Overdevelopment, Impervious Surfaces, and the Strain on Schools: Lessons from New Jersey’s Mt. Laurel Housing Mandates

Few states feel the impact of development decisions as acutely as New Jersey. Already the most densely populated state in the nation, New Jersey faces mounting pressure to balance affordable housing obligations with the realities of infrastructure and school capacity. At the heart of this balancing act lies the Mt. Laurel housing decisions, which require municipalities to provide opportunities for affordable housing. While the intent is noble — ensuring equitable access to housing — the downstream effects on schools and local environments cannot be ignored. I sat on my hometown's Planning Board for 8 years, and quite frankly, have seen it all.

Mt. Laurel and the Ripple Effect on Schools

The Mt. Laurel doctrine, originating from state Supreme Court rulings in the 1970s, mandates that towns must allow for a “fair share” of affordable housing. In practice, this often means large-scale townhouse or apartment developments. Each new project inevitably brings more children into local schools, sometimes dozens or even hundreds depending on the size and affordability of the units.

The problem? Most districts are already at or near capacity. A single new development can tip the balance, forcing districts into expensive construction projects, redistricting battles, or reliance on temporary trailers. These costs almost always fall back onto local taxpayers — the same residents who are told these projects will “help stabilize” their property tax base.

Imperviousness: The Overlooked Factor

Layered on top of enrollment growth is the issue of impervious coverage. This is one term I learned very quickly while serving on the Planning Board. New Jersey’s suburban and exurban areas, once defined by farmland and open space, are increasingly covered by asphalt, concrete, and rooftops. Every new development adds to imperviousness, reducing the land’s ability to absorb rainwater.

The result? Higher flooding risks, strained stormwater systems, and costly environmental mitigation projects — bills that towns must pay on top of expanded school budgets. In many cases, school grounds themselves become vulnerable: flooded athletic fields, damaged playgrounds, and compromised building foundations.

The Double Burden on Taxpayers

The Mt. Laurel mandates place municipalities in a bind. On one hand, they must comply with affordable housing obligations. On the other, they must find ways to pay for the double burden of development:

1. Increased school enrollment, requiring more classrooms, staff, and resources.

2. Increased impervious cover, straining municipal budgets for stormwater and infrastructure.

The irony is that the very residents these policies aim to help — working families — often find themselves facing higher taxes as districts scramble to keep up.

Toward Smarter Solutions

This is not a call to abandon the principles of Mt. Laurel, but rather a call to integrate school capacity and environmental impact into housing policy. Towns should be empowered to negotiate with developers for contributions toward school construction, green infrastructure, and stormwater management. Impervious coverage caps should be tied directly to school impact studies, ensuring growth does not overwhelm local systems.

Affordable housing is essential, but it cannot be pursued in isolation from the realities of overdevelopment, imperviousness, and enrollment pressures. True equity means building communities where children can learn in classrooms that are not overcrowded, and where residents are not footing unsustainable tax bills just to keep schools and streets functional.

New Jersey’s Mt. Laurel decisions reshaped the state’s housing landscape, but the unintended consequences — overdevelopment, impervious surfaces, and overwhelmed schools — demand urgent attention. If policymakers want to honor the spirit of Mount Laurel while safeguarding the future of New Jersey’s children, they must adopt a more holistic approach that balances housing needs, environmental realities, and educational capacity.