May 29, 2007 - 2:38pm

Torricelli on Affordable Housing

I'm as supportive of progressive causes as any good Democrat. I feel as though I've led some lonely fights but sometimes you've got to recognize when things are just crazy.

The fight for affordable housing is a just cause. People should have the ability to live in communities where they work. Zoning powers shouldn't be used to exclude citizens because of economic status. The question is how far this is going to go.

Two things have recently happened that prove that even a good a cause like affordable housing can be taken too far. First, some otherwise sensible Democratic leaders want to end the practice whereby communities can sell their housing obligations to other communities. This has traditionally led many rural areas to send funds to developed areas to subsidize housing and it has been very successful. If the practice is ended by the legislature, the affordable housing quotient of every community will have to be constructed within municipal borders.

My town of Delaware Township in Hunterdon County is a good example of the absurdity of this policy. Delaware Township has no mass transit. An area resident will need a car to buy a loaf of bread. There are no significant employers in the entire community. The only restaurant has entrées that start around $30 and a maitre d’ who frowns upon domestic wines. It's quite a place for affordable housing.

The idea is to make people's lives easier. What's the point of housing being affordable if everything else is out of reach? With gasoline at $3.50 shouldn't proximity to jobs and services be a factor? And how about coordinating with other state priorities. The affordable units being built in Delaware Township are in an old corn field. I thought preserving open space was a priority too.

The second decision is even odder. The State Courts have now ruled that the Meadowlands District needs to allocate affordable housing units. Did the judges really think this one through? Under their ruling one might contend every governmental district could share this obligation. The Highlands would be a combination preservation and affordable housing district. Even industrial parks and trade zones would need to set aside land. Is this really how we want to plan communities?

Building affordable housing must include building communities where people can build their lives. It must include more than a house. People deserve the right to be able to afford to live, work and shop in a community. There's also a need to be sensitive to other state priorities like open space and development along existing power, sewer and mass transit lines.

Just a little common sense would help.

Comments

delaware township


right on torch---keep our open space---our property values will continue to rise---only the rich and tasteful need apply---i will however allow my children to visit my estate since they can never afford to live here---until i die at least----by the way the restaurant you mentioned does make great kettle 1 martinis and the burgers are excellent---anyhow we welcome you to paradise even if you are a democrat

05/30/07 11:38 am

Hypocrisy.


I always love liberals who spout the affordable housing mantra, but not in Delaware Township!

Why not?

Affordable housing has become an assumed responsibility of the working middle class, never the super wealthy and never in there collective backyards.

Torricelli's logic is flawed. The use of a car is mandatory in the state of New Jersey and just about everywhere else. So stop with the mass transit excuse as to why Delaware Township should be excluded from any affordable component.

This is limousine liberalism at it's worst and the Democrats in this state have become nothing but an extenstion of the Smart Growth debacle.

Take this to the bank: There will never be a unit of affordable housing in Delaware Township and it has nothing to do with cars and employment opportunities.

05/30/07 3:18 pm

N-I-B-BY


Not in Bob's Backyard.

05/30/07 6:09 pm

affordable housing


affordable housing is a joke-may those who formulated the mt laurel decision burn in hell-there are four affordable housing units in the village of sergeantsville--they have ruined the charm and ambiance of our oncce quiet and beautiful hamlet---they belong in camden

05/31/07 6:54 am

Plusses and minuses


New Jersey is one of few states that make provision for affordable housing, however structured. In places that don't, there is an exodus of young people who would otherwise provide an engine of growth, attracting ratables for tax relief. Metropolitan areas like Boston and San Diego are now starting to see this effect with a vengeance.

05/31/07 9:41 am

affordable housing


if you cant afford to live here ----dont

06/02/07 12:12 pm

Just a little humility and


Just a little humility and shame would help too. If you don't like affordable housing, maybe you should give us a good cry like you did when you resigned in disgrace.

06/02/07 4:16 pm

Hey, Why Not Just Eat The Poor!


