*1 521 In valid with the terms the statutes. in'accordance as parties further views of the we desire the respects as to including judgment, argument to the content the re- court did with may, as trial judiciary whether aid” and save-harmless “minimum spect support 280-281, Act, Super, 1970 118 provision im- moneys appropriated order that terms other shall distributed Act plement will be A for argument ones. short date than the legislated fixed. and opinion expressed the modifications
Subject to judg- paragraph, in the preceding reserved the matters affirmed. trial court is ment Justice For and Wein- affirmance modification —Chief and Sullivan, Justices Hall, traub, Jacobs, Mountain Lewis —7. Judges Coneokd For reversal —None. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, AL., INGANAMORT, ET F.
JOHN AL., LEE, ET DEFENDANTS-RE OF FORT v. BOROUGH SPONDENTS. TO OPPOSED LEE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION FORT PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, CONTROL, BOR v. RENT LEE, AL., ET DEFENDANTS-RESPON OUGH FORT OF DENTS. GARDENS, INC., AL., ET PLAINTIFFS-AP CONTINENTAL PELLANTS, EDGE, AL., DE v. ET OF RIVER BOROUGH F ENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. SHILOWITZ, AND EXECU JUSTIN C. HARRIS STEPHEN ETC., TORS, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, MAYOR, ETC., BERGEN, AL., ET DE TOWNSHIP OF NORTH FEND ANTS-APPELLANTS. Argued April 4, March 1973 Decided *4 v. Fort Lee : On Inganamort (A-121) from Su- appeal Law Court, Division, County, Bergen whose opinion perior 286; etc., at 120 Harris v. Super. Mayor, is reported *5 North Bergen : On (Á-75) appeal Court, from Superior Law Division, Hudson County.
Mr. Arthur J. Bills for argued cause appellants In- Gummis, et al. ganamort, (Mr. Olive 8. brief; on the Messrs. Sills, Bede, Gummis, Tischman, Radin and attorneys).
Mr. Gerald E. Monaghan argued the cause for respon- Breslin, et Lee, brief; dents Port al. William V. (Mr. on the Messrs. Breslin and Monaghan, attorneys).
Mr. Richard E. Blumberg argued the cause for amicus curiae New Tenants’ Jersey W. Organization (Mr. Dennis Heslcin, Keating, bar, of the D. C. Mr. Allan David bar, California and Mr. Oarl Bisgaier, S. on the brief and counsel; Atlas, Mr. John Blumberg and Mr. D. attorneys). Mr. Sheppard Guryan the cause for argued appellants al., Harris, Gardens, Continental et al. respondents et Lasser, Lasser, Hochman, Sarolcin and (Messrs. attorneys). Mr. Ned Rarseleian the cause argued respondent Solomon, of River Melvin Borough (Mr. R. on Edge brief; Ferro, Messrs. Rarseleian and attorneys). Peter Moceo Mr.
Mr. M. V. Joseph Outturn argued etc., for appellants Mayor, the cause North et al. Bergen, Mr. Richard W. Kracht the cause for amici curiae argued Association, Jersey New Builders et al. Hutt (Messrs. Berlcow, attorneys).
Mr. Robert Feldman filed a brief on behalf of plaintiif- Realty Belfer Associates intervenor-respondent (Messrs. Schwartz, Feldman, Elgart, Van Sidcle and Wolfberg, attor- neys). *6 delivered by
The of the Court was opinion mu is whether a Weintrattb, C. The single question a the to rent control ordinance. power adopt has nicipality Fort Lee and River cases the ordinances were Edge In the 286 Div. in 1972); 120 upheld, Super. (Law North was struck down. The de Bergen case ordinance Wagner City followed upon readings cisions different Newark, J. 467 We certification (1957). granted Division before consideration Appellate of the to the appeals there. of the hous-
We must assume there is critical shortage and that the several ordinances here involved by covered ing The tenants, fact, exploited. judg- are trapped by being in which factual ments were on motions pretrial entered naked legal Hence we have the challenged. was premise munici- to these delegated issue whether the police power evil of includes the to deal inordinate power palities of a housing shortage. out arising does the State (1) are three constituent questions: There of the to delegation Constitution prohibit need; housing in of critical to control rents period done has the may granted, if that (2) mu- so; police power if the statutes vesting State (3) that area, exercise of embrace this is the do nicipalities or barred reason preempted power by government with the dealing of the existence of statutes in Wagner, matter. are the same presented These questions a rent ordi- 24 N. J. which struck down control supra, of Newark. City nance adopted River the trial court read Edge Fort Lee and cases In the is, the existence turn the third Wagner question, to with rent control and dealing time of State statute at that no such statute to- being and there subject, preempting not bar Wagner found did the court day, to Wagner North the trial court read Bergen In legislation. deal power municipalities was no grant hold there us, counsel could At the before argument subject. with the which, not agree as to of the three legal propositions was pivotal Wagner.
