NJ builders group will sue dozens of towns trying to cut affordable housing obligations
The New Jersey Builders Association is pushing back against more than a quarter of the state's municipalities that have tried to lower their state-mandated affordable housing construction quotas by submitting their own alternate calculations.
The NJBA is in the process of filing legal challenges against 159 municipalities that the trade group says have filed complaints with the state Department of Community Affairs seeking to lower the housing obligations the agency released last year. The DCA calculations represent each town's current needs for more affordable dwellings, as estimated by the state, and the total units they need to build over the next 10 years.
In a statement, the builders group said litigation was "necessary as this is matter of statewide importance and imperative that we continue in our opposition to the municipal playbook of obfuscation and delay."
Municipalities had a deadline of Jan. 31 to accept the DCA numbers − which would provide them immunity from developer lawsuits − or to submit their own versions if they object to the state's calculations.
A nonprofit entity, the NJBA works in support of residential and commercial builders, developers, remodelers, subcontractors, suppliers, engineers, architects, consultants and other professionals in "the shelter industry," its website states.
"We feel compelled to respond in order preserve the nearly 14,000 low- and moderate-income units that these municipalities would seek to simply eliminate despite New Jersey's established and pressing need for such affordable housing opportunities," the association said in announcing the legal challenges.
It's just one more legal battle in the state's long-running fight over affordable housing requirements rooted in a landmark set of court decisions known as the Mount Laurel doctrine. Two dozen towns, including several in northern New Jersey, are also in court trying to block a new law intended to remove barriers to such projects.
Another interested nonprofit party, New Jersey's Fair Share Housing Center, said that law is having the desired effect so far.
'We're pleasantly surprised that many more municipalities are participating in the process than at any time in the 50-year history of the Mount Laurel Doctrine,' FSHC Executive Director Adam Gordon said. 'This process validates the intent of New Jersey's new affordable housing law − making the process more transparent, reducing litigation costs, and ultimately encouraging more municipalities to participate.'
It was a motion filed by the Fair Share Housing Center that led to a 2015 state Supreme Court decision that determined the state's enforcement of the housing mandate had failed. The decision returned primary jurisdiction over affordable housing matters to the trial courts. It also granted the FSHC "interested party" status in all litigation involving affordable housing.
Many towns, especially in the more densely-populated communities in North Jersey, have objected to the state's housing dictates and the DCA calculations, which said towns need to open up land for 85,000 affordable units over the next decade.
The new law compels towns to address what some say is an affordable housing crisis in New Jersey − state sources estimate the deficit is as high as 200,000 dwellings.
But critics say the process fuels overdevelopment, with developers empowered by the courts to build huge residential complexes that commit only 15-20% of their units to affordable housing. For example, a 100-unit apartment may only reduce a town's affordable housing obligation by 15 units
"The new mandate places an undue burden on our local budgets, infrastructure, and services," Montvale Mayor Mike Ghassali said after the DCA released its numbers last year. He said Montvale's new target of 348 units, "will increase our population by almost 50%."
More: Which North Jersey towns met affordable housing deadline? Which are fighting? See the list
Ghassali responded on social media to the announcement of the NJBA lawsuits, calling them "a misguided effort driven by self-interest and a lack of understanding of local planning realities."
Montvale is one of 26 towns whose joint lawsuit seeks to bring the current court-enforced wave of affordable housing construction to a halt. But a Mercer County judge has ruled against them twice to date.
Allendale
Bogota
Closter
Demarest
East Rutherford
Emerson
Englewood
Fairview
Fort Lee
Franklin Lakes
Harrington Park
Hackensack
Hasbrouck Heights
Haworth
Hillsdale
Leonia
Lyndhurst
Mahwah
Montvale
New Milford
North Arlington
Northvale
Norwood
Oakland
Old Tappan
Oradell
Park Ridge
Ramsey
Ridgewood
River Vale
Rutherford
Teaneck
Tenafly
Upper Saddle River
Waldwick
Boonton
Chatham Township
Denville
East Hanover
Florham Park
Hanover
Harding
Jefferson
Lincoln Park
Montville
Morris Township
Morristown
Mount Olive
Mountain Lakes
Netcong
Parsippany
Randolph
Rockaway Township
Roxbury
Washington
Bloomingdale
Hawthorne
Little Falls
Pompton Lakes
Totowa
Woodland Park
Franklin
Green
Hardyston
Hopatcong
Sparta
Stanhope
Vernon
This article originally appeared on Morristown Daily Record: NJ builders group will sue towns over affordable housing rule
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
3 days ago
- Forbes
Artificial Intelligence Will Soon Replace Many Human Arbitrators
Artificial intelligence is already affecting the way that we resolves disputes. Arbitration is a process whereby the parties to a dispute agree that it will be privately decided outside of the normal court process. Instead of the formal and heavily-structured litigation procedures of our courts, which can be very expensive and take literally years to reach a conclusion, arbitration offers a much more informal and less-structured process where a result can be reached within just a few months for a fraction of the cost. Instead of a judge, the parties to an arbitration hire what amounts to a private judge, known as the arbitrator of course, to oversee the arbitration process, consider the law and relevant evidence, and come to a conclusion. The downside to arbitration is that it amounts to a giant corner-cutting of the normal litigation process. The parties to an arbitration may or may not have access to discovery, which at any rate will be abbreviated and typically less than through the courts, and generally there is no effective appeal of the arbitrator's opinion. While the results reached by our courts are certainly not perfect ― there is a reason why we have full-time courts for appeals ― those results are likely by several magnitude to be more accurate than those reached by arbitration. Basically, the parties to an arbitration are trading the potential quality of the result to get the dispute over with as cheaply and quickly as possible. The entire philosophy of parties who agree to arbitration may be summed up as "get the dispute over with and get back to normal business as soon as possible." Particularly for large and deep-pocketed enterprises that are frequently involved in litigation, and for whom the results of litigation are viewed simply as an aggregate rounding error as opposed to a life-changing event, arbitration