Root Cause of Affordibility Crisis - And Other Economic Woes In America

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

Americans have suffered from wage suppression since 1975. That is when business owners stopped giving wage earners productivity raises. It was intentional. For decades before, companies regularly shared their growing profits with their employees. Cost of living adjustments (or COLAs) were a bonus to keep dollars earned in line with inflation.

I have been writing about this issue as long as I have been blogging. It seems too few citizens realize just how diabolical this change was, or how much impact it is having still.

Before about 1975, wage compensation and U.S. economic growth grew in tandem. We all shared in the new wealth that, working together, we all created. The middle class grew stronger every year, as did business owners. After America’s corporations colluded to eliminate productivity wages, all new economic growth (new wealth) accrued to corporate and business owners, not to their employees. As a result, while the American economy grew, wages compensation no longer grew in proportion. American workers only received COLAs to adjust for inflation. Our income and wealth began shrinking relative to the U.S. economy. It continues to shrink every year.

As of the end of 2025, when adjusted for inflation, the economy of the United State is over five times larger than it was in 1975. If wage compensation and U.S. economic growth continued to rise in tandem over these past 50 years, our wages would also be five times higher than what they were in 1975. The difference between what our wages should be and what they are is roughly equal to the total growth of wealth inequality in America. Moreover, the loss of middle-class income due to wage suppression results in a loss of state and federal income tax revenue needed to fund our growing nation. To put it another way, income tax revenue would be five times higher without any tax rate increase in 50 years. The failure of wealthy owners to share America’s economic growth with the American people is the root cause of our present affordability crisis.

Here is one example of how wage suppression impacts an economic issue. In 1968 the federal minimum wage $1.60/hour. Adjusted for inflation, that would correspond to a minimum wage of $15.06 per hour today. If you compare the dollar increase in minimum wages between 1968 and now with the inflation adjusted minimum wages for the same period, you get two very different graphs:

Federal Minimum Wage Rate (1968-2026)
Federal Minimum Wage Rate: $7.25 as of 2026
HISTORICAL RATES HISTORICAL RATES ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION



The graph on the left is the dollar increases in federal minimum wage over time while the graph on the right is the purchase power of a minimum wage over the same time. The one on the left rises while the one on the right declines.

In New Jersey, we set out to raise our minimum wage. This year it stands as $15.92. That means it is eighty-six cents higher now than in 1968. Great! But wait! The national economy is five times greater than it was in 1975 (and how much larger than in 1968?). If wages rose in proportion to the growing wealth of our economy, our minimum wage should have grown five times more than in 1975 as well. That means our current minimum wage should be $15.06 X 5, which is $75.30 per hour.

That may seem ridiculous until you compare that wage rate to the current rate of a living wage in the Country. A living wage is the minimum hourly income necessary to meet a person, or a family’s basic human needs. It varies from region to region, but in New Jersey, the average living wage is higher than you might suspect. Here is what a search for the current living wage in New Jersey has to say:

As of early 2026, the estimated living wage for a single adult in New Jersey is approximately $27.35 per hour ($56,888 annually, assuming 2,080 hours) to cover basic necessities. A separate 2025 analysis suggests a higher, broader estimate of roughly $72,773 annually, while families with children require significantly more, with a single parent of three needing over $73 per hour.

There it is. Fifty years later, the minimum wage in 1975 was close to what a family of four required to meet their basic needs. Today that same minimum wage in New Jersey (again, adjusted for inflation) is inadequate to pay for the basic needs of a family of four.

The U.S. Affordability Crisis - By The Numbers

By AI search (and Brian T Lynch, MSW)

The United States is a very rich country with a poor citizenry. It is structurally organized to grow and maintain this vast disparity, and we the people are beginning to catch on to that fact.  I asked  an AI search aboutthis and here is what came up. 

The average American net worth* is estimated at approximately $620,654 (as of 2024/2025), though this figure is heavily skewed by high-wealth households. A more representative figure, the median net worth, is significantly lower at roughly $124,041. 

Average (Mean): Calculated by taking total household wealth and dividing it by the number of households. This number is often high because billionaires and ultra-high-net-worth individuals pull the average upward.

Median: The exact middle point. Half of the population has more, and half has less. This is generally considered a more accurate reflection of American’s lived experience  

Approximately 88% to 97% of U.S. families have less than $1 million in specific investments or retirement savings. While average net worth is high due to top-tier wealth, only about 4.7% of Americans hold at least $1 million in retirement-specific accounts. Roughly 1 in 6 (about 16-18%) households have a total net worth exceeding $1 million. 

Retirement Account Data: Only 4.7% of Americans have $1 million+ in dedicated retirement accounts (e.g., 401(k) or IRA).

Total Household Assets: Roughly 88% of U.S. households have a total net worth under $1 million.

Liquid Assets: Estimates suggest only about 2% of US adults have over $1 million in liquid assets like cash, stocks, or bonds.