Soylent Green Anyone?

The real solution is social, economic and tax policies that reverse the dynamic of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

If the "price" for getting rid of all poverty is that the number of filthy rich are reduced; then I say that's a small price to pay.

People who work super hard and/or are super creative/productive/competent will always be "at the top" and that's as it should be in a free market economy; the question is...how far away from the bottom should the top be allowed to be???

America would make a very non functional third world country. Too many Americans are educated,  armed and too many have become used to the idea of freedom and upward class mobility.   Too many of us remember the history of the way labor (and social justice/civil rights)  movements (as corrupt as they were/are) helped to create a real middle class.

The longer the greedy filthy rich bastards among us insist of being pigs; the more disruptive will be the corrections when thy come.

As for Torricelli's land of mansions and fat cats; wouldn't it be nice if all the "help" had a decent affordable place to live too? And what would be so horrible if all the servants of the wealthy were actually paid a living wage with health benefits etc so they could afford decent housing and a car (preferably a subsidized hybrid!!!).

What's behind the "thinking" of the nimby people is that average/poor folks are somehow dirty or immoral or ugly or just plain undesireable. Heaven forbid that their children should be exposed to making friends with "those people".

Bob we are a Democracy, everyone gets a single vote; to the extent that dollars vote and not citizens...we are a plutocracy; and, as I said above, that's not sustainable in America.

We will NEVER become a land of a few who are filthy rich and a mass who are powerless peasants.

Hell Bob, even Nicaragua is returning to a more balanced democratic poltical framework....ask Bianca Jagger.

How ironic that in such a "religious" "God fearing" nation people still don't understand the concept that we are all "created equal" and that we all have equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The underlying message/value of America is common human decency. Period.

PS

Bob, if you really don't get what I'm saying; you should consider becoming a Republican in name also.

 

From Frederick Douglass

If there is no struggle there is no progress......Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.

06/04/07 1:38 pm

A True Democrat


Nick, you get it!!!! Bob, in case you forgot, that is what being a Democrat is all about.

06/04/07 2:27 pm

Equality


Equal rights to life, liberty , and the persuit of happiness?  I think not.  We have God-given rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.  We are not all equal, nor can we be made equal as the democrats prefer.  This is the basic and profound difference between democrats and other parties.

And we are not a democracy.  We are a constitutional repbulic.  The founding fathers were afraid of democracy.

06/07/07 6:43 pm

Not So Simple, Aviator


Aviator, you fail to grasp the fundamental truth that equality under the law (or in the eyes of God for that matter) does NOT simply mean "the same as".

For example, a quart of milk and a quart of water are equal on one level; but they are (obviously, not the same)

If you really believe what you said, (and I'll quote in in toto and in bold text).....

" Equal rights to life, liberty , and the persuit of happiness? I think not. "

....then, please tell us which individuals and/or categories of people are NOT entitled to equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness??? I eagerly await your answer.

You go on to proclaim...

"We have God-given rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness."

As a matter of theology, I genarally agree with that; but we are a nation of LAWS that are derived from the authority of our CONSTITUTION! America is NOT (yet) a theocracy!!!

Much of the high principle that is found in the Constitution is rooted in the values of the Declaration of Independence. Those values have their roots in BOTH the realms of matter and spirit.

The founding fathers were not right wing fundamentalist fanatics incapable of applying secular reasoning/values to the principles of governance.

"We are not all equal,"

We are all created equal in the sense that all human life is equally precious in the eyes of God and Law.

In America, you should get the same sentence for premeditatively murdering a homeless crazy person with terminal cancer as you would for murdering a billionaire or a head of state. Youi shouldn't "get off" because you are rich, or powerful or well conected; nor should you get shafted for being poor or an "undesireable" character.

In America, the vote of a developmentally disabled adult counts the same as that of Bill Gates.

In America a 4 ton Hummer has as much rights to the road as a 100 cc motorcycle.

