Understanding Low Income Housing

Low Income Housing does not necessarily mean "undesirables" are coming to Evesham. If the housing to be built is done via COAH (Council On Affordable Housing) & HUD guidelines the price line breaks down as such:

Income Guidelines 2006 (effective 3/8/2006)

LOW $25,500 MOD $40,400 one person

LOW $28,850 MOD $46,150 two people

LOW $32,450 MOD $51,950 three people

LOW $36,050 MOD $57,700 four people

MOD referring to moderate income

If we are talking about apartment rentals, the following is 2005's final for an efficiency to a 3 bedroom.

efficiency - $663.00 per month w/o utilities

1 bedroom - $761.00 per month w/o utilities

2 bedroom - $914.00 per month w/o utilities

3 bedroom - $1,095.00 per month w/o utilities

MISSION STATEMENT FROM COAH

To facilitate the production of sound, affordable housing for low and moderate income households by providing the most effective process to municipalities, housing providers, nonprofit and for profit developers to address a constitutional obligation within the framework of sound, comprehensive planning.

Interestingly enough, Mt. Laurel is in an uproar over Evesham putting low income on their border, yet it is because of Mt. Laurel these standards exist.

The Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) was created by the Fair Housing Act of 1985 as the State Legislature's response to a series of New Jersey Supreme Court cases known as the Mount Laurel decisions. The Supreme Court established a constitutional obligation for each of the 566 municipalities in the state to establish a realistic opportunity for the provision of fair share low and moderate income housing obligations, generally through land use and zoning powers. The legislature provided an administrative alternative to this constitutional obligation via the Fair Housing Act.

Evesham, as usual, never does the right thing, the Twp. Just came out of a judgment of Repose because they didn't do the lawful thing to begin with. Now we are stuck with building 233 units and purchasing land that supposedly will not exceed $2.5 million dollars. A very nice chunk of change to fulfill our obligation set by the court.

Make no mistake, the above figures are accurate, meaning that a working mother with a child could afford to live here, but if all units are not utilized, section 8 vouchers, by law must be accepted.

On a personal note, clustering low income housing is a very bad idea for all. The stigma attached to "projects" like what is proposed in Evesham will be very detrimental to the children living there and coming into our schools. Like it or not the reality of NIMBY (not in my back yard) is alive and well. While I abhor the government forcing this on us because of the impact to our schools in particular, the law is the law. We the tax payer will foot the bill for all of the children coming into our schools and because of the clustering and not spreading out the homes, the closest schools will feel the impact. Evesham has low income sites scattered throughout the Twp. Case in point, we have an elected official that lives in low income housing. The Mayor and Council need to do better and find more alternatives instead of pushing all the obligation on Mt. Laurel's border. The easy answer is not always the right answer.

I challenge the elected officials in this town to find alternatives rather than dumping their issues on Mt.Laurel's border, clogging our schools and generally pushing their problem where no one can see it. If the job is done right using scattered sites, which, by the way, is obviously more work at the drawing board (not an Evesham strong suit) the impact to all will be lessened and a neon sign will not be tattooed to the foreheads of the children who's parents are trying to provide a better life for them.