Median vs. Average: While the average U.S. household net worth is over $1 million, the median (typical) net worth is only around $192,700

Age is a Factor: While 65-74 year olds have the highest average net worth ($1.2M), their median net worth is only $266,400.

Here is a startling fact;  According to the most recent comprehensive Federal Reserve data (2022 SCF, typically cited through 2025), couples with children have a median net worth of $250,620, while single parents have a median net worth of $50,750.

As of recent federal data, the median household net worth in the United States is approximately $192,700 (based on 2022 Survey of Consumer Finances data released in 2023). While average net worth exceeds $1 million due to high-wealth outliers, the median provides a more accurate "middle point" for the typical American family. 

Here is a particularly sad fact given America’s great wealth:  The United States consistently records higher child poverty rates than most European countries. Recent data indicates the U.S. child poverty rate has been observed at approximately 21% to 26%, whereas many European nations, particularly in Scandinavia and parts of Western Europe, frequently report rates between 5% and 12%.

While temporary policy shifts like the expanded Child Tax Credit briefly reduced U.S. rates, the U.S. generally remains at the high end of developed nations. 

Me here: As a child welfare worker for 30 years I have observed first-hand that the financial welfare of our children isn’t a priority in America.

* Note that the average net worth of $620,654 per person is what each of us would have if America’s personal wealth was equally distributed.

The United States is a very rich country with a poor citizenry. It is structurally organized to grow and maintain this vast disparity, and we the people are beginning to catch on to that fact. I asked an AI search anout this and here is what came up:

The average American net worth* is estimated at approximately $620,654 (as of 2024/2025), though this figure is heavily skewed by high-wealth households. A more representative figure, the median net worth, is significantly lower at roughly $124,041.

Average (Mean): Calculated by taking total household wealth and dividing it by the number of households. This number is often high because billionaires and ultra-high-net-worth individuals pull the average upward.

Median: The exact middle point. Half of the population has more, and half has less. This is generally considered a more accurate reflection of American’s lived experience

Approximately 88% to 97% of U.S. families have less than $1 million in specific investments or retirement savings. While average net worth is high due to top-tier wealth, only about 4.7% of Americans hold at least $1 million in retirement-specific accounts. Roughly 1 in 6 (about 16-18%) households have a total net worth exceeding $1 million.

Retirement Account Data: Only 4.7% of Americans have $1 million+ in dedicated retirement accounts (e.g., 401(k) or IRA).

Total Household Assets: Roughly 88% of U.S. households have a total net worth under $1 million.

Liquid Assets: Estimates suggest only about 2% of US adults have over $1 million in liquid assets like cash, stocks, or bonds.

Median vs. Average: While the average U.S. household net worth is over $1 million, the median (typical) net worth is only around $192,700

Age is a Factor: While 65-74 year olds have the highest average net worth ($1.2M), their median net worth is only $266,400.

Here is a startling fact; According to the most recent comprehensive Federal Reserve data (2022 SCF, typically cited through 2025), couples with children have a median net worth of $250,620, while single parents have a median net worth of $50,750.

As of recent federal data, the median household net worth in the United States is approximately $192,700 (based on 2022 Survey of Consumer Finances data released in 2023). While average net worth exceeds $1 million due to high-wealth outliers, the median provides a more accurate "middle point" for the typical American family.

Here is a particularly sad fact given America’s great wealth: The United States consistently records higher child poverty rates than most European countries. Recent data indicates the U.S. child poverty rate has been observed at approximately 21% to 26%, whereas many European nations, particularly in Scandinavia and parts of Western Europe, frequently report rates between 5% and 12%.

While temporary policy shifts like the expanded Child Tax Credit briefly reduced U.S. rates, the U.S. generally remains at the high end of developed nations.

Me here: As a child welfare worker for 30 years I have observed first-hand that the financial welfare of our children isn’t a priority in America.

* Note that the average net worth of $620,654 per person is what each of us would have if America’s personal wealth was equally distributed.

Thoughts on Building Better, More Responsive Municipal Planning Boards

 Posted Here by Brian T. Lynch

Residents in Mine Hill do not currently have a citizen Environmental Commission tasked with assisting our Municipal Planning Board to balance environmental protection of our natural land resources with developers build-out proposals, land-use regulations, and code enforcement.

The Environmental Commission we once had, which was praised for its contribution to our townships first Master Plan in June of 1977, was dissolved decades ago. The Planning Board may have drifted a bit from its original mission to balance land stewardship with zoning oversight and enforcement. For example, the chairman of the Board recently stated, at a well attended public hearing on the Fourth Round Housing Element and Fair Share Plan (HEFS Plan), that the Board operates more like a court to interpret and enforce zoning regulations when construction proposals are submitted to the Board. This is a narrow and less dynamic role in guiding future development in this community.

The Board seldom solicits public input in matters that impact the community and its public meetings are usually poorly attended. It seems the final HEFS Plan developed by the Board were developed with little public participation. When citizens did show up to inquire about environmentally sensitive areas under consideration for development, the Board's reaction was guarded and defensive rather than welcoming this opportunity to engage with an interested public.

