State Supreme Court.JPG

The New Jersey Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Trenton in 2013.

(Patti Sapone | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com)

TRENTON — The state Supreme Court ruled today that judges will take over the regulation of affordable housing in New Jersey after Gov. Chris Christie's administration repeatedly failed to obey an order to establish a new set of guidelines.

New Jersey's highest court voted 6-0 that lower courts are now tasked with deciding on a case-by-case basis how many homes should be made available to low- and moderate-income residents in towns across the state.

The move is the latest twist in a convoluted, decades-long battle over affordable housing in one of the country's most expensive places to live.

It was also seen as the judiciary's latest blow to Christie, a potential candidate for the 2016 Republican nomination for president who has long criticized New Jersey's courts as being too liberal.

New Jersey's last affordable housing guidelines expired in 1999, and the Supreme Court ordered the Council on Affordable Housing — the state agency in charge of the rules — to pass new, expanded quotas last year. But the council missed the court's November deadline and has not held a meeting since.

Frustrated affordable housing advocates filed a lawsuit asking to transfer affordable housing regulations from the council to the courts.

Writing for the court today, Justice Jaynee LaVecchia said the council — also known as COAH — "is not capable of functioning as intended" under state law.

"Due to COAH's inaction, we agree that there no longer exists a legitimate basis to block access to the courts," LaVecchia wrote.

But Christie, who lambasted the Supreme Court for being "out of control" in a previous affordable housing decision, didn't blast today's ruling. Kevin Roberts, a spokesman for governor's office, characterized it as "a call to action to finally finish the job of reforming our affordable housing system so that it is no longer a costly burden to the people of New Jersey and actually encourages sound development."

Christie proposed abolishing COAH in 2010, saying the state should get "the hell out of the business of telling people how many units they're supposed to have" and allow individual towns to set their own quotas. The legislation passed the state Senate but was amended in the Assembly. Christie conditionally vetoed the measure, sending it back to the Legislature in its original form, but it eventually stalled.

"Now is the time to finish what we started and move these bills to take the judicial system out of the process of creating a rational process for encouraging the development of affordable housing that is grounded in economic feasibility and land-use planning," Roberts said today.

Kevin Walsh, director of Fair Share Housing Center, the advocacy group that headed the lawsuit, praised today's decision.

"Too many New Jersey municipalities exclude people who work in the stores and diners of New Jersey," Walsh said. "We now have a way to make sure they are not excluded and to ensure there are fair housing opportunities for people who are forced to live far from their jobs and families and who have been displaced by Superstorm Sandy. The court properly responded to the failure of the state government to implement the law."

U.S. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-12th Dist.) called the ruling "a landmark moment for our entire state, and the underlying policies have the potential to improve millions of lives across the country."

The move could be temporary, though. The court added that COAH can regain control if it passes new rules and that the state Legislature may also come up with a new affordable housing law.

HISTORY OF THE ISSUE

In 1983, the state Supreme Court ruled that New Jersey municipalities must provide for a "fair share" of affordable homes for their poorest residents. Two years later, the state Legislature passed the Fair Housing Act, which established COAH to carry out guidelines.

After Christie tried to disband COAH, the Supreme Court intervened in 2013 and ordered the council to write new guidelines within five months that increase the number of units required. Christie responded by slamming the affordable housing system as "a failed experiment now continuing to be promulgated by an out-of-control court that can never admit its mistakes."

COAH missed the court's deadline twice. In October, the council was deadlocked in a 3-3 vote to finalize new rules, which called for 110,000 additional affordable homes across New Jersey within 10 years.

Affordable housing advocates argued that number was too low for a state with 9 million residents and a cost of living that ranks among the highest in the U.S.

It was possible that the Supreme Court could have extended COAH's deadline again, but LaVecchia wrote that "more time is not a viable response."

A BLOW TO CHRISTIE?

All three of Christie's appointees to the court — Justices Anne Patterson, Faustino Fernandez-Vina, and Lee Solomon — voted in favor of today's ruling.

Frank Askin, a law professor at Rutgers-Newark, said it was a sign the governor can't mold the court's decisions.

"I don't know what Christie is going to do," Askin said. "He's going to have to start attacking his own judges as being activists."

"Christie tries to bully everybody," he added. "He thinks he can bully the court, as well. He can't do it."

State Assemblyman Jerry Green (D-Union) called the decision "a sad day for the state of New Jersey" because "this process could have been avoided entirely if the governor had worked with the Legislature to resolve this matter."

But Lori Grifa, a former commissioner of the state Department of Community Affairs under Christie, noted that previous administrations also failed to establish new rules and that today's 55-page decision doesn't call the governor out by name.

"They did not take any shots at him at all," said Grifa, who is now a partner at Hackensack law firm Archer & Greiner. "I thought the decision was very measured and apolitical. When an administration body is not functioning, people need to have an outlet, and that outlet will be the court."

WHAT THE RULING MEANS

The Supreme Court said today's ruling will allow developers, as well as low- and moderate-income residents, to head to court to "challenge any municipality" that is believed not to have made a "fair share" of affordable housing available. It will also allow municipalities to defend their compliance.

The ruling will not take effect for 90 days to allow the courts to set up a system for the cases.

For 30 days after that, judges will take applications only from towns seeking protection from' lawsuits by saying they have tried to comply with COAH's guidelines.

After that, judges can begin hearing lawsuits from developers seeking to build at higher densities than normally allowed to provide for more affordable housing.

But who actually benefits from the ruling? It depends whom you ask.

Staci Berger, president of the Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey, said the decision gives "more of our hardworking residents, seniors, and people with disabilities ... the opportunity to live in homes they can afford in communities of their choice."

Charles Latini, president of the New Jersey chapter of the American Planning Association, said "perhaps New Jersey can finally get on with the essential work of ensuring a diverse and affordable housing stock for one of the most diverse states in the nation."

Piscataway Mayor Brian Wahler, president of the New Jersey League of Municipalities, said the ruling allows towns "breathing room to voluntarily comply and be protected from costly litigation." But he stressed that going back to the courts is still "not a violable solution" and that state lawmakers should vote on a new plan.

Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey chapter of environmental group the Sierra Club, said he fears the ruling favors developers.

"This is putting developer targets on the backs of many of our towns trying to push through bad projects in environmentally sensitive areas," Tittel said. "This again shows the arrogance and abuse of power of the Christie administration who would rather side with developers than actually build affordable housing."

Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner did not vote in the case.

MORE POLITICS

Brent Johnson may be reached at bjohnson@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @johnsb01. Find NJ.com Politics on Facebook.