New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority v. McCrane

• Decision Date: 12 May 1972
• Citation: 61 N.J. 1,292 A.2d 545
• Parties: , 3 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,597 NEW JERSEY SPORTS & EXPOSITION AUTHORITY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Joseph M. McCRANE, Jr., etc., Louis Montenegro et al., Defendants-Appellants. Henry CHEVAL et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE of New Jersey et al., Defendants-Respondents. MONMOUTH PARK JOCKEY CLUB, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY SPORTS & EXPOSITION AUTHORITY, Defendant-Respondent. James L. PLOSIA et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW JERSEY SPORTS AND EXPOSITION AUTHORITY, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 1

61 N.J. 1

292 A.2d 545, 3 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,597

NEW JERSEY SPORTS & EXPOSITION AUTHORITY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Joseph M. McCRANE, Jr., etc., Louis Montenegro et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

Henry CHEVAL et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE of New Jersey et al., Defendants-Respondents.

MONMOUTH PARK JOCKEY CLUB, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY SPORTS & EXPOSITION AUTHORITY, Defendant-Respondent.

James L. PLOSIA et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW JERSEY SPORTS AND EXPOSITION AUTHORITY, Defendant-Respondent.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued Feb. 22 and March 8, 1972.

Decided May 12, 1972.

Robert N. Wilentz, Perth Amboy, for appellant, Monmouth Park Jockey Club (Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, Perth Amboy, attorneys).

Alfred A. Porro, Jr., Lyndhurst, for appellants Henry Cheval and others and National Audubon Society (Porro, Flynn & Murray, Lyndhurst, attorneys).

Ralph W. Chandless, Hackensack, for appellants Louis Montenegro, Philip Melillo, Jr., Guy C. Galiardo Township of South Hackensack and the Board of Education of the Township of South Hackensack (Chandless, Weller & Kramer, Hackensack, attorneys).

Frederick C. Mezey, New Brunswick, amicus curiae for New Jersey Citizens for Clean Air, Inc., Save the Meadowlands Coalition and others (Mezey & Mezey, New Brunswick, attorneys).

T. Girard Wharton, Somerville, for Joseph M. McCrane, Jr., Treasurer of the State of New Jersey (attorney appointed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey).

George F. Kugler, Jr., Atty. Gen., for respondents New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority and others (Stephen Skillman, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Joseph M. Clayton, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., on the brief).

William D. Gorgone, Saddle Brook, for appellants James L. Plosia and others.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

FRANCIS, J.

These actions sought a judicial declaration as to the constitutionality of the New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority Law. L.1971, c. 137, N.J.S.A. 5:10--1 et seq. After a comprehensive review of the various claims of invalidity, Judge Pashman of the Superior Court, Law Division, found no trespass on the Constitution, and entered summary judgment so holding. We certified the ensuing appeal prior to argument in the Appellate Division, and now, being substantially in agreement with the legal principles applied by Judge Pashman, affirm the judgment entered by him. New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority v. McCrane, 119 N.J.Super. 457, 292 A.2d 580 (Law Div.1971). However, variations and enlargements of the arguments made below call for some further discussion here.

One of the most delicate tasks a court has to perform is to adjudicate the constitutionality of a statute. In our tripartite form of government that high prerogative has always been exercised with extreme self restraint, and with a deep awareness that the challenged enactment represents the considered action of a body composed of popularly elected representatives. As a result, judicial decisions from the time of Chief Justice Marshall reveal an unswerving acceptance of the principle that every possible presumption favors the validity of an act of the Legislature. As we noted in Roe v. Kervick, 42 N.J. 191, 229, 199 A.2d 834 (1964), all the relevant New Jersey cases display faithful judicial deference to the will of the lawmakers whenever reasonable men might differ as to whether the means devised by the Legislature to serve a public purpose conform to the Constitution. And these cases project into the forefront of any judicial study of an attack upon a duly enacted statute both the strong presumption of validity and our solemn duty to resolve reasonably conflicting doubts in favor of conformity to our organic charter. Moreover, the conclusions reached in such cases demonstrate that in effectuating this salutary policy, judges will read the questioned statute as implying matters requisite to its constitutional viability if it contains terms which do not exclude such requirements.