These issues are not limited to Mine Hill. It reflects a much broader trend being discussed throughout the region and the country. To facilitate discussions on this topic, and promote interest in improving municipal planning, the following is extracted excerpts of A Research Paper Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University that explores this topic.

Thoughts on Building Better, More Responsive Municipal Planning Boards

Published April 7, 2026

The relationship between municipal planning boards and stewardship is defined by the board’s responsibility to act as the legal steward of a community’s long-term development, balancing land-use regulations with the protection of natural, historic, and community resources. Planning boards often bridge the gap between regulatory policy and on-the-ground stewardship efforts, such as community-led environmental initiatives. 

Key aspects of this relationship include:

Long-Term Vision and Master Plans 

Planning boards are responsible for creating, adopting, and re-examining the municipal master plan, which sets the strategy for land use over many years. This function is viewed as a stewardship role because it ensures that decisions made today benefit future generations.

Balancing Development and Conservation

Boards, often in partnership with local environmental commissions, act as stewards by integrating environmental protection into land-use planning. This involves using zoning ordinances, site plan reviews, and subdivision regulations to protect natural resources.

Civic Stewardship Collaboration

Effective municipal stewardship often involves partnerships between planning boards and civic stewardship groups (e.g., land trusts, community garden groups). These groups can provide local knowledge, capacity, and labor to achieve sustainability goals, acting as a "broker" in "mosaic governance".

Institutionalizing Stewardship

Planning boards help institutionalize stewardship by embedding it into municipal policy, such as establishing design guidelines, historic preservation districts, or open space preservation in master plans.

Overcoming Implementation Gaps

A critical challenge is the gap between planning and action. Effective planning boards provide the implementation guidance needed to turn stewardship goals into practical, legally binding actions. 

Municipal Planning Boards and Institutional Stewardship

Municipal planning boards function as institutional stewards of long-term community development, tasked with reconciling land-use regulation with the preservation of environmental, historic, and social resources. Through instruments such as master plans, zoning ordinances, and site plan review, these boards operationalize long-range policy objectives into legally enforceable decisions that shape the built environment. Stewardship is most effective when supported by collaboration with community-led organizations, which contribute localized knowledge and participatory capacity. Nonetheless, a persistent challenge within municipal planning lies in bridging the gap between articulated policy goals and their practical implementation.

Critiques of municipal planning practice frequently question whether limited positive outcomes at the community level result from insufficient institutional support for community-led planning initiatives. In New York City, the Department of City Planning (DCP) is legally obligated only to consult such initiatives, a constraint that allows community-generated proposals to be subordinated to more powerful political or economic interests. While centralized planning structures offer advantages in efficiency, coordination, and policy consistency, they are also associated with diminished accountability and reduced community influence. Decentralized approaches, by contrast, tend to enhance public participation, foster a sense of local ownership, and improve responsiveness to neighborhood-specific conditions. The 1989 Charter revisions, which expanded the authority of the City Planning Commission while relegating Community Board–initiated Section 197-a plans to an advisory role, exemplify this tension. Case studies from Queens—ranging from community-led plans that were ultimately rejected to initiatives developed in partnership with the DCP—suggest that sustained and substantive collaboration yields more effective and equitable planning outcomes. This paper contends that meaningful institutional support for community-led planning is essential to successful urban governance and proposes evaluative frameworks and policy reforms aimed at strengthening municipal planning processes through enhanced community engagement.

What Is Community-Led Planning?

Community-led planning is a participatory approach in which residents take a central role in identifying local needs, setting priorities, and shaping strategies for the development of their built environment. By engaging a representative range of local stakeholders, this process seeks to empower communities to influence decision-making and exercise greater control over their social, economic, and spatial futures. When community members collectively organize to guide planning outcomes, they are actively enacting community-led planning.

Historically, such participatory values were largely absent from American urban planning. From the 1920s through the mid-twentieth century, planning was dominated by deterministic and efficiency-driven ideologies that emphasized physical design, urban renewal, and suburban expansion, often at the expense of marginalized communities. Policies associated with suburbanization and urban renewal—including the use of eminent domain—frequently resulted in displacement, segregation, and the erosion of community cohesion. Alternative planning movements, such as the City Beautiful and Garden City traditions, offered differing visions but similarly failed to address structural inequalities affecting low-income residents.

Community participation emerged more forcefully in response to these exclusionary practices, particularly during the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s. Influenced by civil rights activism and grassroots organizing, planning theory began to reconceptualize planning as an inherently political process. This shift gave rise to advocacy, incremental, communicative, and collaborative planning theories, all of which emphasized citizen engagement, deliberation, and power-sharing. More recent approaches, including critical pragmatism, further stress the importance of context, lived experience, and structural justice. Collectively, these theoretical developments underscore the growing recognition that equitable and effective planning depends on sustained, meaningful community leadership and participation.