We will consider the three questions stated order.
I Home rule is basic in our government. It embodies that the principle police power the State be in vested in local government enable local government its role discharge as arm or agency State and to meet other needs of the community. Bergen County v. Port New YorkAuthority, 32 N. J. 303, ; 312-314 (1960) Am. Jur. 2d, Municipal Corporations, 87-88. pp. *7 Whether the State alone should act or should leave the initiative and the solution to local in government, rests legis lative discretion.
There limitation is the to upon delegate. As out, Wagner some matters must be dealt pointed with at the 24 N. J. State level. at 478-479. Eor the law example, or law wills the of descent and distribution may be left to local decision. Nor could the State leave it to each mu to what shall nicipality say constitute robbery or whether it shall be The reason is punished. evident. “The needs to those matters do not respect vary locally their or intensity. nature action Municipal would not be useful, indeed local and diverse decisions could be mischievous or Teaneck, Summer v. even intolerable.” 53 N. 548, 553 (1969). for subjects,
But such execpt the Legislature may in local invest government police to devise mea to sures tailored scene. The Legislature de may for sundry cide to do so reasons. A problem may exist in some and be trivial or municipalities nonexistent in others. And if the evil is of statewide concern, still practical con warrant different may siderations or more detailed local meet treatment to conditions or to varying achieve the ulti more effectively. mate Thus in goal that a holding munici-
529 “blockbusting” notwithstanding with racial deal may pality of the police limitation upon delegation the constitutional Teaneck, v. 53 J. at supra, we said Summer power, 553: * * * depends very Blockbusting much the local scene Although intensity accordingly the evil war- and hurt. its
varies inappropriate itself, to it would not rants concern the State municipalities permit There no in- with it. also wrestle single single solution statewide evitable need for statewide or permit authority. contrary, enforcing may it useful On the likely act, for, being scene, they more are nearer ap- practice detect be better situated to devise pro- municipalities may proach special problems. Then, too, to their adequate personnel supplied in enforcement has not vide State nip numbers hence be able to an offensive movement with which agency a State could not deal until after the event.”
And it is of no constitutional moment that
local de
will mean
cisions
of treatment within the State.
diversity
rule,
is an
incident of home
for home
Diversity
inevitable
exists to
each
to act or not to act
permit
municipality
rule
in a
will
to act
it believes
best meet the local need.
way
Board,
Sills,
West
Education v.
58 N. J.
Regional
Morris
cert.
404
92
464,
denied,
986,
450,
477
U. S.
S. Ct.
(1971),
Harrison,
Inc.
L. Ed.
370
Two Guys
30
2d
(1971);
from
Furman,
199,
32 N. J.
231-232
Jamouneau v.
(1960);
Harner,
denied,
16 N. J.
517-521
cert.
500,
(1954),
; In
And the Legislature with It ways. may grant power in several local government standards for its ex stated by way restriction any out Health, York v. New Central Weehawken Board ercise. Co., of course (1950). 300-301 R. 4 N. J. This R. limit may Legislature grant format. Or the usual is the (the in the case of zoning as it did standards by specifying with to respect some standards itself contains Constitution of that Art. TV, Or the delegation power, 2). Legisla ¶ a may ture itself fashion detailed a treatment of subject, it to local government and leave to the (or local electorate) to whether choose the statute shall within operate its bor Cleveland, In re 52 N. J. ders. See L. at 190. supra, This for with used, was to approach example, respect Sunday Harrison, in Two involved in Guys from, statute closing Furman, Inc. v. 32 N. supra, with to respect Harner, in in control the statute Jamouneau v. upheld 16 N. J. 500. supra,
Whether the police to deal with power be granted should without restriction or be should tethered in or another for way one is alone to Legislature say. know of no principle We under which the in judiciary may sist one than another with upon technique rather respect topic which to local any constitutionally left de cision. And the constitutional limitation we mentioned earlier to matters which respect statewide uni require is formity' no matter which equally applicable technique delegation Legislature may So, choose. example, to the again refer and of descent and wills dis tribution, the doctrine which forbids the to mu delegation to enact ordinance nicipalities upon those would bar subjects equally Legislature from it leaving say the several whether the State stat subjects those shall operative utes within their borders.
