Answer of the Justices
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Citation | 250 N.E.2d 450,356 Mass. 769 |
| Decision Date | 14 August 1969 |
| Parties | ANSWER OF THE JUSTICES to the House of Representatives. |
Page 450
Aug. 14, 1969.
Page 451
To the Honorable the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
The undersigned Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court respectfully submit this reply to the question set forth in an order adopted by the House on July 8, 1969, and transmitted to us on July 11. The order recites the pendency before the General Court of a bill printed as House No. 4209, as changed, entitled, 'An Act confirming the authority of the city council of the city of Boston to impose a rent control law in the city of Boston,' a copy of which is submitted with the order.
The bill, as changed, is as follows:
'Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, when public exigency, emergency or distress exists in the city of Boston, the city council of said city, with the approval of the mayor, may by ordinance control the rent for the use or occupancy of housing accommodations in [356 Mass. 770] structures having four or more dwelling units excluding motels, hotels or inns, and may create a rent board and empower it to establish as the maximum rent for housing accommodations in the city of Boston the rent in effect therefor on the thirtyfirst day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-eight, or such higher amount as may be necessary to remove hardships or correct inequities.'
The question is:
'Has the City of Boston power under Section 6 of Article II of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth (as amended by Article LXXXIX of such amendments), as limited by Section 7 of said Article II as so amended (see especially clause (5)), to adopt an ordinance to control the rent for the use or occupancy of housing accommodations in said city without a special enabling act passed by the General Court such as House, No. 4209, changed?'
The order does not make the usual recital that 'Grave doubt exists as to the constitutionality of said bill, if enacted into law.' The recital made is: 'Said bill presents to the House of Representatives an important question of constitutional law, which it is necessary that the House of Representatives determines before taking any further action on said bill in the exercise of the legislative power entrusted to it by the Constitution of the Commonwealth.'
Article 89 of the Amendments, which amended art. 2 of the Amendments, is known as the Home Rule Amendment. It was adopted by the General Court (Joint Legislative Session) of 1963 and 1965, and was approved by the people on November 8, 1966. It is rather long for a single amendment, and is unusually complicated. This is the first time a question as to the construction of any part of the Home Rule
Page 452
Amendment has been presented to the Supreme Judicial Court or its Justices.Article 89 substantially modifies the policy of the Commonwealth as to municipal power which had been in accord [356 Mass. 771] with the rule stated in Dillon, Municipal Corporations (5th ed.) § 237, generally called 'Dillon's Rule.' See Atherton v. Selectmen of Bourne, 337 Mass. 250, 225--256, 149 N.E.2d 232, and cases cited.
Subsequent to the present request for an advisory opinion, two more such requests involving the Home Rule Amendment have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marshal House, Inc. v. Rent Control Bd. of Brookline
...such higher statutory standard, so as to insure to landlords 'a fair return on the value of the property.' Answer of the Justices, Mass., 250 N.E.2d 450, 453. d Mindful therefore of our duty to construe statutes in a way so as to sustain their validity if possible, we read the term 'fair ne......
-
State v. Community Distributors, Inc.
...an employee's right to privacy is resolved by statutes which prohibit the use of polygraph tests on present or prospective employees.' 250 N.E.2d at 450. The defendant stresses that it deals with narcotics, that it has been subjected to considerable losses from theft, and that its use of th......
-
Opinions of the Justices to the House of Representatives
...and authority of the requesting branch to take action without violating the Constitution or existing statutes. Answer of the Justices, 356 Mass. 769, [427 Mass. 1214] 773-774, 250 N.E.2d 450 (1969). Question 1 concerns the power to act of the city, not of the House, the requesting body. 3 I......
-
Niles v. Boston Rent Control Adm'r
...Supreme Judicial Court has never held that a fair return on fair market value is required. With the exception of Answer of the Justices, 356 Mass. 769, 773, 250 N.E.2d 450, 453 (1969), 6 in which the justices referred to the lack of a provision for "a fair return on the value of the propert......
-
Marshal House, Inc. v. Rent Control Bd. of Brookline
...such higher statutory standard, so as to insure to landlords 'a fair return on the value of the property.' Answer of the Justices, Mass., 250 N.E.2d 450, 453. d Mindful therefore of our duty to construe statutes in a way so as to sustain their validity if possible, we read the term 'fair ne......
-
State v. Community Distributors, Inc.
...an employee's right to privacy is resolved by statutes which prohibit the use of polygraph tests on present or prospective employees.' 250 N.E.2d at 450. The defendant stresses that it deals with narcotics, that it has been subjected to considerable losses from theft, and that its use of th......
-
Opinions of the Justices to the House of Representatives
...and authority of the requesting branch to take action without violating the Constitution or existing statutes. Answer of the Justices, 356 Mass. 769, [427 Mass. 1214] 773-774, 250 N.E.2d 450 (1969). Question 1 concerns the power to act of the city, not of the House, the requesting body. 3 I......
-
Niles v. Boston Rent Control Adm'r
...Supreme Judicial Court has never held that a fair return on fair market value is required. With the exception of Answer of the Justices, 356 Mass. 769, 773, 250 N.E.2d 450, 453 (1969), 6 in which the justices referred to the lack of a provision for "a fair return on the value of the propert......