 ________________________________________

The Above was Extracted from:

AN ARGUMENT FOR THE MUNICIPAL STEWARDSHIP OF COMMUNITY-LED PLANS: THREE CASE STUDIES IN QUEENS

A Research Paper Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Regional Planning by Joshua Kogut May 2023.

https://ecommons.cornell.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/c004ff10-f3e1-479b-86ff-dade29850902/content

Scratching the Itch of Seasonal Dry Skin

 

Scratching the Itch of Seasonal Dry Skin
March 25, 2026

  by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

If you suffer from severe skin itch during the winter months in the northern latitudes, this statement below may be the only explanation you have ever heard.

“Winter (Dryness): Known as "winter itch" (pruritus hiemalis), this is usually caused by low humidity and indoor heating, which strip moisture from the skin. It often affects the legs and is worsened by wool or flannel clothing.”

For decades I suffered from severe and persistent itching during the winter in northern New Jersey. It got worse as I aged. It mostly affects broad areas of my back and legs, especially my lower cafes. The intensity can keep me awake nights or wake me up from a deep sleep.  Scratching often brought only seconds of relief. As I scratched one area, the surrounding areas would start itching in response. At times the itch would be so intense my scratching would leave marks and even bleeding. At other times it almost felt like my skin was crawling. Fits of itching could last for 20 minutes or more.   

The usual bland descriptions of pruritus hiemalis don’t begin to capture the severity of the ailment for many people. One in five adults will experience itchy skin lasting more than six weeks in their lifetime. Many doctors dismiss itchy skin as just a nuisance. Yet, in the worse cases, intense itches can be disabling and even drive people to suicide, according to one source I read.

As I have come to believe, dry skin is mostly a collateral symptom of the problem, not a direct cause of the itch. Lathering my skin with moisturizers and raising the humidity of the air in my home during the dry winter months never provided much relief. Likewise, showering less, using less soap on my legs and back, showering in soft water vs. hard water, toweling off more gently, switching to mild laundry detergents, taking fish oil supplements, and every other piece of advice to treat dry skin only produced peripheral benefits.

Bees Wax – The first substantial relief I got was from a bees wax based product advertised to help prevent dry skin on our feet. Rubbing it on my calf’s provided temporary relief. I assumed this was because it is thicker than lotions. I rubbed it on after my shower and the itching subsided long enough to fall asleep. Before morning, however, itching fits might still wake me up.  

A few seasons later, I began applying the bees wax nightly as a prevention before my legs and back started the itching cycle. I did this nightly throughout the whole winter season. This brough a decent measure of relief, but I still had fits of itching that were less intense. Scratching sometimes brought temporary relief. That was new, but if dry skin was not the cause, what explained this seasonal recurrence.

S. aureus bacteria – New research finally discovered what may cause our skin to itch. Scientists discovered that there are itch-specific neurons in our skin, some being the same neurons that sense pain. Then they discovered that our skin could produce and release pruritogens, which are chemical substances that induce itching (pruritus) by activating these specific sensory nerves in the skin and mucous membranes. Next, researchers discovered that a common skin bacterium called Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) was most responsible for triggering itch-specific neurons in our skin.  I read that:

“When the skin barrier is damaged or the microbiome becomes unbalanced, S. aureus bacteria can grow over-abundantly and trigger itching flare-ups. When S. aureus invades the skin, it releases 10 different enzymes, or proteases. One of them, called V8, latches on to a protein on nerve cells called proteinase-activated receptor 1, or PAR1,” - [and this initiates an itch response.]

 This was the first evidence showing a clear, direct mechanism between a bacterium and the need to scratch. The search is now on to discover if there are other related pathways to the itch response, and to develop medicines to disrupt the connection.

This bacterial connection to my itching skin may help explain why a bees wax skin product is more helpful than moisturizing lotions alone.  Beeswax has natural antimicrobial properties that can inhibit the growth of various bacteria, fungi, and molds. It is effective against pathogens that have strong or weak cell walls. Studies have shown that beeswax is effective against Staphylococcus aureus as well as Candida albicans (yeast), Bacillus subtilis, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Beeswax also forms a protective barrier over the skin that reduces contamination and supports healing. But this still doesn’t explain why itching can be a seasonal problem.