is a far more efficient method of resolving their myriad disputes than spending oodles in courtroom litigation. This now brings us to the arbitrators. The goal of these private judges is, again, to review the law and the evidence and reach a conclusion as quickly and efficiently as possible. In line with the purposes of arbitration, the goal is to resolve the dispute one way or another so that the parties can move on. The arbitrator's award is usually final since the courts may only review an arbitration award for some very serious error, sometimes known as manifest error, such as where the arbitration process in a particular case was corrupt or if the arbitrator exceeds his or her authority. Yes, some arbitration agreements provide for an appellate process, but these are quite rare. Most arbitrators are highly conscientious professionals who take their job very seriously. They carefully review the law and the evidence and attempt to reach the result that they think is correct under the circumstances. These arbitrators offer the parties a quality of decision that is at least equal to the courts and in some situations (particularly with specialized subject-matter) might even be better. Unfortunately, the better arbitrators naturally tend to end up with the more significant cases. Downstream, the picture isn't so pretty. The sad truth is that I've seen a lot of bad arbitration decisions of the years. Cases where it was obvious that the arbitrator simply "mailed it in" without spending much time trying to figure out the law or analyze the evidence. This is a result of mediocre lawyers becoming mediocre judges (more often than not through an election) and then leaving the bench early so that they can make the big bucks as a mediocre arbitrator. They don't have to worry about the quality of their decisions either, because there is no court of appeals looking over their shoulders. This isn't rough justice ― it's really not justice at all. Honestly, the parties should instead just flip a coin and live with the result. These mail-it-in arbitrators tend to congregate towards the lower-end cases. You might think this means that they are doing the least amount of damage here, but these smaller arbitrations often involve small businesses and individuals who don't have the financial strength to simply write off a bad decision as a rounding error in the same way that large enterprises do. Luckily, a new solution is likely to appear in the way of using artificial intelligence as a passable substitute for arbitrators in these smaller cases. Lawyers are already using AI to analyze evidence, summarize witness testimony, and conduct legal research. It would be a relatively small additional step for the parties to an arbitration to put together their briefs and evidence, upload it to the server, and then ask the AI program to render a decision. Two minutes later that decision will appear. The immediate objection will be that, "AI makes too many mistakes". While it is true that AI can make mistakes, it is also true the human arbitrators make mistakes as well. While the mistakes of most human arbitrators are honest, human arbitrators still suffer from implicit bias, they misread court opinions or err in their analysis of the evidence. Then, as discussed above, some human arbitrators at the lower levels are some combination of intellectually lazy and incompetent which make their arbitration awards little more than a form of random justice ― the parties might as well just flip a coin ― and certainly even a glitchy AI algorithm will be better than that. To take just one example of implicit bias, there has long been a concern that certain arbitrators working for certain arbitration firms will tend to find in favor of the firms who send them the most business. Or, in other words, some arbitrators are "voting their wallets" instead of strictly in favor of the merits of a particular case. AI holds the potential to eliminate this form of implicit bias, as well as other implicit biases arising from the race, sex, religion, or socio-economic status of a party. Unlike a human arbitrator who cannot "unring a bell" and may be swayed by evidence ultimately deemed to be inadmissible, an AI program can completely discount evidence that it deems to be inadmissible and without subliminally taking it into account. Admittedly, while the move from human arbitrators to AI takes place, it will likely be necessary for some human review to take place to make sure that the AI analysis hasn't gone totally off the rails. But since AI is inherently a learning algorithm, over time this constant human review may be dispensed with and the courts can review the arbitration awards as a perquisite to enrolling the award as a legal judgment just as they do now. But here it is to be remembered that if a human makes a mistake, probably only that particular human learns from it. If AI makes a mistake, the entire AI service learns from it. So, as we have seen from news reports of lawyer who have inadvisedly filed briefs AI-written legal briefs, AI will often just make up legal authorities out of thin air. But the AI algorithms can be modified going forward to provide for greater self-checking and accuracy, to eventually a degree of accuracy that even the most meticulous arbitrator would be hard-pressed to replicate. We have not yet discussed another advantage of AI which is the cost-savings that it potentially offers to litigants. Other than their own attorney fees, the single largest cost in any arbitration is of course the arbitrator's fee. With arbitrators charging many hundreds of dollars per hour (and with some superstar arbitrators now having an hourly rate in excess of $1,000), the fees ultimately charged by an arbitrator in a particular case can be very expensive. By contrast, the token charge for AI to make the same decision might be only $50 or something. Indeed, AI arbitration may prove to be so cheap that the parties could submit their arbitration briefs with attached evidence to several different AI services to check the results for accuracy of the decisions and still probably not exceed the cost of a single hour of a human arbitrator's time. It should be expected that the large legal database firms such as Westlaw and Lexis will develop these AI arbitration services sooner rather than later. They already have up-to-date legal authorities pre-loaded for AI consumption and they are both offering AI legal research services to attorneys already. Presumably, somebody at these firms will one day wake up and see that they are missing out on a potentially significant share of the lucrative arbitration marketplace and soon thereafter add arbitration consoles to their existing service packages. As with all things, AI arbitration will have its limits. For some time, the larger arbitration cases will likely require human arbitrators to make the difficult decisions regarding the deep nuances of the law and evidence which make the difference in such cases. But for the smaller arbitration cases where the parties are just eager for some quick and cheap outcome whatever it is, AI arbitration holds substantial promise. AI arbitration is coming, it is only a matter of when.
