Opinion of the Justices, No. 5949
| Court | Supreme Court of New Hampshire |
| Writing for the Court | Rather, the bills would confer upon all cities and towns having populations in excess of sixty thousand |
| Citation | 109 N.H. 396,254 A.2d 273 |
| Parties | OPINION OF THE JUSTICES. Request of House of Representatives, |
| Docket Number | No. 5949 |
| Decision Date | 03 June 1969 |
Page 273
Answer Returned June 3, 1969.
[109 N.H. 397]
Page 274
The following resolution was adopted by the House of Representatives May 6, 1969 and filed in this court on May 7, 1969:'Whereas, there is pending before the House of Representatives House Bill No. 708, An Act authorizing municipalities to levy special assessments for the construction, operation and maintenance of parking facilities and approaches thereto, and House Bill No. 786, An Act authorizing towns and cities to increase motor vehicle permit fees; and
'Whereas, there has been proposed to said bills amendments which would limit said bills to cities and towns with a population of not less than sixty thousand, and
'Whereas, questions have been raised concerning the constitutionality of said bills with the proposed amendments; now therefore be it.
'Resolved, that the Justices of the Supreme Court be respectfully requested to give their opinion upon the following questions of law:
'1. If the bills with proposed amendments are enacted, would they be constitutional?
'2. Does a law which applies only to municipalities with a population of not less than sixty thousand require a referendum vote by the voters of Manchester since Manchester will be the only municipality affected?
'3. May the legislature authorize municipalities to collect motor vehicle permit fees for the purpose of funding the construction of parking facilities, as is proposed in HB 786?
'4. May the legislature authorize municipalities to levy assessments upon owners or lessees of lease-hold interest whose lands receive special benefits from the construction of parking facilities in order to defray the cost of such facilities as proposed in HB 708; (252-A:7)
'5. Is the basis of assessment as proposed in HB 708 (252-A:8) constitutional?
'6. May the legislature authorize municipalities to make assessments for operating expenses as provided in HB 708 (252-A:9)?
'7. May the legislature authorize municipalities to lease air rights as provided in HB, 708, part 2 (46-B:2)?
[109 N.H. 398] '8. Would such lease be subject to taxation as provided in HB 708, part 2 (48-B:4)?
Page 275
'Be it Further Resolved that the Speaker transmit seven copies of this resolution, of House Bill No. 708, of House Bill No. 786, of the proposed amendment to House Bill No. 708, and of the proposed amendment to House Bill No. 786 to the Clerk of the Supreme Court for consideration by said court.'
The following answer was returned:
To the House of Representatives:
The undersigned Justices of the Supreme Court return the following answer to the inquiries contained in your resolution of May 6, 1969:
House Bill 708 would authorize municipalities to construct, or cause to be constructed, public parking facilities as therein defined, and to finance the cost of such construction in part by means of assessments against owners or lessees of land receiving special benefits from such facilities, or by the issuance of bonds, fifty per cent of the principal amount of which would be redeemed from such assessments, of from parking revenues, or from funds raised from motor vehicle permit fees as would be provided by House Bill 786. House Bill 708 would further authorize municipalities to defray the operating expenses of such facilities by like assessments, and would establish procedures for the collection and abatement of such assessments.
House Bill 786 would authorize municipalities to collect, in addition to the permit fees now charged for the registration of motor vehicles under RSA ch. 260, sums not exceeding seven mills on each dollar of the list price of motor vehicles registered in any year, which additional fees would be required to be used for the construction, operation and maintenance of public parking facilities, as provided by House Bill 708.
The proposed amendments to these House Bills would limit the authority granted by the bills, to municipalities in the State having a population of not less than sixty thousand.
In addition to the provisions mentioned above, House Bill [109 N.H. 399] 708, by enacting a new chapter of RSA (ch. 48-B) would authorize municipalities, without limitation as to population, to lease 'air rights over public streets and ways, public parking facilities and other public buildings,' and property, subject to certain conditions and limitations specified therein. Additionally, it would authorize municipalities and their housing authorities to enter into agreements for the construction of public parking facilities by such authorities, to be conveyed to the municipality or its designee upon completion, and to be financed as provided by other sections of the bill.