If correct, views are then the foregoing question can whether the leave rent control to local de was in favor of cision to do so Jam decided Harner, ouneau 16 N. J. supra, There State by its became statute terms “operative any municipality body in which the shall governing adopt resolution recit there is housing space therein and that ing shortage such municipality rent control for the required protec health and tion, safety, general welfare of the people A 517). municipality” (16 parallel provision such *9 Court for and recontrol. This deemed existed decontrol of “to an the eminently practical way covering procedure control, thus avoid areas of the in need of rent to State and the in excess of the need attendant state-wide control the limits of of the reasonable beyond power” risks going N. J. at 517). (16 whether the could Wagner Legislature
The held question to the to not constitutionally delegate municipalities with this matter referred Wagner deal arises because wills in- matters, to the that some such as proposition heritance, exclusively are statewide decision. legislative the Wagner But not the say places Constitution did Rather, ambit. without of rent control that stating subject, view that went on to that explicit Wagner say “Moreover, the history inception since federal War II after the World shows clear beginning controls rent control was not matter within the that recognition n without express authority realm of municipal power from 24 N. J. at (emphasis ours). State” the idea that just repel The words have italicized we local could not Wagner delegate meant a hous- deal with exploitation government notable, too, that did cite Wagner It is shortage. ing Jamouneau, 16 N. J. supra, or overrule distinguish left said, we have held that rent control which, as of local decision, option. there the device final that Indeed, City as its Wagner point stated under 146 of only chapter act terms Newark could involved premise of 1956. That statement Laws A decision. number could be left to local rent control New- statute, in section 13 named municipalities, Art. IY, under them, had petitioned one of ark being or local for a statute special Constitution 10, of the State ¶ of an ordinance with respect authorizing adoption enacted the Legislature chapter In response control. statute, ordinances, terms, which its such 146 authorizing unless the statute was municipality in any inoperative was *10 its adopted by body, 18. Thus 146 governing chapter dele- § gated the to local and power government Wagner deemed the delegation to be valid.1
If Wagner intended to
control
say
may
rent
not be left
to local government,
would be
Wagner
Cases else
singular.
where
in
unanimously
may
that
recognize
vested in
Bal
Huebeck v.
government.
City
See
imore., 205
203,
Md.
107 A.
99
Tee
2d
App. 1954);
(Ct.
Stern,
val Co. v.
E.
346,
301 N. Y.
93 N.
2d 884 (Ct. App.
denied,
1950),
122,
cert.
340
95 L. Ed.
876,
U. S.
71 S. Ct.
637
I. L. F. Y. Co. v.
Rent and Rehabilita
City
(1950);
Administration,
tion
Y.
480,
986,
11 N.
2d
230 N. Y.
2dS.