Sunlight: Then I read an article in Scientific American that could explain seasonal illnesses and ways to help manage the symptoms. I summarized the article in a prior blog post from:  Scientific American from June 2025, an article called "The Sunshine Cure”:

“UV light calms inflammation in the skin, the nervous system, the pancreas and the gut. Its potential is not fully realized.” —Prue Hart, Kids Research Institute Australia

Our immune systems exist as a tight equilibrium between immune activation and immunosuppression. This is called immune homeostasis. When the body detects danger due to viruses, bacteria, or damaged cells, immune cells activate to contain or eliminate the threat. Then, to prevent an overreaction, the system uses regulatory T cells and anti-inflammatory cytokines to suppress excessive responses after the pathogen threat has cleared. Unchecked, active immune responses can attack the body’s healthy cells leading to inflammation and autoimmune diseases such as lupus, or type 1 diabetes. On the other hand, if immune suppression is too strong it can allow infections to persist or progress, and if it is too weak it can allow cancerous cells to grow unchecked. But can the immunosuppression effects of UV or sunlight be utilized to rebalance an immune system that is too active, causing harmful inflammation? The answer is yes! Here are a few quotes from the article:

“Excessive UV radiation from sunlight damages DNA in skin cells, which can trigger mutations that can lead to cancer. At the same time, it also suppressed the immune system’s surveillance of the skin, preventing that system from killing any budding cancers.”

This also means that short exposures to UV or sunlight can be therapeutic in suppressing an overactive immune response in autoimmune illnesses. Furthermore, the itch of psoriasis, specifically, is directly  associated with the itch-specific neurons triggered by the S. aureus bacteria. More from the article: 

“… a number of medical studies now shows that UV light, the highest-energy part of the solar spectrum that reaches Earth’s surface, has a surprising ability to calm an immune system that has bolted out of control. The new studies offer tantalizing hints that UV therapy might also work for other autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease and colitis. All are more common in people who get very little sun exposure, as are maladies such as Alzheimer’s and cardiovascular disease that appear to have some immune system and inflammatory connections.”

Scientific evidence also finds that the prevalence of many autoimmune diseases in the population corresponds closely with the latitude where we live. The higher the northern latitude, the less sunshine in winter, and the more frequent the incidents of autoimmune diseases in the population. Multiple Sclerosis has the strongest correlation, but the list is long. Autoimmune ailments related to latitude includes psoriasis. Here is another quote from the article:

“For example, it finally explained something doctors had noticed for centuries: sunlight soothed psoriasis, a skin condition marked by painful, itchy scales. With the discovery that psoriasis was an autoimmune disease in which the immune system flays the body’s own skin cells, it at last made sense. UV light—whether from the sun or a lamp—improved psoriasis by tamping down the inflammatory response… Remarkably, the effect wasn’t just local. Shining light on one patch of inflamed skin could reduce symptoms on other patches. Even more curious, people with psoriasis often suffer from other autoimmune conditions, and sometimes the phototherapy improved their other symptoms as well.”

And finally, this:

“… when you do shine UV light on the skin and take a peek to see what it makes, you discover a microscopic pharmacopeia. In addition to vitamin D, the skin produces melatonin, serotonin, endorphins, endocannabinoids, cortisol, oxytocin, leptin, nitric oxide, cis-urocanic acid, itaconate, lumisterol, tachysterol, and a dozen other vitamin D–like compounds that don’t even have names yet.”

Here comes the sun: This information was enough for me to act. Starting around the first of October 2025, I began a personal experimental trial for myself. On days when there was sunshine, I stood in front of a sunny window, removed my shirt, and exposed by skin for just five minutes front and back. This was a short period to avoid skin damage. This sun bath happened on average three or four times a week for ten minutes total. I did this all winter long.

I also continued rubbing a bee’s wax product on my legs and back after a shower. The result of this combination was that I delayed the onset of the first fit of seasonal itching by almost two months. For the rest of winter, from January on, itching fits were infrequent and mild. I wasn’t cured. I didn’t get a tan or sunburn, but I did get the most relief I have experienced in over a decade.

 I have reason to suspect that pruritus hiemalis is an autoimmune condition (maybe related to psoriasis?) that causes inflammation, dry skin, and fits of severe itching. I am not a scientist or medical doctor, but I hope one day that medical researchers investigate my suspicions. In the meantime, brief sunbaths and a bee’s wax-based product rubbed on affected areas bring me significant relief.

 

Environmental Importance of Randall Hill Forest (Mine Hill, NJ) and Why it Should Be Preserved

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

What follows is my comments to the Mine Hill Planning Board on Monday, March 2nd, which I was not able to present to the Board, but was able to submit to the Board. 

----------------------------------------------------------------

I will be brief. I want to express my concerns about the change of status in the 2024 Master Plan Report regarding the Sweetwood-Ellison Tract, Block 1201, lots 1-13. And omissions that do not appear in our master plan that have a bearing in considered rezoning changes for that property.

The Master plan is designed to be comprehensive planning tool to guide appropriate use of development in a manner which promotes public health, safety and the general welfare, which includes providing a fair share of affordable housing based on population densities and future growth. It is also a guide to sustainable growth. I agree with all these goals.

As a result of recent changes to the law, AND to meet the current round of affordable housing unit quotas for Mine Hill, zoning changes to the 85 plus acre Randall Hill Forest may be required. This updated plan will rezone the land from a property to be removed as a potential affordable housing site in the 2024 Master Plan Review, to a property to be rezoned to permit 305 townhouse dwelling units with a 20% set aside for affordable housing.

