|
r _, . . . ,,,,_ ... , . ,
<br /> . Loin,-. . .
<br /> , , i
<br /> , . , t
<br /> [71 LAND USE 151 i' ; ii
<br /> above the national average as to place new housing beyond the
<br /> reach of all but the most affluent families."
<br /> :lied re .; !'
<br /> rich � ' I
<br /> lop- New Jersey—Mt. Laurel II in a Nutshell �l 1
<br /> - or On January 20, 1983, the New Jersey Supreme Court deliv- l :
<br /> to I •'. ..
<br /> ered a 216-page unanimous decision founded on the New Jersey l�;,
<br /> State Constitution's general welfare clause, a clause that does •'t'
<br /> per l li; ;,
<br /> .ely not exist in the language of the constitution but was held by the
<br /> god- , court to be there by implication. The decision effectively invali- i.I 1:I .�
<br /> dated every municipal ordinance that did not contain inclusion- , , ,
<br /> em ! ary, mandatory set-asides. The decision has become known as •
<br /> the �I1 �
<br /> Mt. Laurel !1.'a I ;1!
<br /> lost ii!,ll: ':
<br /> be- Mount Laurel 11 basically gives teeth, direction, and amazing 1 !„
<br /> propulsion to a prior landmark decision, well reported in popular ,I ili i ', 1
<br /> nn- and scholarly journals,15 known now as Mt. Laurel 1 in which ili I
<br /> min ;,li,li 1
<br /> ties the same court articulated the concept that a municipal ordi-
<br /> nance is invalid if it fails to make available realistic housing I II, •
<br /> its. I opportunities to meet the needs of persons of low and moderate . .!i
<br /> •
<br /> Les, income. In Mt. Laurel II, the court declared it was not kidding it u
<br /> �eof when it decided Mt. Laurel I" The court deplored the judicial ?� V!,
<br /> :ich resources wasted between 1975 and 1983, during which no aster- iii i.i.
<br /> fits tamable low- and moderate-income housing was built or zoned i I;
<br /> for, while many municipalities litigated with developers and i
<br /> me I public interest groups. The court proceeded to discuss and ,. I
<br /> me it
<br /> the I resolve myriad arguments raised by various recalcitrant munic- I r i
<br /> ,ith ipalities which, in its view, had impeded the enforcement of , ,
<br /> Mt. Laurel 1. The court then set forth a number of new rules to i 1
<br /> ful be applicable in the litigation of all such exclusionary zoning '
<br /> cases. These rules are explicitly designed to expedite the han- 1 i
<br /> try '
<br /> Jilt = i�
<br /> �` i
<br /> in 1� Breckenfeld. note 5 supra, at 149.
<br /> e 14 92 N.J. 158. { '
<br /> -he
<br /> :m i5 A list of articles and commentary that have appeared since this opinion ��
<br /> was written would be staggering. For example, comments have appeared in I.
<br /> by • this Journal. Payne, "From the Courts." 12 Real Est. L.J. 85 (19831: in the I '
<br /> ay Land Use Law and Zoning Digest (March 1983): and various academic and
<br /> I '
<br /> rn popular publications. The Center for Urban Policy Studies at Rutgers Univer- i 1
<br /> sity. in November 1983.published a 430-page document on how communities lit
<br /> ar and developers could deal with Mt.Laurel!t: see Burchell. Beaton& Listokin.
<br /> Mount Laurel 11: Challenge and Delivery of Low Cost Housing (1983). , !l
<br /> 5• 15 Southern Burlington Council NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel. 67 •
<br /> N.J. 151.336 A.2d 713.appeal dismissed and cert.denied. 423 U.S. 808(19751.
<br /> 17 92 N.J. 158. at 199.
<br /> I .
<br />
|