533 House, Inc. Re v. Rent Marshal 1949); Ct. (Sup. cf. Brookline, 357 Mass. view and Grievance Board of rent 1970). N. E. Ct. That control 2d Jud. (Sup. in 7 an proposition be left with local is accepted government 34.563d, McQuillin, 1968), ed. Municipal Corporations (3d § p. Law 613-614, Municipal (1957), pp. Rhyne, Stabilization We also the President’s Economic note con II (Phases I, dealing Regulations III) “the or regulations units refer laws expressly trolled instrumentality or government, agency or local State 6 C. F. R. 301.105 ours), (1973), thereof” (emphasis *11 of scene. action part thus local as accepting whether this If were doubt as to there it in local government, be invested constitutionally could 7, IV, Art. provides: add relevant to that would be ¶ § any concerning provisions and of law Constitution of this “The concerning government, corporations municipal or formed for local powers liberally counties, The in favor. be construed their shall only municipal corporations not include shall and such counties necessary express or fair granted in also those of terms but those implication, powers expressly conferred, or essential or incident to prohibited by thereto, this and not inconsistent with or Constitution or law.” above, This to rule of reflects need we referred construction that local be to deal with matters government equipped action, be met which, local concern if left might to State that our or It well in mind expeditiously keep at all. is to than at large. are rather legislators elected from districts This it the weakness is source of but holds strength, invite less than a one to localized is ps-oblem apt general therefore, to It fitting, State level. is action at the prompt which constitu- may take an view of the expansive powers The to local given be tionally government. if it local ordinances
course would be free supersede do it advisable to so. thought rent abuse. thus to deal with
It peculiarly appropriate call problem tells us that the history The action, action, for federal State or local or decision. That the problem may thus be or local is evident from general the process of decontrol with to prior emergencies respect wherein the federal and then- government govern- State ment withdrew evil dis- finally government as the sipated.
II we Hence do not doubt that municipalities may consti- tutionally be to act in this area. The next empowered ques- tion is whether our statutes should be read grant power, in the especially light of the constitutional rule of IY, construction in Art. above. quoted If Wagner. One was N. J. were involved Two statutes Municipal Charter Law Optional 8. A. 40:69A-30 of which reads: municipal power general grant contained in article is this The greatest power self-government of local con- intended to confer Any specific enumeration sistent the Constitution this State. general municipal powers any or in contained in this act law any way description general shall not construed in to limit article, any specifically such contained enumerated powers supplementary shall construed as in addition powers general grants conferred in All terms this article. municipal power governed by optional plan
of' act, specific general under this whether the form of enumeration *12 terms, liberally construed, required by shall be as the Constitution of State, municipality. this in favor of the If we are correct in the view we expressed Point I that the power to deal with a rental emergency may con stitutionally be given to we no municipalities, see escape from the proposition that just the statute is sufficient quoted end. that We understand of that none the municipalities in the matters now before us are governed by Optional the Municipal Charter Law. a We will in refer to moment general statute which relates to them. We of N. J. speak S. A. 40:69A-30 because it involved in Wagner was and that fact bears whether upon question Wagner turned
535 lack or final npon on the of authorization statutory that Newark with then ex- ordinance conflicted point, with the of rent con- dealing specific subject statute isting say We that can be read to that the Wagner trol. appreciate of control is of the beyond grant general statute, so, if we cannot adhere to that view. quoted but deal may If it is that the power accepted see no which upon be to local we basis government, given can out from the exception expressed carve judiciary of local “to confer the greatest intention of this with the Constitution consistent self-government State." and involved also Wagner involved in
The other statute 40:48-2 which N. before now ns is in the cases reads: repeal may amend, make, such other Any municipality and enforce contrary by-laws ordinances, to the laws regulations, rules and necessary States, may and as deem it state of the United of this or persons protection and proper good government, and order for the public health, safety preservation and
property, of the and for the municipality inhabitants, neces- and as welfare its imposed powers sary carry and duties conferred into effect the subtitle, by any law. or mu a statute upon authorizing Courts have whether split itself welfare” is for the nicipalities “general to legislate auxiliary power merely source gives Am. Jur. Mu 2d, in aid of speefic generally See grants. If such a statute 432, 477-478. pp. nicipal Corporations, § would have only there course auxiliary power, grants with housing emergencies. authorization to deal specific statutes narrow reading general was It East, Ill. supra, Inc. City Chicago, Ambassador v. Louis, St. 803, Tietjens City E. 2d 70, 73, that it was found 222 W. 2d 359 Mo. S. supra, rents a period to control was municipal power no there shortage. *13 536 rejected
But we
a narroAv
N.
expressly
view
J.
of
A. 40:48-2 in Fred v. Borough
S.
Old
N.
Tappan, 10
J.
of
515
There an ordinance
(1952).
dealing
soil removal
of
statutory
was assailed because no
ex
grant
power spoke
held N. J.
A.
subject.
of
We
S.
40:48-2 itself
pressly
ordinance,
520):
warranted the
(p.
saying
* * *
A.,
express
interpretation
40:48-2,
J.
as an
This
of R. S.
N.
