1.  Loss of Local Control: Small towns face state-imposed housing quotas (e.g., Cranbury’s 265 units by 2035) or risk lawsuits and court-ordered projects, limiting community-driven decisions.

 

2.  Seizure of Private Land: Eminent domain threatens properties like the Henry family’s 175-year-old farm in Cranbury, disrupting families, farmland, and local history.

 

3.  Profit-Driven Development: Large projects, like Cranbury’s 130-unit complex, often include few “affordable” units, prioritizing developers’ profits over community needs.

 

4.  Unaffordable “Affordable” Housing: The state’s “affordable” housing criteria often exclude the poorest residents, failing to address the housing crisis.

 

5.  Poorly Located Housing: Affordable units are frequently built in inconvenient areas, far from jobs, transit, or schools, hindering low-income families.

 

6.  Strain on Resources: Small towns with limited budgets struggle to support new developments, risking overcrowded schools, strained utilities, and higher taxes.

 

7.  Loss of Community Character: Development replaces farmland, historic sites, or open spaces, altering the rural identity of towns like Cranbury.

 

8.  Developer Power via Lawsuits: “Builder’s remedy” lawsuits enable developers to force projects, overriding local opposition and prioritizing profits.

 

9.  Environmental Impact: Building on farms or forests harms ecosystems, increases traffic, and reduces green spaces in small communities.

 

10.  Economic Harm to Farmers: Seizing agricultural land, as in Cranbury, threatens farmers’ livelihoods and local food production, impacting the economy and heritage.