Redfern v. Bd. Of Com'rs Of Jersey City

• Decision Date: 13 May 1948
• Docket Number: No. 26.,26.
• Citation: 59 A.2d 641,137 N.J.L. 356
• Parties: REDFERN v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF JERSEY CITY et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

137 N.J.L. 356

59 A.2d 641

REDFERN

v.BOARD OF COM'RS OF JERSEY CITY et al.

No. 26.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

May 13, 1948.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Certiorari proceeding by Frank J. Redfern against the Board of Commissioners of the City of Jersey City, a public body corporate, and the Prudential Insurance Company of America, a corporation of the state of New Jersey, to review two ordinances of the City of Jersey City. From a judgment dismissing the writ of certiorari, the plaintiff appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The Urban Redevelopment Law, P.L. 1946, Chapter 52, N.J.S.A. 55:14E-1 et seq., is a constitutional enactment under the Constitution of 1844.

2. The ordinances and contract under review, executed in order to implement the statute, are valid.

Maurice C. Brigadier, of Jersey City, for appellant.

Charles A. Rooney and Charles Hershenstein, both of Jersey City, for Board of Commissioners.

Milton, McNulty & Augelli and John Milton, all of Jersey City, for Prudential Ins. Co.

Walter D. Van Riper, of Trenton, for the State.

BODINE, Justice.

The is an appeal from a judgment entered in the Supreme Court dismissing a writ of certiorari allowed to review two ordinances of the City of Jersey City, hereafter called the City. By special leave of the Supreme Court, the record has been supplemented by depositions which were not before that court. This is due to the urgent public interest in securing an early adjudication in this court.

The ordinances in question were adopted to facilitate a redevelopment housing project in cooperation with the Prudential Insurance Company, hereafter called Prudential. One of the ordinances provides for the acquisition by the City of the required lands and the financing of the cost thereof. The other approves a contract and lease between the City and Prudential, in which the details of the operation are set forth with great particularity.

The legal obligation of the parties has matured and the commencement of the project will begin as soon as possible after the determination of this case, in the event that we decide that the ordinances and the Urban Redevelopment Law of 1946, P.L. Chapter 52, N.J.S.A. 55:14E-1 et seq., are not prohibited by the Constitution of 1844. The new Constitution adopted in November 1947, deals with the clearance and replanning of blighted areas. The lands in question in this case are, for the most part, not built upon and perhaps do not fall within the new grant. The Acts under review were completed before the new Constitution became effective.

The need for housing in the City is very acute. The reasons for the lack of private building are economic. The speculative builder is no longer a favorite with the banks. High taxes, hight cost of labor and scarcity of material have resulted in a paralysis of building enterprises. There is need for 23,968 additional houses in the City. The construction of new houses for the years 1940 to 1946, inclusive, in that City were 165, 58, 22, 14, 41, 23, and 119. During the years 1940 through 1945, there were demolished the following number of obsolete abodes, 127, 129, 112, 111, 70 and 96. The State is in urgent need of at least 229,440 dwelling houses. The condition is a serious threat to public health and welfare. Civilized man cannot live in this climate without suitable houses.

It would be possible to state further facts and figures to demonstrate the pressing need for new dwelling units but since all informed public minded persons agree that the situation is real and pressing there exists no need to say but little more.

Since 1920, public housing has been regarded by the Legislature as a matter of State concern. Eleven separate Acts have been adopted in one form or another to provide for participation, aid or assistance in providing housing, as will appear by reference to the Public Laws.

The Urban Redevelopment Law, P. L.1946, Chapter 52 seeks to accomplish the public purpose of providing adequate public housing by enlisting the participation of private capital and enterprise for a fixed and limited statutory period and rent. Section 2 of the statute states the legislative object. Section 3 permits any private person or agency to present to the governing body in any municipality an application for approval of a project for the construction, at the expense of the applicant, of new housing facilities of proper standard. Under Section 5, if the governing body decides that the project is in the public interest and so decides by resolution it may enter into a contract with the applicant containing provisions to finance the same. A private corporation making application under the Act receives no general proprietorship in the project. Its status is similar to that of a mortgagee in possession. Its purpose is to assist in bringing about means for providing requisite public housing. The private corporation lends its capital and its abilities and experiences to obtain construction engineers, real estate managers and maintenance men for the project. It is paid a minimum 4 per cent and a maximum 6 per cent annually upon its investment during the amortization period of its loan, if such are earned. The period may not exceed sixty years. Whether the investment and interest are recaptured, the...