Legislative panel on affordable housing didn’t hear from local officials, say Clifton and Flynn

Legislative panel on affordable housing didn’t hear from local officials, say Clifton and Flynn

Assemblyman Rob Clifton

TRENTON, N.J. – During the Assembly Housing Committee hearing on the bill overhauling a town’s affordable housing obligations Wednesday, there were many people who testified from private interest groups but only one was a local elected official, while other stakeholders didn’t have an opportunity.

That wasn’t enough to get a full account on the effects of the legislation and the breadth of opposition to it, said Assemblyman Rob Clifton and Assemblywoman Vicky Flynn.

“It stood out that only one local official was able to attend the meeting and share their concerns about the bill,” said Clifton (R-Monmouth). “I am getting tons of messages from mayors and others in local government that are extremely worried about how quickly this is moving. They have to work during the day, they don’t have time to read a massive piece of legislation and then testify within 24 hours.”

The complicated 68-page bill (A4) was made public Tuesday afternoon ahead of the Wednesday morning committee meeting. Sponsors plan on passing the bill on Jan. 8, the final day of the current legislative session. Completely rewriting affordable housing law and processes surely needs more time to get more input from affected groups, Flynn stated.

Assemblywoman Vicky Flynn

“Something of this magnitude moving so quickly should raise alarm to anyone interested in good government, transparency, and public input,” said Flynn (R-Monmouth). “We didn’t hear from teachers or environmentalists either, or experts on our energy grid as the state forces more electricity mandates that strain the system. There are so many factors that need to be carefully thought out instead of rushed. This legislation isn’t meeting that mark.”

The bill is expected to be heard again, and possibly amended, on Jan. 4. The Senate counterpart is also expected to be voted on in January.

Prior to Wednesday’s hearing, the state Judiciary cited numerous problems with the bill, including constitutional concerns.