvelous about the hills and I really do. <v Speaker>I think it is a wonderful need for so many families and so many couples and so many <v Speaker>individuals. I think parts of it are very well done, but I think it's overdone. <v Speaker>I think there's too many units and I think in the long run that <v Speaker>it's going to not be a good thing for this area. <v Speaker>Do you think it's going to congest the area? <v Speaker>I don't think so. Definitely not.
<v Speaker>Maybe it would bring in a great shopping mall. <v Speaker>That's what I'm hoping for. <v Speaker>In a moment part 3 of the battle over Mt. <v Speaker>Laurel. <v Speaker>In Mount Laurel, to Chief Justice William S. <v Speaker>wrote, We act first and foremost because the Constitution requires <v Speaker>protection of the interests involved and because the legislature has not protected them. <v Speaker>We have always preferred legislative to judicial action in this field. <v Speaker>March 1985, After six months of drafting and redrafting, a <v Speaker>Mount Laurel bill sponsored by Democrats is up for a vote in the State Assembly. <v Speaker>I am sick of hearing this kind of chatter. <v Speaker>If there- if there's an amendment that is in fact constructive, it ought to be offered.
<v Speaker>If not, we ought to vote. Mr. Speaker. It's time to house the poor. <v Speaker>The bill would ease the impact of Mt. <v Speaker>Laurel by creating a state housing council to help towns fulfill their obligations. <v Speaker>And it would impose a one year freeze on all Mt. <v Speaker>Laurel cases presently in the courts. <v Speaker>But Republicans have problems with it. <v Speaker>Show me the bill where the state council will differ <v Speaker>from the courts in determining the low and moderate income <v Speaker>housing units. Show me. <v Speaker>I can't find them. <v Speaker>Show me in the bill where the courts will be removed from <v Speaker>the area of housing and zoning. <v Speaker>I can't find them. <v Speaker>Ralph luvvies, the only member of the assembly who himself is a builder, is leading the <v Speaker>Republican opposition to the bill. <v Speaker>While the debate is going on, Governor Kean in another part of the state house is hinting <v Speaker>to reporters that he will veto the bill. <v Gov. Tom Kean>The federal government couldn't even handle a housing program and has since backed out. <v Gov. Tom Kean>I think that the state is going to get into an affirmative action program to build
<v Gov. Tom Kean>housing. We just uh, taxpayers just are not going to be able to afford that under the <v Gov. Tom Kean>period of time. <v Speaker>Kean has vowed to ease the burden of Mt. Laurel, but this bill, which his office helped <v Speaker>draft, now appears to offer too little in the way of real relief. <v Speaker>Suburban Republicans are pressuring him to veto it. <v Speaker>Already in Monmouth County, ten thousand units approve, Albridge <v Speaker>95 hundred units. <v Speaker>Monroe twenty nine hundred units. <v Speaker>New Brunswick, fifty seven hundred units. <v Speaker>These winds are 7000 units. <v Speaker>Franklin 10000 units. <v Speaker>Cranbury, 4000 units. <v Speaker>Toms River, 20000 units. <v Speaker>Township six. 6000 units. <v Speaker>Middletown. Eighty eight hundred units. <v Speaker>And I haven't stopped. The Supreme Court started this snowball rolling down <v Speaker>the hill. It is getting huger and huger and they don't know how to stop it. <v Speaker>Despite Mr. Luvvies, the bill passes on a straight party line vote and goes <v Speaker>to the governor, who has until April 22nd to act upon it.