S.
police powers
municipalities
grant
general
im
made
of
has been
by
acquiescence therein,
pregnable
continued
IV,
VII, paragraph
mandate of Article
Section
11 of the Constitu
liberally
concerning
construed,
tion
acts
1947 that
judicial decisions,
adherence thereto
more recent
Commissioners,
(App.
Super. 139,
v.
Ricca
Board
1 N. J.
142-143
1948) ;
Borough Moonachie,
Super. 10,
Div.
v.
Edwards
3 N. J.
14
(App.
1949),
;
Township
(1949)
Div.
J.
reversed N.
17
Michaels v.
3
Tp.
523,
Pemberton,
Super.
(Law
Committee
3 N. J.
527
Div.
1949) ; City
Co.,
Realty
442,
Super.
Newark v. Charles
9 N. J.
(Cty.
1950).
needed,
457
Ct.
If more be
we refer to the
de
recent
Corp., supra,
(1952),
cision in State Mundet
v.
Cork
8 N. J.
369
pollution
wherein we held that
the enactment of
air
ordinance
police power
municipalities by
“a
was
function of the
on
conferred
(originally
pro
1917)
R. S. 40:48-2 N. J. S. A.
enacted
for the
tection of the welfare of their residents.”
Plainly,
therefore,
express
R. S. 40 :48-2 must be considered as an
* * *
grant
general police powers
municipalities.
of broad
We have consistently
held
statute is itself a reservoir
police
power. Adams Newark Theatre Co. v. City of
Newark, 22 N.
472
affirmed,
354
(1956),
U. S.
77
Ct.
S.
Ill final mu- The is whether statutes bar existing question nicipal rents, of the power exercise to control or perhaps *14 a terms, it whether statutes bar put existing to that N. J. A. 40:48-2 was intended to include S. finding the subject. the to deal with power earlier, we enacted chapter As mentioned the Legislature rent which authorized 146 of the of 1956 specifically Laws " had which municipalities petitioned control ordinances in the a to statute sought for a law. The special chapter to act. its terms By doubt as their allay to until be it shall any municipality 146 was “inoperative mu- body such governing ordinance of the adopted of Newark chose not to City adopt 18. The Sec. nicipality.” for an included a across-the- 146 because it mandate chapter relied on statutes Instead the City board rental increase. the 146 con- held chapter II above. Wagner Point discussed shall subject a matter declaration that the stituted at all. 24 N. with or not be dealt under its provisions 480-481. with con
There dealing is no statute presently by any preempted trol and hence is not municipal power the on Decem measure. its terms expired by such Chapter when the 31, 1957. cannot be that Surely ber it Sec. 1950s, it or thereby area withdrew from the in the State prov matter shall thereafter the dained that alone. ince State issue is preemption The other facet of the only relationship with the generally the statutes dealing whether eviction, to tenant, relating landlord statutes including We dif no action. see should found to block municipal since of policy in terms repugnance here. There is no ficulty n — n hand evil at not deal with the statutes do general of tenants. a and concomitant housing shortage overreaching the exercise of That of rents affects control is undeniable. respect property to contract right is to the police power But the right contract at municipal is exerted less so the police no when 2d, 437, p. Corporations, 56 Am. Jur. Municipal level. a or contains zoning, relates to 483. Whether ordinance code, or housing imposes the landlord duties relating health, it necessarily limits use property right contract with it. respect to That ordinance im- poses restraints not, which the law State does spell does out conflict between contrary State and local On the law. absence of statutory restraint is the occasion very initiative. The in local police power vested government to the end very right property be restrained when ought it to be because of sufficient local *15 need.
The judgment in Harris v. North Bergen is reversed and the matter remanded 'for further in not proceedings consistent herewith.
The Inganamort v. judgments Fort Lee in Con- and tinental Gardens v. River are Edge affirmed. In these mat- counsel for plaintiffs ters state they did not intend to aban- don other issues and assumed the judgments concluded only the issue we have dealt with. may Plaintiffs to the apply trial court for leave their pursue to other challenges. D., P. J. A. Temporarily Assigned (dissenting).
