Originally appeared in the Star Ledger on 10/23/01
By Paul Mulshine

During a televised town meeting in Glassboro last week, one of the candidates for governor gave perhaps the best explanation yet of the role of the state's Mt. Laurel program in promoting suburban sprawl.

And it wasn't Republican Bret Schundler.

Schundler, of course, is the candidate who is calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the two Mt. Laurel decisions. But he long ago made his point: If you want to curb sprawl, it makes no sense to have laws that let developers sue to construct high-density housing on the little remaining open space in the suburbs.

That's obvious. But it was Democrat Jim McGreevey who made the case against Mt. Laurel. He wasn't trying to, but he did it brilliantly.

The exchange came after an audience member asked the candidates for their positions on affordable housing. Schundler answered first. As usual, he pointed to the insanity of jamming more housing into the suburbs when it should go into cities, such as his own Jersey City. And he also cited the example of a certain suburban mayor who went to court to keep from building affordable housing in his own crowded town.

"Jim McGreevey is fighting affordable housing in his community even as he condemns me for trying to get rid of the Mt. Laurel decision," Schundler said.

This was a damning charge if true. And it was true, as McGreevey admitted in his reply.

"What happened in Woodbridge is that the developers built some five or six thousand units all over the township," McGreevey said by way of explanation. "And yet when I came into office, I told them to stop. We needed open space, open space where we could play and where we could take our kids. And I was in litigation for 10 years. Yes, I support open space, but I also support the concept of affordable housing."

Good point, but any of a hundred suburban mayors could have said the same thing. Their towns have all been "ravaged by developers," as McGreevey put it. And yet the state demands they sit still for yet another round of ravaging.

After the debate, I asked McGreevey the question I ask all Mt. Laurel supporters: Can you name one suburban town in which the Mt. Laurel approach actually worked? "Yes, there are several," McGreevey answered. "Cherry Hill."

The next day I called Cherry Hill Mayor Susan Bass Levin. It turned out there was indeed one important difference between her town and Woodbridge. Cherry Hill's court fight against the developers didn't take 10 years. It took nine.

"We were sued in 1984 and the settlement was in 1993," said Levin. "We have a court-appointed master. The litigation is still going on."

In the case of Cherry Hill, the affordable housing crowd has its eye on the last chunk of open space in that crowded Philadelphia suburb, a township-owned 80-acre tract in the middle of the sprawl. "It is a beautiful oasis in the middle of Cherry Hill, and it should stay that way," Levin said.

It would, except for the Mt. Laurel rulings. "When we purchased that land, we were sued saying we should have used that land for housing," said Levin.

The open space is safe for now, but every six years, the state issues new affordable housing quotas. Sooner or later, those fields will sprout condos unless the Mt. Laurel decisions are overturned.

It's the same everywhere in this, the most densely populated state in the union. Show me a town with an affordable housing quota and I will show you a mayor who can make the same argument that McGreevey did. Levin, who is a Democrat, said she agrees with McGreevey on the principle behind Mt. Laurel but says the execution is flawed. I don't even agree with the principle. The principle -- stated in as many words in the court decisions -- is that the suburbs are filled with narrow-minded people who use zoning codes to keep out people different from themselves.

Perhaps there are some people like that. But the suburbanites I meet are much more like McGreevey and Levin, people who are honestly trying to avoid any more sprawl in their already overcrowded towns. And it's worse than that. Every time a town adds industrial or business ratables to try to keep property taxes down, the affordable housing quota rises. This can only end when every suburban lot is covered at the highest density possible.

All of this would be a non-issue were it not for the fact that McGreevey claims to be the candidate of the middle class.

If Mt. Laurel helped the middle class, the mayor of Woodbridge wouldn't have gone to court to fight it.

Paul Mulshine is a Star-Ledger columnist.