<v Speaker>One week later, lawyers for the developers suing Cranbury are in court. <v Speaker>One of them has filed for a builder's remedy. <v Speaker>He wants it now because he's afraid a legislative freeze will deprive him of it later. <v Speaker>We are entitled, in my view, based on the Supreme Court principle, <v Speaker>because there is no dispute to a builder's remedy. <v Speaker>And your honor. I'm entitled to it now. <v Speaker>Waiting a couple of weeks. And they severely in <v Speaker>alterably prejudice my client's position. <v Speaker>The other lawyers are here to jockey for position with the judge. <v Speaker>Three of them also want builder's remedies. <v Speaker>But the judge is in no hurry. <v Speaker>He seems to need to be rather strange, don't you think? <v Speaker>Could she move the Florida legislature? <v Speaker>Dennis Jensen, we can protect you from here <v Speaker>until the legislature and the governor act. <v Speaker>This is where the Mount Laurel issue will remain in the courts with three judges, <v Speaker>one for each region of the state making land use decisions for 87 municipalities.
<v Speaker>It's not his business. She's not a housing expert. <v Speaker>He said he's now an assignment judge in Ocean County. <v Speaker>Busy as busy as hell, frankly. <v Speaker>And when you get the court, a court, a better judge deciding what's best for Branch <v Speaker>Burke Township, which is one hundred miles away from his from his regin. <v Speaker>Based on things that their lawyers tell them in court, you're not going to get a good <v Speaker>solution, a thoughtful solution. <v Speaker>Jerry Rose is a professor at Rutgers who's been saying for years the court went way too <v Speaker>far in Mount Laurel and now says even with legislation, the game is basically <v Speaker>lost. <v Speaker>I'm uncomfortable about the fact that the legislation <v Speaker>is just a reiteration of the judicial decision. <v Speaker>In other words, the legislature has done very little to <v Speaker>provide its own legislative solution to the problem. <v Speaker>It has just adopted the judicial language and the judicial methodology
<v Speaker>and the judicial techniques for resolving the issue. <v Speaker>Believers in Mount Laurel share that view. <v Speaker>For the most part, the bill is an institutionalization of Mount Laurel. <v Speaker>Provides for for a Cannex within state government. <v Speaker>To implement the Mt. Laurel decision, Hill's problem with the bill is that it would <v Speaker>freeze all his Mount Laurel lawsuits. <v Speaker>I have never seen a bill before which orders the courts to <v Speaker>stop litigation in the process, and I would not be surprised as the courts <v Speaker>refuse to follow the moratorium. <v Speaker>After being close to the Mount Laurel issue for a while, you can't help but wonder is <v Speaker>this really what the Supreme Court had in mind? <v Speaker>Lawsuits galore, political ferment near revolt in a number of towns. <v Speaker>Some people say it is. They say the court knew that only an extreme judicial act like <v Speaker>Mount Laurel could have prodded the state into doing anything about the problem. <v Speaker>Others think the court would probably like to revise Mount Laurel to a group of
<v Speaker>22 towns, for example, including Cranbury recently petitioned the court to <v Speaker>do just that. <v Speaker>And for what it's worth, we think the court will welcome that opportunity. <v Speaker>The court itself is mum in declining our requests for interviews within the judicial <v Speaker>branch. Chief Justice Willens wrote The judicial thought process <v Speaker>must remain independent. <v Speaker>Second, the subject matter is highly controversial and right now very <v Speaker>much in the legislative arena. <v Speaker>The court also turned down the petition of the 22 towns, whatever the court <v Speaker>thinks. <v Speaker>The real question is, will New Jersey be somehow diminished if all this housing being <v Speaker>spoken about is actually built? <v Speaker>And it's not as if this housing is not going to be necessary. <v Speaker>It's not as if the court has made the housing necessary. <v Speaker>The housing is necessary because of the existence of the New Jersey economy and the <v Speaker>existence of the New Jersey growth in population. <v Speaker>The question hasn't been whether the housing is necessary. <v Speaker>The question has only been where it's going to be provided. <v Speaker>How many more households will be living in substandard conditions?