In America justice is blind. We are indeed all equal!!!

I could go on and on with examples of how we are equal; but I suspect that even you, must be getting the point, eh?

".........nor can we be made equal as the democrats prefer."

Again, you are beating a "straw man". You are inferring what I did not imply. Further, you take a cheap shot by failing to capitalize Democrat; that doesn't bolster your argument Aviator, it just make you seem petty. (I'll give you credit for being literate and knowing better.)

I will say this; if your idea of "equality" means that smart, educated ruthless people have the "right" to screw uneducated, gullible less intelligent people (as in predatory lending practices) then I say your concept of equality/fairness/justice is corrupt.

"This is the basic and profound difference between democrats and other parties."

Again, you're beating up on a staw man that only exists in your own mind. Things aren't so just because you proclaim with certainty.

The differences between the Democratic and other political parties are profound and worthy of intelligent in depth debate/discussion. The kind of nonsense you've spouted here only "works" on right wing talk radio or on Fox "News" where sound bites and lopsided prejudice are the modus operandi.

"And we are not a democracy. We are a constitutional repbulic."

That's not quite true. We are a constitutional republic BECAUSE it was /is the will of the people.

The real bottom line, politically, is that if enough people vote a certain way, for a long enough period of time; then the Constitution itself can be reshaped as the majority wishes through its duly elected representatives in the House, Senate, Supreme Court and the executive branch (i.e. President). In other words, our democratic principles (based on the rights of individuals acting as majorities) are the foundation of our republic; not the other way round.

"The founding fathers were afraid of democracy."

Again, you oversimplify.

What they were afraid of was "a tyranny of the majority". A pure democracy could lead to a kind of mob rule wherin the passions of the moment dominate good sense and common human decency.

The whole structure of "checks and balances" in our constitutional republic is designed to act as a buffer to protect us all against a precipitous excercize of raw unchecked "democracy"/mob rule; however, if there is a sustained and systemic majority of the popular will...then our Constitution itself may be amended in all manner of ways. Again, ultimately, the power is in the hands of the voters (in the long run). Which is as it should be.

So yes, you're right in that we are a constitutional republic; but you're quite wrong if you fail to grasp the practical reality that the integrity (political and moral) of that republic lies in the quality of the citizenry who excercize the democratic process of electoral policis when they do (or don't) vote. 

It's a bit ironic that you (I presume a non Democrat ;-) find yourself in some agreement with Robert Torricelli on the affordable housing issue. Strange bedfellows indeed! LOL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From Frederick Douglass

If there is no struggle there is no progress......Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.

06/08/07 5:12 pm

Nick


Thanks for the history lesson, but I really don't need it. Especially from a bleeding heart liberal. As for afordable housing - I am a firm believer that there is no free lunch; and that life is not fair. This is reality, not the rich screwing the poor as you say. Government should only assist when the individual is unable to assist himself through no fault of their own, period. I speak in general terms rather than debate this point ad nauseum. In this country there is no reason why any person cannot bring him/herself up to making a living and supporting themselves.  All it takes is persistence and determination. Remember that Mr. liberal? Its called personal responsibility.

06/11/07 4:16 pm

no free lunch


aviator---you got it right

06/11/07 9:15 pm

You Guys Sound Like George Bush....


...and that ain't no compliment.

It's funny, after all I've written, the best "rebuttals" you can come up with are silly slogans and simplistic assertions.

Do you have any idea how lame those responses were? LOL

When you feel up to a real debate/discussion/exchange of ideas, let me know.

 

 

From Frederick Douglass

If there is no struggle there is no progress......Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.

06/12/07 10:43 pm

nick


get help

06/13/07 7:41 am

guglicello


Thanks!

We are all in need of assistance from the Lord. My prayers are with you also. :-)

From Frederick Douglass

If there is no struggle there is no progress......Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.

06/13/07 10:56 am

nick


thanks no offense meant i do enjoy reading your replys youare most definitly more informed than i

06/13/07 11:13 am