recognizing the need for affordable housing and providing, in response to zoning practices excluding affordable housing, that, as a matter of state constitutional law, every developing municipality has an obligation to provide, through its land use regulation, a realistic opportunity for the provision of its fair share of the regional need for affordable housing
How later courts described this case
- recognizing the need for affordable housing and providing, in response to zoning practices excluding affordable housing, that, as a matter of state constitutional law, every developing municipality has an obligation to provide, through its land use regulation, a realistic opportunity for the provision of its fair share of the regional need for affordable housing
- holding developing municipalities are under a A-0989-22 2 By way of background, plaintiff notes its affiliate companies, CT95-CT07 200 Park LLC and DT95-DT07 200 Park LLC ("CT95/DT95"
- noting that guarantees of substantive due process and equal protection, though not expressed in those terms, have nevertheless been deemed inherent in Article 1, paragraph 1 of New Jersey Constitution
- preserving municipality’s tax base was an illegitimate rationale for a zoning ordinance
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mountain, J.
(concurring). I agree with the conclusions reached in the Court’s opinion and essentially with the opinion itself. In one important respect, however, I disagree. The Court rests its decision upon a ground of State constitutional law. I reach the same result by concluding that the term, “general welfare,” appearing in N. J. S. A. 40:55-32, can and should properly be interpreted with the same amplitude attributed to that phrase in the opinion of the Court, as well as otherwise in the manner there set forth. I therefore would rest the conclusions we here announce upon an interpretation of the statute, and not upon the State constitution.
Accordingly, since I read the statute — without resort to the Constitution — to justify, if not compel, our decision, I find it unnecessary to express any view as to the merits of the constitutional argument set forth in the Court’s opinion.