What is missing from this Master Plan, and from any consideration in the past of which I am aware, is the sensitive environmental status of this property. Previously, the main concern in developing this land has been the existence of deep, uncapped iron mine shafts on the property. The cost of remediation made development for high-density housing prohibitive in the past.

But this property should not be developed, or very carefully developed, for environmental reasons as well. When or if it is developed, special zoning requirements should be in place to maintain this property as a natural water resource for Spring Brook. Simple flood mitigation is not sufficient. The purity of the water due to how if is filtered as rainwater runs through the ground and surface must also be considered. The brook and its wetland obtain most of its water from rainfall on Randall Hill. The brook is a tributary to Jackson Brook, and from there to the Rockaway River. It eventually flows into the Jersey City Reservoir and contributes clean water to the drinking water to 1.2 million New Jersey resident.

I am providing a map from the NJDEP’s GeoWeb to document my claim here. I am asking you to consider the potential environmental impacts that development of this site might have from a water resource perspective. As the2026 Master Plan Reexamination Amendment states, “Addressing such issues […. as storm resilience, environmental sustainability, and climate change-related hazard vulnerabilities assessment] will position the Township to address sustainability challenges and opportunities in a prepared and intentional manner.”

Thank you.

Randall Hill is the highland surrounded on three sides by the Spring Brook wetland, a C1 protected waterbody.

Randall Hill Forest is pictured here. It is even more clear that the hill is the water source for most of the water that surrounds its lowlands.

Mine Hill Planning Board Approves Fair Housing Plan. What Happens Now?

 

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

The Randall Hill Forest is the area off Randall Ave. between Weber Lane and Spring Brook. It is the undeveloped land surrounding the white which is the MUA water tower. 

News: On Tuesday, February 24, 2026, The Mine Hill Planning Board approved the state-required Fair Housing Plan which compels the town to meet our quotes for low-cost housing. “A gun is to our heads,” as Mayor Sam put it before the vote, which is figuratively true. The Planning Board lawyer, engineer, and Mayor Sam did a good job of explaining the law and their rationale behind the plan to the nearly full room of residents in attendance.

In short, the current developer-friendly laws create new affordable housing options that force towns to consider high-density developments in whatever undeveloped land a developer owns, even if the town has a limited amount of undeveloped land or environmentally sensitive lands under zoning restrictions. New construction is necessarily high-density housing because there is no way that low-cost units can be profitably built under current market conditions. Low wage families simply cannot afford the rent required for a builder to recoup construction costs. As a result, developers have to construct eight luxury, high rent apartments for every two low-rent apartments they build.

Also, New Jersey’s Fair Housing law contains strict protocols for determining how many low-cost housing units each town must add to its housing stock over a period of time. The penalty for failing to create a plan to meet these low-cost housing quotas subjects towns to lawsuits by developers that, if upheld, grant the developer what is called the “builders remedy.” This allows builders to develop high-density housing on their property despite local zoning restrictions related to density, and certain other restrictions. 

The practical implication for Mine Hill is that, in order to meet our current housing quota, we must reopen consideration of developing the 84 acre Randall Hill property with its uncapped mines. Less well appreciated is that this land is also an important water source for Spring Brook. Spring Brook, in turn, contributes clean water to reservoirs that serve 1.2 million New Jersey residents downstream.

There is currently funding through the Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority to purchase Randall Hill because of its importance as a water resource. If both the town and the owner are in agreement to the sale, it would then be purchased and deed to the town. This possibility has not been explored by the town. But, as of Tuesday, when the Planning Board voted on our Fair Housing Plan, the option to preserve the land ended for now. Legally, the town cannot pursue other options under the plan, and no public funding can be used to purchase it from the builder. Instead, the law requires the town to rezone the property to allow the owner, Jason Ellison, to build up to 305 housing units. That is the number of units Mr. Ellison believes he can build.

It gets tricky from here because the owner has to submit a site plan that mitigates the dangers associated with uncapped mines. When this was attempted by the prior owner, Mr. Ellison’s father, the cost of mitigating the mines made the project financially unfeasible. It is possible that this might be the outcome again. If that happens, the town could then move forward towards preserving this tract of land. This would exempt it from further development in the future and save what is both an important water resource and a beautiful forest with all its wildlife.

Commentary: Land developers, I believe, are tools of the billionaire class which need safe, long term investment options. For more than a decade there have been more billionaires and fewer long term investment opportunities for them. The consensus among the richest families in America is that land ownership, which yields monthly rental income, is a good way to grow wealth and preserve it for generations to come. That is why most development projects today are for rental units, not single-family homes. In fact, single -family homes are being bought up by large corporations as rental and investment properties. This is causing both home prices and rental rates to rise. We could be looking at a return to feudalism with its land barons, peasants, and tenant farmers.

