New Jersey
NJ affordable housing deadline: Here’s what your town owes, and you might be eligible
Four-minute read
Drone View: Asbury Park’s new Boston Way development
Take a drone flight over Asbury Park’s new Boston Way development.
Thomas P. Costello and Danielle Parhizkaran, Asbury Park Press
With legal challenges to New Jersey’s affordable housing law denied, Monmouth and Ocean County towns reached a deadline Friday to opt into a program that spells out their affordable housing obligations for the next decade.
As the clock ticked on Thursday, about two-thirds of towns at the Shore had agreed to participate, even as some planned to challenge the number of affordable units determined by the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs.
“It’s good to see that the vast majority of New Jersey municipalities, many of whom supported the law’s passage, are moving forward,” said Jag Davies, a spokesman for the Fair Share Housing Center, an advocacy group.
Friday’s deadline is part of the fourth round of the Mount Laurel doctrine that was set into motion last March, when Gov. Phil Murphy signed a law spelling out towns’ affordable housing obligations for the next decade.
See a full list of what the state says each town must allow to be built at the bottom of this story.
Towns aren’t required to participate, but those that don’t adopt a plan risk being sued by builders and advocates, leaving them vulnerable to a court order mandating them to clear the way for higher-density projects.
The new rules are landing as policymakers at the Shore try to navigate competing interests: residents are pushing back against overdevelopment, all while seeing the price of housing soar.
A home is considered unaffordable if its payment takes up more than 30% of a household’s income. As of last August, a Monmouth County household with a median income would pay 53.9% for a median-priced home, while an Ocean County household would spend 58%, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
“The third round was kind of chaotic,” said Craig Gianetti, an attorney with Day Pitney in Parsippany, who co-leads the firms’ real estate, environmental and land use practice. “From 2018 to today, towns had to do a lot (to catch up with affordable housing obligations), and I think they are still kind of, for lack of a better term, licking their wounds politically.”
“The thought of having to go through this process again, where they feel like they just completed the third round, is probably daunting for them,” he said.
The new law sets out to streamline what has been an uneven rollout of the Mount Laurel doctrine, the state’s constitutional mandate that requires towns to provide their fair share of affordable housing.
Under state law, municipalities are required to set aside 20% of housing units for those with moderate and low incomes — up to $72,830 for an individual and $130,054 for a family of four in Monmouth and Ocean counties.
The state recalculates municipal obligations every 10 years, looking at factors such as job growth, existing affordability and the growth of low- and moderate-income households. The new formula is set to last until 2035.
Some two dozen New Jersey towns, including Holmdel and Wall, filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the rollout, but state Superior Court Judge Robert Lougy ruled against them, leaving municipalities with a Jan. 31 deadline: Accept the state’s obligation, come up with their own and hope the state will approve it, or take their chances and risk being sued by builders or advocates.
Most Monmouth and Ocean County towns have approved resolutions and agreed to participate in the program, although some are planning to challenge the state’s formula.
Toms River, for example, required by the state to provide 670 affordable units, adopted a resolution saying it owes at most 114 new units, and possibly none at all.
Jackson, meanwhile, is faced with an obligation of 954 units in the next round. The council planned to vote Thursday on a resolution that would support 750 units.
“We’re trying to do everything the right way, we just feel now it’s becoming a little unfair,” Jackson Mayor Michael Reina said.
The state could sign off on towns’ alternate calculations. Or it could contest them by taking it to the Affordable Housing Dispute Resolution Program, a seven-member panel appointed by the chief justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court, which would decide.
Opponents have until Feb. 28 to contest the municipalities’ calculations. And towns have until June 30 to adopt an affordable housing plan.
Davies from the Fair Share Housing Center said as of Thursday morning, 354 of the state’s 564 municipalities had adopted resolutions agreeing to participate in the affordable housing program, and 75% accepted the obligations calculated by the state.
“New Jersey municipalities, many of whom supported the law’s passage, are moving forward,” Davies said.
Michael L. Diamond is a business writer for the Asbury Park Press. He has been writing about the New Jersey economy and health care industry since 1999. He can be reached at mdiamond@gannettnj.com.
New Jersey
N.J. port meant to be a wind hub is now at the center of a bitter legal feud
The operator of a South Jersey commercial port is moving to evict a wind-energy manufacturer after promised projects failed to materialize.
The lawsuit, filed in Gloucester County Superior Court on Oct. 7, marks another setback for New Jersey’s offshore wind ambitions.
Holt Logistics Corp., which manages the Paulsboro Marine Terminal, is asking a judge to force EEW Group off the site after years of stalled projects and mounting safety concerns.
The dispute underscores how a $250 million state-backed push to make Paulsboro a hub for wind energy has unraveled amid canceled projects, political opposition, and industry setbacks.
The EEW Group, a German pipe maker, began leasing space at Holt’s port in Paulsboro in 2021. Their objective was to build huge “monopiles,” the poles on which turbines spin to generate electricity.
Four years later, the port manager is asking a judge to order that the European builder vacate its property, located on the bank of the Delaware River in Paulsboro.
Through its subsidiary EEW-AOS, the company is leasing about 70 acres at the Paulsboro port to build monopiles, which are steel foundations for wind turbines that can reach up to 400 feet long, according to court filings reviewed by NJ Advance Media.
The lawsuit names Paulsboro Waterfront Development, an affiliate of Holt, as the plaintiff.
In its three-count lawsuit, Holt accuses EEW of breaching its lease agreement after offshore wind production stalled and alleges violations of safety rules and federal labor laws.
A spokesperson for Paulsboro Waterfront Development said the lawsuit seeks to have the leased area returned into its possession.
