By Gerry Scharfenberger
New Jersey has long been known as the most densely populated state in the union. This is the result of numerous factors, namely, a desirable coastal location with a labor-intensive industrial/agricultural history sandwiched between two major cities, New York and Philadelphia. Benjamin Franklin once described New Jersey as a “barrel tapped at both ends.” The steady trajectory of population growth has proved a burden to both urban and suburban communities and at times, even rural areas as they struggle to absorb swelling numbers with finite resources and limited infrastructure. Thus, development over the years has grown into one of the most hotly-debated issues in New Jersey.
Fast forward to 2026 when the price of housing throughout the country is skyrocketing and New Jersey has the unenviable distinction of having the highest property taxes in the nation. As a result, many young people are forced to either live with their parents well into adulthood or move out of the state to more affordable areas.
Trenton’s solution to this dilemma is never to lower property taxes or the cost of living, but instead to give certain municipalities massive housing quotas that threaten the environment, infrastructure and very character of these unfortunate towns.
The response from many of the elected officials in these towns is understandable outrage and frustration. One mayor from a small town in my district that is almost completely built out stated that they would have to demolish 40% of the existing buildings in town to comply with the excessive mandate handed down. Another mayor told me that “there wouldn’t be a blade of grass left in town” if they tried to accommodate the quota to which they were assigned.
This is a refrain repeated over and over as towns scramble to avoid the destructive fallout from the excessive housing quotas. The resultant overdevelopment is one of the reasons why areas that have historically had minimal or no flooding are seeing a serious increase as more and more impervious coverage is introduced. Other environmental negatives include deforestation, erosion, increased stress on water supplies and stormwater systems and so on.
The most bizarre aspect of this is the fact that there are 47 municipalities in New Jersey that have exactly zero housing quotas. Most, if not all are urban areas that have significant infrastructure, utilities, public transportation, job centers and endless developed properties that could be redeveloped with no negative impact on the environment.
If these areas were utilized for housing, there would be no downside. It would increase municipal revenues, rejuvenate blighted areas, upgrade aging infrastructure, create sorely needed construction jobs in urban areas and improve the local environment through brownfield remediation.
Further, it directs development to areas that can accommodate increasing population growth without overwhelming local services, budgets and infrastructure. It would in turn increase housing stock in the state, which would ease the upward pressure on housing prices.
Herein lies the political reality of overdevelopment. Why would so many viable municipalities be exempt from the onerous housing quotas imposed on others around the state? Why not put development where it is wanted, needed, and feasible? The answer may be more political, than economic. When certain areas tend to vote a certain way, what better way for one political party who has had little success to counter that than to bring voters in who are likely to vote the opposite way – a way that would benefit them?
In the final analysis, when you pass by a former farm field, or cleared forest area that are now covered with army-barrack styled developments consisting of hundreds of units in a sleepy suburban or rural town, you are likely witnessing an attempt to not only change the physical character of a town, but the political makeup as well.
No amount of political power is worth the large-scale environmental and financial devastation that overdevelopment brings.