There is no stopping this trend at present through either state policies or judicial action. Powerful people have framed the need for affordable housing debate as a crusade against towns that exclude the poor by their zoning laws. This is a real phenomenon, but it isn’t the main reason why there is little affordable housing for the poor. The main reason is that this same billionaire class, in an organized collaboration, stopped giving most employees annual raises based on company profits. That began back in the 1970s.

Forty years ago COLAs (cost of living adjustments) were a separate thing to keep wages on par with inflation? For decades now COLAs are almost the only type of raises workers are occasionally given. Profit sharing raises are the exception. Profits today mostly go to CEO’s and wealthy stockholders. This failure to share profits means real wages are stagnant. Most families are losing buying power year over year as the size of the American economy has almost tripled. Today, the number of workers that can't afford to buy a home (or food, medicine, etc.) has grown to crisis levels.

Housing costs are also affected by market conditions that raised construction costs faster than inflation. And yes, many communities in New Jersey do have restrictive zoning schemes that discourage construction of low-cost housing for the poor. There is always been a class prejudice built into many town zoning laws. This has to be rooted out, which the Fair Housing law is designed to do.

This, in summary, is the backdrop we are up against.

But the specific issue of many residents of Mine HILL are up against right now is trying to conserve the Randall Hill forest, an environmentally important property. It this regard, it is our affordable housing quota that matters most, not any specific development project. There is nothing in the law that says low-cost housing must be new construction. Any way that we can grow affordable housing satisfies the law.

So, for the sake of preserving a single ecologically important forest, the six (6) additional low cost apartments we need to fulfill our quote for this round can more easily come from rezoning single-family housing to include duplex housing for owners that have extra space or sufficient land to add an apartment. We don’t have to play the developers game.

Mine Hill, like most towns, have zoning restrictions that prevent homeowners in older homes from converting their extra space into duplex housing. As a result some homeowners in single-family houses are under financial and social pressure to build non-conforming apartments to help pay their mortgage or shelter their adult children who can’t afford to rent in Morris County. These unauthorized units, nevertheless, provide a cache of affordable, albeit underground, housing which may not be counted in our affordable housing quotas.

Research suggests this is a widespread and growing phenomenon, particularly in high-cost areas, with estimates in some specific, dense localities suggesting that as many as 25% to over 50% of certain types of older housing stock may contain unauthorized units. In specific urban neighborhoods with high demand, it is estimated that over 75% of basements may be rented illegally.

Similar but less dramatic trends are observed in older suburban, "inner-ring" neighborhoods where homeowners convert spaces to manage high mortgages or create "missing middle" housing, or duplexes, in areas that technically only allow single-family detached homes. These apartments exist because they offer more affordable housing options, helping to fill the gap between single-family homes and large apartment buildings. Because they are unregulated and unregistered, these apartments often lack proper exits, ventilation, or smoke detection, leading to high health and safety risks for low-wage tenants. It is in everyone’s interest to recognize these non-conforming, but affordable apartments as a significant part of the suburban housing supply.

Given this research, it is possible that Mine Hill may already have a shadow stock of low-income housing to meet our Round Four fair housing quota. Instead of acknowledging these non-conforming housing units or encouraging homeowners who want to add an apartment to their house, we are allowing dangerous conditions for many low-income families living in non-comforming housing units. With the acute need for low-income housing driving homeowners to skirt the law, we should instead embrace these conversions and work with homeowners to bring these units up to safety standards. We should ease zoning restriction when it is prudent to do so and issue special variance to owners of certain “eligible” homes that can be converted to duplex housing. Mine Hill currently has housing funds available for grants to upgrade substandard housing.

______________________________________

Here is an article that explores housing conversion concepts from 2017. It is entitled, “Learning from a Non-Conforming Neighborhood.”

Here is the Amended Fourth Round Housing Element & Fair Share Plan

   

   For more information on Rebirth of the Randall Hill Forest.

          For my article on Randall Hill Development Back in Play

Will Your Town Water Now Be at Higher Risk?

 by Brian T Lynch, MSW

HERE A LIST OF TOWNS DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY THE RANDOLPH TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ADUSTMENT'S DECISION TO ALLOW A CHEMICAL COMPANY TO HOUSE A MANUFACTURING PLANT RIGHT BESIDE THE BLACK RIVER AND THE MUA'S ALAMATONG WELL FIELD WHERE THESE TOWNS GET DRINKING WATER.

What follows is my letter to Darren Carney, Administrator of the Randolph Township Planning and Zoning Board. I thought the information provided would be sufficient to count as new information not provided by the applicants, or the ECOS company representative did not provide a full account of the chemicals it would be shipping for storage and use at their intended manufacturing plant at the Morris Business Campus. My request for a 20 day municipal reconsideration, based on new information and the significant risks by the chemicals to be used that were not stated by ECOS, was denied. Here below it is the letter I sent and the response I received with an attachment. Is this sufficient? Is it comprehensive enough and is it enforcable.  