“The sole purpose of the sublease was to permit EEW to manufacture monopiles to support the New Jersey offshore wind project,“ Kevin Feeney, a spokesperson for Paulsboro Waterfront Development, said in an email to NJ Advance Media.
”The wind farm project fell apart and late last summer, EEW removed all improvements that would allow for any monopile fabrication. They have abandoned the lease and its sole purpose,” he added.
“The Paulsboro Marine Terminal sits idle since the collapse of the wind energy industry in New Jersey,” Feeney said. “We are confident that as soon as the Terminal can be developed as originally planned – as a thriving facility for both breakbulk and container cargo – it can serve as an economic engine for South Jersey that will bring additional investment and jobs to the region.”
Johnathan Rardin, an attorney for EEW, declined to comment when reached by NJ Advance Media.
The port operator also claims the company tried to remove improvements from the site.
Court exhibits include letters referencing an April 2025 fire caused by workers leaving hot monopile material unattended, as well as a letter noting that state inspectors found fire code violations during a January visit, according to the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs.
EEW last month denied the accusations, filing a countersuit against Holt in its response to the port manager’s claim. The company said the spring fire was contained and that the fire code violations were fixed quickly.
“This is not a run-of-the-mill commercial real estate dispute,” Holt’s lawsuit states. “Put simply, Paulsboro Marine Terminal is a public asset. As such, the opportunity cost of EEW-AOS’s inactivity is enormous: the diminished inflow of cargo and commodities translates into diminished industrial capacity and diminished demand for labor.”
Michael O’Mara, an attorney for Holt, declined to discuss the case when reached by NJ Advance Media. He directed questions directly to Holt, which did not respond to an emailed request for comment.
Ørsted and Atlantic Shores, two of the larger companies preparing to build offshore wind farms, have since canceled their projects.
Last November, workers in Paulsboro began dismantling more than a dozen steel monopiles and recycling their metals.
Holt claims it was “cajoled” into leasing its property by political and civic leaders bullish on an industry that saw little to no success.
Holt’s lawsuit cited the struggling wind industry, which Gov. Phil Murphy sought to bolster with a $250 million investment in the port, promoting it as a project to transform the site into one of the nation’s largest wind-energy hubs.
“Although New Jersey’s offshore wind plan was attractive in theory and initially successful in practice (with massive initial investments translating into early infrastructural progress), that success was short-lived,” the lawsuit states.
In its response, EEW objected to the characterization.
“EEW is of the opinion that its ultimate success in using the site will benefit the State of New Jersey, Gloucester County, and the Borough of Paulsboro,” the response states. “EEW’s use of the Premises will add additional industrial and manufacturing capacity and provide jobs on the site and to related businesses.”
Murphy’s administration planned a two-site process, in which the Paulsboro facility would construct the monopiles and bases for the wind farms.
Miles south in Salem County, a separate facility was expected to construct turbines but never began production at its anticipated start date in 2024.
New Jersey
New Jersey would ban plastic utensils in takeout orders under new bill
NEW JERSEY – Legislation that would ban single-use utensils from takeout orders advanced this week in the New Jersey Senate.
The bill aims to reduce unnecessary waste and environmental impact. If customers need utensils, they would have to request them specifically, as they would no longer be included in their orders automatically under this bill.
The bill would prohibit food service businesses from automatically providing condiment packets to customers, as well. Instead, they would be required to offer them reusable utensils.
According to the bill, businesses that fail to comply with the law would ultimately be fined. A third of the fines collected from businesses who violate the law would be deposited into the Clean Communities Program Fund, “a statewide, comprehensive, litter-abatement program created by the passage of the Clean Communities Act in 1986.”
460 million tons of plastic
What they’re saying:
Supporters of the initiative argue that reducing plastic waste is crucial for both environmental and human health. Plastic utensils often end up in landfills and oceans, contributing to pollution, according to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
The WWF says that every year, humans produce over 460 million tons of plastic, 90% of which pollutes “almost all areas of our planet.”
Some critics believe there are more pressing plastic issues to address, like packaging for sodas and chips. They also question the practicality of expecting people to carry utensils.
Dig deeper:
The proposed law would not apply to schools, prisons and health care facilities, meaning they would remain exempt if the legislation passes.
A companion bill has been introduced in the state Assembly. Both chambers must pass the bill before the governor can sign it into law, however.
What we don’t know:
The potential cost impact on businesses and how consumers would adapt to the change are still unclear.
The Source: Information from a FOX 5 NY report, the World Wildlife Fund, the bill’s text and NJ Clean Communities.
New Jersey
Hischier | PRE-RAW 12.11.25 | New Jersey Devils
NewJerseyDevils.com is the official web site of the New Jersey Devils, a member team of the National Hockey League (“NHL”). NHL, the NHL Shield, the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup and NHL Conference logos are registered trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P. Copyright © 1999-2025 New Jersey Devils and the National Hockey League. All Rights Reserved.
-
Alaska6 days agoHowling Mat-Su winds leave thousands without power
-
Politics1 week agoTrump rips Somali community as federal agents reportedly eye Minnesota enforcement sweep
-
Ohio1 week ago
Who do the Ohio State Buckeyes hire as the next offensive coordinator?
-
Texas6 days agoTexas Tech football vs BYU live updates, start time, TV channel for Big 12 title
-
News1 week agoTrump threatens strikes on any country he claims makes drugs for US
-
World1 week agoHonduras election council member accuses colleague of ‘intimidation’
-
Washington3 days agoLIVE UPDATES: Mudslide, road closures across Western Washington
-
Iowa5 days agoMatt Campbell reportedly bringing longtime Iowa State staffer to Penn State as 1st hire