An investment of $500 million in low income housing projects could be worth it if the project can get its green light, according to a new study.

“We know that a lot of projects can be economically viable, but it’s a hard thing to do,” said Daniel A. Gaffney, associate professor of urban studies at Rutgers University, New Brunswick.

“The reason we’re doing this is because of the cost of construction.

This is a good way to get the project done in a low-cost way, which is critical for people who are working on these projects.”

In New Jersey, the New Jersey Development Authority is funding the project, which has been in the works since last summer.

The agency expects to begin construction in the spring.

The study, which was conducted by the Center for the Study of Community Development at Rutgers and published in the Journal of Development Economics, looked at whether projects could achieve their full benefits.

The researchers found that projects with low costs and strong environmental benefits could be cost-effective.

They also found that such projects could also make them economically viable in certain areas of the state.

They found that a project with a large number of low- and moderate-income households in a given area could generate up to $200 million in private investment, according the study.

The project will also generate $2 million in revenue from the state for infrastructure projects, the study said.

The Rutgers researchers found there are currently only about 8,000 low- or moderate- income housing units in the United States.

About half of them are in New Jersey.

About 8,400 of those units are in Newark.

A study last year found that low- income residents in Newark have significantly lower incomes than other Newark residents.

A study released by the Urban Land Institute in 2016 found that Newark residents earn less than those in other cities.

The new Rutgers study looked at the viability of the project in the following areas:Community Development Authority projects, including affordable housing, transit projects, green infrastructure, and transportation projects, as well as the possibility of additional development.

The team focused on projects that could achieve the following levels of economic viability:The study looked for a number of factors to help determine how likely a project was to be financially viable.

The study looked only at projects with the most favorable environmental impact factors.

For example, the project should have a greenfield site, a strong connection to a nearby transportation project, a transit link, and a project that has a large amount of low income residents.

The authors found that the project’s environmental impact was a key factor in its economic viability.

In addition, they looked at three factors to determine if the investment would be economically effective: whether the project had sufficient economic diversification, whether it was economically viable for the area, and whether the land use could support the project.

“What we found is that we need to take a broad view of what kind of project a low income person could support,” Gaffey said.

“For example a $50 million project that could be economically sustainable in Newark, but not in other parts of New Jersey.”