Cootoed, Wagner I to the decisions this court in would adhere Newark, Realty 24 N. J. and Co. v. (1957), Grofo 24 N. J. Bayonne, (1957), do municipalities to control not have enact rent ordinances without ex- power from the State and that the general police press authority N. Act, Rule J. 40:48- provisions the Home each of the which instant relies for it. convey do not power, I with so much of the as holds agree majority opinion rent control constitutionally delegable by Legislature to J. 40:48-2, I do not that N. 8. A. municipalities. agree in relation the specific subject construed to matter properly concern, has in delegated here fact it. any
I to be that majority understand rationale to no mat- constitutionally delegable municipality, which to with its local it affects which, impact, ter the extent along there- law and rights general private applicability has in which the State at large interests and involves under be deemed in fact dele- automatically to concern, is a vital J. A. 40:48—S so as state long preemption N. S. by gated found. I would think such matter cannot be subject of the unsound. a principle con- my if I the substance of capsule
It will be helpful how A. 40:48-2 before explaining S. view of trasting reads: at The section I arrive it. amend, municipality may make, repeal Any and enforce such contrary by-laws ordinances, regulations, the laws to rules and necessary States, may deem and as of this state or of the United it persons
proper good government, protection order and public health, safety property, preservation and for the inhabitants, municipality neces- welfare of the and its as imposed sary carry powers and conferred and into effect the duties any subtitle, or law. its and sense the is confined By language granted power matter concerning particular “municipality It not extend obviously and its inhabitants.” therefore does law or private matter affecting general rights state and concern as involving policy citizens large from local. The act is catch-all simply distinguished *16 of local aspects police and pick up delegate appropriate have overlooked the may which the power manifold of delegations municipalities course of its specified regulatory powers. a of sub- However, diversity potential one finds that broad — of stated matters categories matter falls into both
ject here those of state concern. The local concern and which Thus, hand, control, deciding is illustrative. at the coverage shall determinative as to of concern aspect Act in specific of the Home Rule language of the general the court the by respective weighing instance requires which would from every standpoint and state concerns I con- intent. to the rationally point putative in Wagner, in that exercise this Court engaged ceive that that found the state concerns greatly predominated, and therefore held the unrestrained power rent control was not intended the Legislature to to the pass A. automatically enactment of 8. 40:48-2. For follow, reasons which I agree judgment. The constructional issue is some complicated by ambiguity in the previous decisions of the Court the dis- concerning tinction the between criteria of constitutional delegability powers to and the criteria as to what municipality par- ticular were in fact powers the delegated by general police A. power provisions of the Home Rule Act. J. 8. 40:48- blurs Unfortunately, opinion Wagner, supra, distinction. It contains language suggestive concepts and, both that rent control is not on the other delegable, hand, that it is but not in fact delegable delegated under the statute because its great predominance of state-wide over its local I believe aspects aspects. finally the case shakes down to latter as rationale.1 controlling
In cites, the area of inherent non-delegability Wagner on of dicta in Paul v. authority Gloucester County, N. J. L. 585, 601-602 &(E. 1888), subjects such as the law ejectment, attachment and N. J. at (24 descent. the master 478). Wagner adds and servant and landlord and estates, tenant administration of etc. relationships, {Id. There then 478). enigmatic follows statement: * * * grant :48-2, supra, The broad under R. 8. 40 and 30, supra, J.N. 8. A. 40 :69A-29 and relates to matters of local con- proper necessary good cern which be determined to be for the inhabitants, involving of local welfare matters to those policy general public or in state the realm of affairs interest and applicability. legislative history 1 “Moreover, inception since the of federal con beginning recognition after trols of World War II shows a clear rent control was not within a matter the realm of express authority (Emphasis added.) without the State.” from *17 (24 479) N. J. at
541 which to me has expression, It seems that recently- in cases involving scope been approval quoted Teaneck, N. J. 548, A. 40 v. :48-2, J. 8. Summer E. Bruns Ass’n v. Mayor N. J. Builders 552-553 (1969); for useful wick N. J. is too vague Tp., (1972), con as delegability ness a benchmark of constitutional as a de judicial as broad for utility guide with its high trasted Rule Act has actually as to whether the Home termination There is a or matter. delegated particular power of power a limitless variety types almost munici have or controlled matter which been exercised and, of local concern” both “to matters palities relating “involving albeit matters state indirectly, policy” Since is delegability interest.” general public “affairs in terms mat solely referred to in the decisions typically law involving general applicability, ters not private suggest practically considerations strongly foregoing del all mixed local and state concern constitutional cases of an excellence. example control is par exists. Rent egability above, setting as Wagner, up But the opinion quoted as to state concern which in terms of local opposed criteria is if to be exclusive, illusory mutually attempted are not If, however, se. delegability per used for testing used broad Wagner solely guide formulation is as whether the intended Legislature into judicial inquiry 40:48-2 to municipal of N. 8. A. vest language general does serve subject, on it legislate particular authority of the court as judgment It informs useful purpose. data which after examina of relevant categories to the broad can to a rational determination as lead appraisal tion to the in impute it is sensible to whether of section language generality tent area of should be vested public policy the particular 40:48-2 discretion. in unchanneled Teaneck, supra, in Summer of the language Some I After would take. quoting of the approach suggestive Constitution, IV, VII, 40:48-2, and Art. citing *18 542 11, Mayor and Fred v.
