Months of political fighting between Mayor Daniel Rodrick and the Toms River Township Council majority have left the township struggling to finalize its state mandated affordable housing plan, with both sides blaming the other for the ongoing dispute.
The latest confrontation came Monday night, when the council majority rejected another proposed housing agreement. Rodrick warned that the decision could expose Toms River to lawsuits and potentially thousands of additional apartments. Council members, meanwhile, have raised concerns about using valuable taxpayer owned property for affordable housing development and whether the administration has provided sufficient information about the proposed agreements.
At the center of the dispute is the township’s obligation to provide affordable housing under New Jersey law. The administration negotiated a plan that would satisfy much of that obligation by extending affordability restrictions on existing apartments while allowing approximately 250 new affordable units to be constructed.
However, the plan has undergone several revisions as proposed developments along Route 70, Hooper Avenue, and Route 9 have faced objections from council members and residents.
One of the biggest disagreements involves township owned land on Route 9 that was purchased by previous administrations for approximately $10 million.
Although the property was purchased with open space in mind, it was never formally designated as protected open space, according to previous reporting.
Members of the council majority have questioned whether land purchased with taxpayer money should be made available to private developers under favorable financial arrangements rather than requiring developers to acquire property themselves.
The Rodrick administration maintains that developments consisting entirely of affordable housing require public assistance because restricted rents generate significantly less revenue than market rate apartments.
The two sides remain divided over the financial arrangements and whether alternative locations or development proposals could satisfy the township’s housing obligations.
The disagreement has become increasingly personal, with Rodrick accusing the council majority of obstructing negotiations and council members accusing the administration of failing to communicate and provide adequate information.
During a July council meeting, Council President David Ciccozzi complained that certain officials had been excluded from communications and negotiations. Rodrick defended his administration’s handling of the process and described the negotiated settlement as favorable to the township.
During a subsequent court hearing, Superior Court Judge Sean Gertner emphasized the need for better communication among the parties involved.
Rodrick has maintained that his administration negotiated an agreement intended to protect the township from extensive additional development, while council members have questioned the terms of certain proposals and their involvement in the negotiating process.
Rodrick has warned that rejecting the settlement could expose Toms River to more than 8,000 apartments.
That figure is based on a calculation involving affordable housing obligations and developments containing both market rate and affordable units. It does not represent 8,000 approved apartments or a court order requiring that number.
Under New Jersey’s affordable housing laws, municipalities that lose protection from builder’s remedy lawsuits can face legal challenges from developers seeking approval for projects that might otherwise be restricted under local zoning regulations.
The administration argues that its proposed settlement would help protect Toms River from that possibility, while the council majority has continued to raise objections to elements of the plan.
With an October 30 court filing deadline and a December 7 hearing approaching, the township faces additional pressure to resolve the dispute.
The continuing disagreement has left the mayor and council at odds over how to satisfy the township’s affordable housing obligations while addressing concerns about development density, taxpayer owned property, and the financial arrangements with developers.
Rodrick maintains that the council majority is jeopardizing the township’s legal protections by rejecting the negotiated agreements. Council members have argued that their concerns about the proposals and the administration’s handling of negotiations have not been adequately addressed.
After months of rejected proposals, revised plans, and court extensions, the two sides have yet to reach an agreement.
Both the mayor and council majority maintain that their respective positions are intended to protect Toms River from overdevelopment.
With another court deadline approaching, it remains unclear whether the administration and council can resolve their differences or whether the dispute will require further intervention by the court.