<v Speaker>How many more households are going to be living in overcrowded conditions as opposed to <v Speaker>providing safe, decent, sanitary housing for those people? <v Speaker>I suppose there's an image out there that developers are going to go out and build <v Speaker>thousands of houses in Cranbury in Princeton and that Finster <v Speaker>metro, which will sit there unoccupied as a blight on the land. <v Speaker>What should be clear to anyone who understands the building industry is <v Speaker>the builders don't build unless they has a market. <v Speaker>And to the extent that now low and the fair sharing <v Speaker>number is required by units, then there is a market for it. <v Speaker>Those units will not be built. <v Speaker>Do you think Mount Laurel too was a mistake? <v Speaker>I think it's an experiment. It's too early to tell in my mind whether it's a mistake or <v Speaker>not. It certainly is a noble experiment. <v Speaker>It really is a call to certainly the lawyers and judges <v Speaker>to try and make the legal system deliver something
<v Speaker>which really hasn't delivered before. <v Speaker>The Supreme Court is not going to back down from Mount Laurel two. <v Speaker>Legislation may shift the arena somewhat and lower some of the numbers, but it won't make <v Speaker>the issue go away. One way out would be for towns to find ways of putting up <v Speaker>low cost housing themselves without the 4 to 1 builders remedy. <v Speaker>Princeton Burrow is doing that and so is Bernardsville. <v Speaker>Of course, those are wealthy towns. <v Speaker>In other towns, it would take an infusion of federal money of which there isn't any or <v Speaker>state money which the governor has said we can't afford. <v Speaker>Without some form of government financing, all that's left is the builder's remedy, <v Speaker>and that means the battle over Mount Laurel will go on and on and on. <v Speaker>I'm Michael Aaron. This has been a special edition of FRONT PAGE, New Jersey. <v Speaker>Thanks for watching. <v Speaker>Little town like this, with only 750 houses suddenly <v Speaker>being increased to over 4000 units.
<v Speaker>Returned to six thousand units. <v Speaker>Middletown 88 hundred units, and I haven't stopped. <v Speaker>You wouldn't be able to afford to live in this area. <v Speaker>Bedminister people sell their homes that are $250000 homes <v Speaker>to move into a condominium just out of Bedminister addresses area. <v Speaker>I'll go to jail before I surrendered my town to the courts, to <v Speaker>the judges. We don't ask them ?inaudible?. <v Speaker>We only ask them to relax the zoning ?inaudible? <v Speaker>The municipalities are faced with ?inaudible? <v Speaker>Litigation are not unlike baby harp seals during the periodic canadian massacres. <v Speaker>?inaudible?, but not for very long. <v Speaker>Another is to have a bumper sticker, Mt. <v Speaker>Laurel too, a solution for the greedy, not for the needy. <v Speaker>If you have a fair share housing unit and you have a fair share job,
Please note: This content is only available at GBH and the Library of Congress, either due to copyright restrictions or because this content has not yet been reviewed for copyright or privacy issues. For information about on location research, click here.
Title
Special: The Battle Over Mt. Laurel
Title
Frontpage New Jersey
Contributing Organization
New Jersey Network (Trenton, New Jersey)
The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia (Athens, Georgia)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/259-7m04116v
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/259-7m04116v).
Description
Description
No Description
Media type
Moving Image
Credits
AAPB Contributor Holdings
New Jersey Network
Identifier: H30-603 (NJN ID)
Format: 1 inch videotape
Generation: Master
Duration: 0:30:00?
The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia
Identifier: 85171dct-arch (Peabody Object Identifier)
Format: U-matic
Duration: 0:30:00
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “Special: The Battle Over Mt. Laurel; Frontpage New Jersey,” New Jersey Network, The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed June 26, 2022, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-259-7m04116v.
MLA: “Special: The Battle Over Mt. Laurel; Frontpage New Jersey.” New Jersey Network, The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. June 26, 2022. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-259-7m04116v>.
APA: Special: The Battle Over Mt. Laurel; Frontpage New Jersey. Boston, MA: New Jersey Network, The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-259-7m04116v