The judicial branch of the government does not and cannot concern itself with the wisdom or policy of a statute. Such matters are the exclusive concern of the legislative branch, and the doctrine is firmly settled that its enactment may not be stricken because a court thinks it unwise. Holster v. Board of Trustees of Passaic County College, 59 N.J. 60, 66, 279 A.2d 798 (1971); New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency v. McCrane, 56 N.J. 414, 422, 267 A.2d 24 (1970); Clayton v. Kervick, 52 N.J. 138, 244 A.2d 281 (1968); Roe v. Kervick, Supra, 42 N.J. at 229, 199 A.2d 834; Fried v. Kervick, 34 N.J. 68, 74, 167 A.2d 380 (1961); Am. Budget Corp. v. Furman, 67 N.J.Super. 134, 170 A.2d 63 (Ch.Div.), aff'd o.b. 36 N.J. 129, 175 A.2d 622 (1961); 16 Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law, § 109, pp. 294--295 (1964). In emphasizing the common sense of these controlling general principles, in his dissent in McCutcheon v. State Building Authority, 13 N.J. 46, 79, 97 A.2d 663, 680 (1953), ¹ Justice Jacobs quoted the striking language of Justice Holmes in Missouri, Kan. & Tex. Ry. Co. of Tex. v. May, 194 U.S. 267, 270, 24 S.Ct. 638, 48 L.Ed.2d 971, 973 (1904):

Great constitutional provisions must be administered with caution. Some play must be allowed for the joints of the machine, and it must be remembered that legislatures are ultimate guardians of the liberties and welfare of the people in quite as great a degree as the courts.

The statute challenged here, the New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority Law, was adopted to bring about the construction, operation and maintenance of a sports complex on a site not to exceed 750 acres in the Hackensack meadowlands. The Legislature envisioned and authorized the development and operation on the site selected a project consisting of 'one or more stadiums, coliseums, arenas, pavilions, stands, field houses, playing fields, recreation centers, courts, gymnasiums, club houses, a race track' and other structures and facilities suitable for the holding of sporting events, trade shows, other expositions or public meetings. Provisions were made also for roads, approaches, driveways, parking areas, transportation structures, systems and facilities, and all other appurtenances necessary or complementary to operation of the project. L.1971, c. 137, § 6, subd. a.

To create and administer the complex, the Act established in the Department of Community Affairs the New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority to consist of the State Treasurer, the Attorney General, a member of the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission, and four public members to be appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Authority was 'constituted as an instrumentality of the State exercising public and essential governmental functions'; its exercise of the powers conferred by the Act was declared to be an essential function of the State and by express mandate, application of 'the revenue derived from the project to the purposes provided in this act (was to) be deemed and held to be applied in support of government.' L.1971, c. 137, § 4, subds. a, b.

As constituted the Authority is a financially self-sustaining governmental instrumentality. It is empowered to issue bonds or notes to finance costs of construction of the project. Interest and principal of the bonds or notes are to be met out of the fees, rents and other charges for admission to or use of the facilities and from the grant of any concessions therein. L.1971, c. 137, §§ 10, 11. The immediate financial key to the Authority's initial as well as long term operation is establishment of a horse race track with pari-mutuel wagering. Revenues from such wagering (as well as from the total complex upon construction) will be used for expenses of operation and maintenance of the track, the entire complex, payment of interest and principal of the bonds or notes, and certain payments to municipalities whose land is acquired for the complex. Any balance remaining must be deposited in the General State Fund, 40% Of which is appropriated to the Meadowlands Commission for any of its purposes as authorized by Chapter 404, Laws of 1968, N.J.S.A. 13:17--1 et seq. Since the revenues from the pari-mutuel wagering except for the mandated allocations, will be used for the construction of the various facilities of the total complex and their subsequent maintenance, the Attorney General stipulated that there will be no balance thereof remaining for deposit in the General State Fund under Section 6, subd. b(6) of the Act. ² It may be noted here also that Section 7f provides that distribution of sums deposited in pari-mutuel pools to winners thereof and payments from the remaining balances in such pools for stakes, purses or rewards and special trust accounts for breeding and development of horses, shall be in accordance with L.1940, c. 17, N.J.S.A. 5:5--22 et seq., the Racing Commission Act. In addition, as an initial payment to the State, an amount equal to 1/2 of 1% Of all pari-mutuel pools must be deposited annually in the General State Fund. All amounts remaining in pari-mutuel pools after such distribution become revenue of the Authority.

Bonds or notes issued by the Authority are negotiable and are general obligations payable out of any of its revenues or funds, subject only to any agreement, with the holders of the particular bonds or notes pledging any particular revenues or funds. L.1971, c. 137, § 10, subds. b, c. They may be sold at public or private sale and must mature and be paid not later than 40 years from their inception date. Their issuance by the Authority is not subject to the consent of any department, division, or agency of the State, nor to any other proceedings or conditions except those specified in this Act. L.1971, c. 137, § 10, subds. e, f. For purposes of the present case, a major provision respecting the nature of the bonds or notes is that they shall be debts of the Authority only and under no...