Dear Mr. Carney,

I am writing to request a reconsideration of the Board’s decision to allow ECOS to build a bottling/manufacturing plant within the Morris Business Campus on Sussex Turnpike. I am a resident of neighboring Mine Hill.  My standing for making this request is that Mine Hill’s public drinking water comes from the Alamatong Well Field located adjacent to this property. My rationale for making this request is that representatives for the ECOS company appear to have misrepresented the safety and environmental risks associated with the manufacture of its laundry detergent during the public hearing held in September of this year.

The following is an evaluation of the claims made to the Randolph Township Board of Adjustment by representatives of the ECOS chemical company regarding the safety of the chemicals they use in manufacturing their most popular laundry detergent. It was claimed that the companies “largest selling product is a laundry detergent” that is “really biodegradable and free from synthetic dye and other harmful substances.” These clams were recently memorialized in the release of the Board’s minutes and used in justifying a zoning variance allowing the company to rent a large warehouse on the Morris Business Campus. As you can see below, the claims made, which had a bearing on the approval by the Board, appear to be materially false.  Here is a screen shot of the relevant minutes:

  

According to the company’s website, the “Flagship Product” is ECOS Hypoallergenic Laundry Detergent (with enzymes). It is consistently identified as their top product, recognized for being plant-powered and effective in all water temperatures. The most popular versions include the Lavender scent and the Free & Clear (scent-free) formula. What follows is a screenshot from their website of the chemical compounds used to make their laundry detergent.

 Hypoallergenic Laundry Detergent with Enzymes – Free & Clear   

Here is a screenshot of the chemical ingredients in ECOS’s top selling product, as referenced in the Board’s minutes. 

These are the chemicals that will be delivered to the facility in large quantities and stored for use in manufacturing laundry detergent. For each of these ingredients, the Safety Data Sheets (SDS) were reviewed and safety warnings related to public health or the environment were copied and pasted (in part) to the table below. The highest NFPA* category is listed on the table along with a URL link to the SDS reviewed. Note that every chemical compound with a NFPA category of #2 or above is specifically prohibited from this warehouse location by an existing zoning ordinance*. None of this information is referenced in the minutes from the public hearing. (Click on image to open it)

 

Seven of thirteen listed ingredients have NFPA numbers of #2 or higher. Three products are specifically hazardous to aquatic environments. The Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for one chemical, Protease, states that it is “acutely toxic (oral) and very toxic to aquatic life. It carries the highest biohazard category of #4. The SDS warning on a fourth chemical states that it will affect PH of water in the environment and harm aquatic organisms if released in quantity. The SDS on six other chemicals warn against release into the environment. These finding, based on the actual laundry detergent ingredients to be manufactured at this location can not be summarized by saying the product is free from “other harmful substances.” 

 

Given these grave findings, and the mischaracterization of the product by a company representative, action should be taken to reopen a more comprehensive analysis of the plan to allow ECOS to locate a plant within this highly fragile environment. 

If my information is materially wrong, please provide me with corrected information. Thank you for your consideration. 

Brian Lynch

37 Randall Avenue

Mine Hill, New Jersey 07803

* NFPA is the National Fire Protection Association, as you know. (see below).

 

RESPONSE

Darren Carney	Tue, Feb 3, 2:48 PM (2 days ago)
to me, Randolph

Mr. Lynch,

 

The Board has concluded the hearing on the application and can not reopen the case.  As a condition of approval, the tenant is required to provide the attached assessment of its operations before occupying the location.  If the information in the assessment is not consistent with the stipulations and representations made during the public hearing, the tenant will be required to obtain an amended approval from the Board.

 

Darren Carney

Planning Administrator

ATTACHMENT 

15-33.5. Special performance standards.

All uses and development applications in the I-2 District shall provide an assessment of the impact on the

groundwater with a particular emphasis concerning the potential affect on existing and proposed public and

private water supply wells. At a minimum, the assessment shall contain the following:

A. Description of proposed use or activity; product produced or stored, and Standard Industrial Code

(S.I.C.), if applicable.

B. A complete list of the types and volumes of all hazardous materials (including fuels) used, stored,

processed, handled or disposed, other than those volumes and types associated with normal

household use.

C. Documentation of floor drain locations, paved area drainage paths, overflow areas, septic fields and

other routes where contaminants under usual and emergency situations have an opportunity to enter

the groundwater of surface waters.

D. Description of the types of wastes generated and method of disposal, including solid wastes, hazardous

wastes, sewage and nonsewage wastewater discharges.

E. Location of all public and private potable water supply wells within the property and within 2,000 feet

of the property line which have the potential for contamination from the subject property.

F. Description of the risks associated with the use, handling and/or disposal of any hazardous wastes.

G. Description of plans to detect and control hazardous material leaks and spills and plans for inspections

and monitoring, emergency notification and emergency containment and clean-up procedures.

H. Description of best available technologies to safely store and handle any hazardous wastes and to

detect releases of any hazardous materials.

I. Assessment of compliance with the best management practices for groundwater quality protection.

(Ord. No. 30-99, § 2, 7-6-99)