Bill > SCR52

Introduced Session

This concurrent resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to clarify municipal obligations regarding affordable housing. The amendment would place language in the State Constitution to specifically prohibit the practice of exclusionary zoning. Exclusionary zoning can prevent the development of low income housing units and has been declared illegal by federal and State courts. Pursuant to the amendment, towns would not have an obligation to actually construct, or cause to be constructed, affordable housing units. This would eliminate litigation that results in the forced construction of specific residential projects. It has been more than 40 years since the first court case was initiated in New Jersey concerning the opportunities for poor and minority families to obtain affordable housing. The opinion of the New Jersey Supreme Court in this case and subsequent decisions have become known as the Mount Laurel doctrine. Since that time, the demographics of the State have changed markedly, including increased population growth and density, wider disparity of income levels among residents, and perhaps most importantly, tremendous increases in the average cost of housing. The early judicial decisions concerning this issue identified certain local government zoning practices as a bar to increasing the opportunities for housing for low and moderate income households. A somewhat melded judicial and statutory scheme was created to impel municipalities to eliminate these practices voluntarily. Certain regulatory measures were implemented requiring municipal financial expenditures if certain zoning mechanisms were not embraced. Competing financial concerns for resources, such as new infrastructure and schools, have played a role in the complicated interpretation of the Mount Laurel mandate. This amendment is intended to overturn the Mount Laurel mandate regarding the actual construction of affordable housing units and eliminate the so-called "builder's remedy" lawsuit, while reaffirming the State's commitment to elimination discriminatory zoning practices. The courts could remedy constitutional violations of the prohibition on discriminatory zoning by striking down zoning ordinances, rather than forcing the specific construction of any particular project.

AI Summary

Committee Categories

Holly Schepisi (R)*, 

Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee (on 01/13/2026)

Official Document