par. Borough and Council Old 10 N. Tappan, J. 519-521 authority as for a (1952), conclusion of mu- plenary grant police of broad J. the N. nicipalities, says court “Nonetheless (53 552): is an there limitation implied grant,” pervasive the I have from quoting language already excerpted Wagner, supra, by of a what way the “relates qualification “grant” e., i. to,” local “matters of concern” etc. and not to those added.) state etc. “involving policy”, (Emphasis Co., In also re Public Electric 35 See Service and Gas 371 wherein, case (1961), although really the state, off on the point (local went preemption attempt manner of transmission of electric regulate power through the court that “even municipality), said, citing Wagner, matters, where the not spoken, State some Legislature has treatment, inherently need of uniform not proper are for while subject legislation.”- Again, municipal opinion did expressly distinguish not between constitutional delega in fact, bility ju its tenor me delegation suggests to dicial assessment that while the did literally matter N. J. A. 40:48-2, come within S. having obvious serious implications from health and standpoint, hazard influence its state-effect preponderating aspects weighed sufficiently to warrant conclusion the Legislature did intend mu its grant regulation by general nicipalities.
It be observed that the statutory constructional prob lem is somewhat to that of state in cognate preemption by intent, direction. Evidence general pur fairly can be factual poses, background amorphous found statutory as well as in Ox express material statement. See Consumer Dis. Co. No. Phila. 102 N. J. Stefanelli, ford 549, 564-565 (App. 1968), Div. mod. other Super. grounds, (App. 1969), 104 N. J. 512 Div. mod. other Super. grounds, 808, 923, J. 489 dism. 400 U. S. 91 (1970), app. 55 N. S. Thus, 38 27 L. Ed. 2d State v. (1970). Ulesky, Ct. found where the court that various state (1969), policies argued a criminal against municipal power adopt ordinance, even such registration though authority would be to fall within the of N. apparent breadth J. S. assumed 40:48-2, and no state statute area of duplicated precise action some bore on the (although general the court said : problem), (at 31) us, therefore, that, It seems to such while it *19 delegation police does not foreclose the of the State’s municipalities, against except it nonetheless advises under that course statutory guidance and restraint. in Uleshy While the result of bar was under categorized of it has been noted label state preemption, frequently no in labels. The doctrine of preemption that there is magic is of of manifestation by legislation one simply degree rea- intent, easily demonstrable or legislative indicia a does inferable, not desire sonably otherwise of the uncanalized delegation given consequence N. J. indicated the broad contours of S. prima by facie — only matter dealt with at subject 40:48-2 but wants the a from the away cognate level. It is only doorstep state all indicia of that, a similar resort to available by principle intent, be determined that rationally given it can legislative N. J. by grant matter is not intended general discre- regulatory 3. A. 40 :48-2 for unrestricted an for with- tion; such indicia intent point as where it ex- Legislature grants of the unless the holding without controls whether with or state-mandated pressly, in both areas The common applicable standards. principle in by will not itself to locked permit the court a intent search of legislative absolute presumptions N. J. A. 40:48-2. 8. meaning of state vis-a-vis I the factors proceed weigh thus intent determination concern -relevant unre- A. 40:48-2 totally 8. delegates as to whether munici- on rent control to jurisdiction stricted regulatory palities. jurisdiction The freedom affects to contract with respect to a common very important commodity general com
—merce apartment units of every description price range, ownerships in character from varying investment syndicates to modest decedents5 estates in trust for depen dents. The power involves interference with the owner’s statutory to terminate at right tenancy the end of a lease period (though exercised the subject municipalities), normally enforcible array statutes. See Wagner, J., 24 N. supra, at 479.