Your resolution propounds eight questions with respect to these bills, the first of which is whether they would be constitutional if enacted, and the remainder of which pose questions regarding specific features of the bills.
The stated purpose of House Bill 708 is to abate traffic...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Aurora v. Spectra Commc'ns Grp., LLC, SC 96276
...Grand Island , 279 Neb. 935, 784 N.W.2d 101, 106 (2010) ; Ex parte Pittman , 31 Nev. 43, 99 P. 700, 703 (1909) ; Opinion of the Justices , 109 N.H. 396, 254 A.2d 273, 276-77 (1969) ; Garcia ex rel. Garcia v. La Farge , 119 N.M. 532, 893 P.2d 428, 434-35 (1995), overruled on other grounds by......
-
RE Short Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 48624
...and serve the additional public purpose of increasing the amount of taxes paid to the city, L.1971, c. 677, § 1; Opinion of the Justices, 109 N.H. 396, 254 A.2d 273 (1969). Similarly, the city's right to make the two structures compatible would seem to be authorized by L.1971, c. 677, § 2, ......
-
Club Jolliet, Inc. v. Manchester, 6047
...public parking facilities is a valid public purpose which can be accomplished by a redevelopment project. Opinion of the Justices, 109 N.H. 396, 254 A.2d 273; Stott v. Manchester, 109 N.H. 59, 242 A.2d 58; Seligsohn v. Philadelphia Parking Authority, 412 Pa. 372, 194 A.2d 606, cert. den. 37......
-
H. L. Munn Lumber Co. v. City of Ames, 53919
...U.S. 269, 19 S.Ct. 187, 43 L.Ed. 443; Crampton v. City of Royal Oak, 362 Mich. 503, 108 N.W.2d 16, 20--27; Opinion of the Justices, N.H., 254 A.2d 273, 277; and Wing v. City of Eugene, 249 Or. 367, 437 P.2d 836, The real significance of chapter 391, is probably best demonstrated by section ......
-
City of Aurora v. Spectra Commc'ns Grp., LLC, SC 96276
...Grand Island , 279 Neb. 935, 784 N.W.2d 101, 106 (2010) ; Ex parte Pittman , 31 Nev. 43, 99 P. 700, 703 (1909) ; Opinion of the Justices , 109 N.H. 396, 254 A.2d 273, 276-77 (1969) ; Garcia ex rel. Garcia v. La Farge , 119 N.M. 532, 893 P.2d 428, 434-35 (1995), overruled on other grounds by......
-
RE Short Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 48624
...and serve the additional public purpose of increasing the amount of taxes paid to the city, L.1971, c. 677, § 1; Opinion of the Justices, 109 N.H. 396, 254 A.2d 273 (1969). Similarly, the city's right to make the two structures compatible would seem to be authorized by L.1971, c. 677, § 2, ......
-
Club Jolliet, Inc. v. Manchester, 6047
...public parking facilities is a valid public purpose which can be accomplished by a redevelopment project. Opinion of the Justices, 109 N.H. 396, 254 A.2d 273; Stott v. Manchester, 109 N.H. 59, 242 A.2d 58; Seligsohn v. Philadelphia Parking Authority, 412 Pa. 372, 194 A.2d 606, cert. den. 37......
-
H. L. Munn Lumber Co. v. City of Ames, 53919
...U.S. 269, 19 S.Ct. 187, 43 L.Ed. 443; Crampton v. City of Royal Oak, 362 Mich. 503, 108 N.W.2d 16, 20--27; Opinion of the Justices, N.H., 254 A.2d 273, 277; and Wing v. City of Eugene, 249 Or. 367, 437 P.2d 836, The real significance of chapter 391, is probably best demonstrated by section ......