Levin v. Township Committee of Bridgewater Tp.

• Decision Date: 22 February 1971
• Citation: 57 N.J. 506,45 A.L.R.3d 1054,274 A.2d 1
• Parties: , 45 A.L.R.3d 1054 Philip J. LEVIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Bridgewater Leasing Corp., a corporation of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF the TOWNSHIP OF BRIDGEWATER and Planning Board of the Township of Bridgewater, Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 506

57 N.J. 506

274 A.2d 1, 45 A.L.R.3d 1054

Philip J. LEVIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

Bridgewater Leasing Corp., a corporation of the State of New

Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF the TOWNSHIP OF BRIDGEWATER and Planning Board of the Township of Bridgewater,

Defendants-Respondents.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued Dec. 21 and 22, 1970.

Decided Feb. 22, 1971.

Clive S. Cummis, Newark, for appellant Bridgewater Leasing Corp. (David S. Litwin on the brief; Cummis, Kent & Radin, Newark, attorneys.)

William E. Ozzard, Somerville, for appellant Philip J. Levin (Beekman, Ozzard, Mauro & Savo, Somerville, attorneys).

Richard H. Thiele, Jr., Somerville, for respondent Township Committee of the Tp. of Bridgewater (Louis A. Imfeld, Somerville, on the brief; Wharton, Stewart & Davis, Somerville, attorneys).

Charles A. Reid, Jr., Plainfield, for respondent Planning Bd. of the Tp. of Bridgewater.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

FRANCIS, J.

In this action, plaintiffs Philip J. Levin and Bridgewater Leasing Corp. seek to invalidate a declaration that a certain land area in Bridgewater Township, Somerset County, is 'blighted' under N.J.S.A. 40:55--21.1(e). After investigation and hearings, the Township Planning Board resolved that the area was blighted, and thereafter the Township Committee approved that resolution. Plaintiffs then proceeded by complaint in lieu of prerogative writ in the Superior Court, Law Division and, following an adverse result there, sought further review in the Appellate Division. We granted the Township Committee's petition for certification before argument there.

The declaration of blight was made under subsection (e) of N.J.S.A. 40:55--21.1. Section 21.1(a) through (e) contains five separate definitions of 'blighted area.' If the condition of the land involved meets the specifications of any one of the five subsections the finding of blight is unassailable. Wilson v. Long Branch, 27 N.J. 360, 392, 142 A.2d 837, cert. den. 358 U.S. 873, 79 S.Ct. 113, 3 L.Ed.2d 104 (1958). Subsection (e) provides that an area is blighted where there exists:

A growing or total lack of proper utilization of areas caused by the condition of the title, diverse ownership of the real property therein and other conditions, resulting in a stagnant and unproductive condition of land potentially useful and valuable for contributing to and serving the public health, safety and welfare.

Since the subsection seems to have been rarely used or referred to in judicial decisions, it seems worthwhile to look into its legislative origins. Cf. Jersey City Chapter of the Property Owner's Protective Assoc. v. City Council of Jersey City, 55 N.J. 86, 259 A.2d 698 (1969). The Blighted Area Act was adopted originally by L.1949, c. 187, N.J.S.A. 40:55--21.1 et seq. At that time, subsection (e) was not included. In the same session of the Legislature the Local Housing Authorities Law was amended by L. 1949, c. 300, N.J.S.A. 55:14A--31 et seq. That amendment contained a legislative declaration regarding blighted areas to the effect that

There are also Certain areas where the condition of the title, the diverse ownership of the land to be assembled, the street or lot layouts, or other conditions prevent a proper development of the land, and that it is in the public interest that such areas, as well as blighted areas, be acquired by eminent domain and made available for sound and wholesome development in accordance with a redevelopment plan, and that the exercise of the power of eminent domain and the financing of the acquisition and preparation of land by a public agency for such redevelopment is likewise a public use and purpose; * * *. (Emphasis added.) N.J.S.A. 55:14A--31(d).

This declaration was implemented by including in the definition of blighted area set out in that statute (N.J.S.A. 55:14A--32(e)) the precise language which is involved in this case and which, as will be noted, was added later to the 1949 Blighted Area Act, Supra. Moreover, the Redevelopment Agencies Law, also adopted in 1949, L. 1949, c. 306 (N.J.S.A. 40:55C--1 et seq.) included the same subsection (e) in its definition of blighted area. N.J.S.A. 40:55C--3(e). That statute likewise contained a legislative determination on which subsection (e) was undoubtedly based. It said that blighted areas or areas in the process of becoming blighted existed in the State '* * * by reason of inadequate planning of the area, or excessive land coverage, * * * or deleterious land use, * * * or the unsound subdivision plotting and street and road mapping, or obsolete layout, or a combination of these factors * * *.' Further it declared that '* * * redevelopment of such areas will promote the public health, safety, morals and welfare, Stimulate the proper growth of urban, suburban and rural areas of the State, preserve existing values and maintain taxable values of properties within or contiguous to such areas, and encourage the sound growth of communities.' (Emphasis added.) N.J.S.A. 40:55C--2. The lack of a subsection (e) definition in the Blighted Area Act was discovered later and it was added by L. 1951, c. 248. The statement attached said:

The purpose of this bill is to make uniform the definition of 'blighted area' as given in the act which this bill amends, in the local housing authorities law (P.L. 1949, c. 300), and in the redevelopment agencies law, P.L.1949, c. 306). R.S.Cum.Supp. 40:55--21.1 (1951).

It may be noted from the above that the legislative purpose in enacting the related 1949 statutes was not solely to provide for slum clearance. It was to authorize the public agencies to function for slum clearance and urban, suburban and rural redevelopment, to acquire land for that purpose and to make it available for redevelopment by private enterprise or by public agencies in accordance with approved redevelopment plans. Another purpose was to authorize cooperation with and the obtaining of funds from federal agencies. Obviously these enactments are In pari materia and warrant liberal judicial construction in order to effectuate the beneficent legislative design. See E.g., N.J.S.A. 40:55C--29. An important aspect of that policy, as indicated by the common inclusion of subsection (e) in all three statutes, as well as the legislative determinations quoted above, is that the lawmakers intended that land areas should be deemed blighted and made available for redevelopment when from the community standpoint 'proper development' thereof was being prevented or impeded by title problems, diverse ownership, obsolete and impractical street and lot layouts and the like, any of which have resulted in a stagnant and unproductive condition of the land.

Although the Federal Housing Act of 1949 (Act July 15, 1949, c. 338) is not involved in the present situation, some of its provisions obviously have influenced the pattern of the New Jersey legislation. The Federal Act was adopted to remedy problems of shortages in available housing and to provide federal assistance for the assembly and clearance of areas which would be redeveloped primarily for residential uses. See Legislative History, 1949 U.S. Code Cong. Service 1550, 1563.

The 1949 Act authorized as a redevelopment project '(iii) land which is predominantly open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or of site improvements, or otherwise substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the community * * * or (iv) open land necessary for sound community growth * * *.' Act July 15, 1949, c. 338, § 110. Now 42 U.S.C.A. § 1460(c)(1)(ii), (iii)(1964). Although the Act, as initially passed, required that such land be redeveloped for 'predominantly residential uses,' subsequent amendments have provided that, if the local governing body determines that redevelopment of such an area for predominantly nonresidential uses is 'necessary and appropriate to facilitate the proper growth and development of the community in accordance with sound planning standards and local community objectives and to afford maximum opportunity for the redevelopment of the project area by private enterprise,' certain federal financial aid may be extended. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1460(c), p. 146 (1964); 42 U.S.C.A. § 1460(c), p. 145 (1964); Housing Amendments of 1955, Act Aug. 11, 1955, c. 783; Housing Act of 1959, Pub.L. No. 86--372, § 413; and see Blachman v. Erieview Corp., 205 F.Supp. 797 (Ohio D.C.), aff'd 311 F.2d 85 (6 Cir. 1962), cert. den. 372 U.S. 941, 83 S.Ct. 934, 9 L.Ed.2d 967 (1963). ¹

For an additional perspective of the New Jersey approach to problems of redevelopment, the legislative movement on the national scene may be contrasted. It has been said that the federal movement 'suggests two predominant trends: (1) the expansion of the physical area of concern, and (2) emphasis on raising the level of efficiency in the functioning of the urban mechanism. The scope of renewal has germinated from the 'individual' emphasis of 1934, to the 'project' emphasis of 1937 and 1949, to the 'neighborhood' in the 1956 Act, to the 'community' in 1959 and finally to 'entire urban areas. " Comment, The Concept and objectives of Urban Renewal, 37 S.Cal.L.Rev. 55 (1964). On the other hand, in our State, from the very beginning of the efforts to deal with the problem of blight, the vista has been a broad and comprehensive one. The Legislature revealed as its clear purpose not only the clearance, replanning, development or redevelopment of urban blight, but suburban and rural blight as well. See Wilson v. Long Branch, Supra, 27 N.J. at 370, 142 A.2d 837.

There is no reported case in our State applying subsection (e) to a sizeable rural or suburban land area as a basis for a blight determination. However, it is plain from a reading of (e) that the land involved does not have to be a slum area. This Court has said that the statute 'goes far beyond the elimination of...