Business Wire
3 days ago
- Business Wire
Prime Success Sends Letter to Sinovac Biotech Shareholders
HONG KONG--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Prime Success L.P., (together with its affiliates, 'Prime Success' or 'we'), a significant shareholder of Sinovac Biotech Ltd. (NASDAQ: SVA) ('Sinovac' or the 'Company') with ownership of approximately 8% of the Company's outstanding shares, today issued a letter to shareholders in connection with the upcoming Special Meeting of Shareholders (the 'Special Meeting') scheduled for July 8, 2025. The full text of the letter can be viewed here and by visiting In its letter, Prime Success outlines the need for change on Sinovac's Board of Directors (the 'Board') and presents key reasons to support the election of SAIF Partners IV L.P.'s ('SAIF') nominees, who are committed to taking the following value-enhancing actions: Oversee a fair, equitable, and timely distribution of cash dividends, including fully supporting the payment of the announced dividend of approximately $55 per share to all shareholders, but also actively advocating for the distribution of future dividends from the subsidiaries. Prime Success wants to ensure that the value accumulated in the Company under the management team's leadership over the years is rightfully returned to all shareholders in a timely manner. Reinstate normal trading of the Company's shares on NASDAQ and stabilize operations by resolving the uncertainty created by the current Board and taking steps to put the external auditor back on track. Overhaul governance and rebuild investor trust by adhering to corporate governance best practices, promoting greater transparency and enhancing board accountability. Lay the groundwork for sustainable long-term growth by leveraging the candidates' independence, backgrounds, and expertise to support the Company's continued development and expansion. Prime Success contrasts this with the current Sinovac Board members, who have: Taken actions leading to and prolonging the 2019 NASDAQ halt of trading in the Company's shares, significantly harming Sinovac's growth. Impeded the Company's ability to issue dividends over the past seven years through prolonged litigation stemming from 1Globe Capital LLC's ('1Globe') undisclosed efforts to seize board control, causing significant shareholder harm. Wasted Company resources on multiple lawsuits across various forums at the broader shareholder base's expense. Weaponized Sinovac's allocation of capital as part of their attempt to invalidate the shares of long-term investors by attempting an unjust and potentially unlawful scheme of dividend distribution. Prioritized personal interests over fiduciary obligations to all shareholders by seeking to void the Company's contractual obligations to benefit current Board members. Created significant operational uncertainty by attempting to invalidate the decisions made by the prior Board that directly led to the Company's tremendous global commercial success in the past few years, resulting in the resignation of Sinovac's external auditor. Alienated management to such a significant degree that the Sinovac management team issued an unprecedented public statement calling for a new Board election. 1 Appointed directors with flawed ethics through questionable and potentially unlawful procedures, resulting in disproportionate representation of investors and eroding shareholder trust. Prime Success shares its belief that supporting SAIF's slate is essential for the future success of Sinovac and encourages shareholders to wait for and read SAIF's proxy materials before voting for the Special Meeting on July 8, 2025. About Prime Success, L.P. Prime Success is an investment vehicle established by Advantech Capital specifically to invest in Sinovac and Sinovac Life Sciences; Advantech Capital is a private equity fund established in 2016 with a focus on innovation-driven growth opportunities in China.
Bloomberg
3 days ago
- Bloomberg
Paul Weiss Strategy Tested as Partners Exit Post-Trump Deal
Paul Weiss leader Brad Karp spent more than a decade building his firm's deals practice to an elite level matching its litigation work. A deal he struck with President Donald Trump threatens the balance between the two. The Wall Street firm lost a string of litigation partners following the March 20 deal with Trump to provide $40 million in free legal services. The move got Paul Weiss out from under an executive order that Karp said threatened the firm's survival.
