This paper offers a mixed-method analysis of the municipal-level consequences of an affordable housing development built in suburban New Jersey. Opponents of affordable housing development often suggest that creating affordable housing will harm surrounding communities. Feared consequences include increases in crime, declining property values, and rising taxes. To evaluate these claims, the paper uses the case of Mt. Laurel, NJ – the site of a landmark affordable housing legal case and subsequent affordable housing development. Employing a multiple time series group control design, we compare crime rates, property values, and property taxes in Mt. Laurel to outcomes in similar nearby municipalities that do not contain comparable affordable housing developments. We find that the opening of the affordable housing development was not associated with trends in crime, property values, or taxes, and discuss management practices and design features that may have mitigated potential negative externalities. Akin to residential mobility programs such as Chicago’s Gautreaux Program, the federal government’s Moving to Opportunity Program, and inclusionary zoning efforts such as the Massachusetts 40b Program, California’s Housing Element law, and the Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit Program of Montgomery County, Maryland, the Mount Laurel doctrine has led to the movement of low-income black and Latino households into white middle class suburbs (see Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum, 2000; Briggs et al., 2010; Goetz and Chapple, 2010). Here we examine this high-profile case to determine whether the fears articulated by Mount Laurel residents about the project were indeed realized.