2. The need for and public con- constitutionality trol regulation depends the existence of a shortage housing accommodations of dimensions. emergency This is typically concomitant of general cyclical inflationary if trends not national regional proportions. While extent of the housing may to some minor shortage degree vary locally, is predominantly of rather statewide than peculiarly local and concern. incidence There is there- that, fore if need there is to corresponding be rent control all, uniform statewide regulations enacted respect of such basic incidents as assurance of fair return on invest- *20 ment, for restrictions on eviction or provision termination of tenancy and as to of maintenance of adequacy services, fair for procedures administrative review of for re- applications by tenants, lief either landlords or fair and and sufficiently administrative comprehensive rules and in all regulations pertinent respects implement the legislative pro- visions All of adopted. these desiderata peculiarly require manpower, expertise funding typically available at levels, state rather than local permissibly supplemented locally with the resources of such municipalities as may opt local is (if option legislated) a coming into program under fixed minimum legislatively standards.
The has been foregoing established, and, far so as tell, can one the generally effective manner by which this State has administered rent control in the past, subject to or overriding complementary controls, federal generally A when those have existed. comprehensive, compari- equally of of comprehensive provisions son out well-thought L. 1950, L. c. 216 c. 1953, such rent control statutes as well 234 with the ordinances now before us rudimentary a number illustrates As of of point. examples patent latter,2 one finds that none of deficiencies apparent an fair them undertake to assure owner right operating investment; c. 1953, 216, on his L. compare 16(b); return § limitation; no reason by one of them contains time another in- apparent fails effectuate inept draftsmanship at terminations of the end lease prohibit tenancy tent will of the There are ambi- terms lessor. numerous While the or and substantive inexpertness drafting guities. rent control ordinances adopted deficiencies particular course, not, of without statewide or standards does controls to dele- se that the did not intend per establish Legislature 40:48-2, they N. J. S. such unrestricted gate what may expected, do constitute some evidence as to statute, under such view of the and thus practice, with all the other available indications to, looked along in the intent, as some manifestation desires legislative matter. in the field activity
3. The nature of past manifested, been need has evidential. When strong of ap- mode of recognition acted. Its chosen has local has been permitting propriate participation scheme, a state-regulated ox out of stay to come into option avail- 216, 28; by special legislation c. 1953, in L. as § L. c. inas municipalities, opting able for the use of of mu- also noticed the has The Legislature years, expressly delegat- more recent rent control in nicipal dwellings. multiple in relation to substandard such power ing limited it took context 4. Even L. c. fair operating and to assure net establish standards care to *21 purport argued, having points I to be do not here been 2The validity any passing upon ordinances. these income owners, 4(e), At the among safeguards. moment of in earnest debate writing over a control bill which has comprehensive passed Assembly, concern with the evidencing ongoing the state level.
4. can in Chaotic conditions be foreseen relation to the both if only interests of owners and tenants line can houses to no boundary separate apartment rent controls whatever from those where infinite any exist, variety of kinds of control none conformable to state the fair under the any regulation. This is prospect, in majority, solidly determination of the urban areas fre- counties where a number of populous municipalities miles, found within a few square are to coexist quently size, many every with concentrations of houses of apartment an in- usually and rental and category, forming description in which and facilities, market area for such owners tegral vie competitively. potential occupants All of the considerations foregoing may properly mind. Re- influential the collective deemed me, such firmly notwithstanding over them convinces flection of unrestricted local desirability for the may argue factors as A. 40:48-2 the discretion, enacting Legisla- intended, now, does not that the unre- totally and ture never control should exist regulation of rent stricted without large express, sup- the State at authorization. lementary legislative Weintraub, Justices Justice For affirmance —Chief Hall, Proctor, Jacobs, Mountain Sullivan- —6. For Coneoed —1. Judge reversal — For reversal remandment —Chief Justice Weintraub, Proctor, Jacobs, Hall, Mountain Justices Sullivan —6.
For Coneoed —1. Judge affirmance —