Village of Ridgefield Park v. Bergen County Bd. of Taxation

• Decision Date: 12 April 1960
• Docket Number: No. L,L
• Citation: 160 A.2d 316,61 N.J.Super. 170
• Parties: VILLAGE OF RIDGEFIELD PARK et al., Plaintiffs, v. BERGEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION et al., Defendants. 9321
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

Page 170

61 N.J.Super. 170

160 A.2d 316

VILLAGE OF RIDGEFIELD PARK et al., Plaintiffs, v. BERGEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION et al., Defendants.

No. L 9321

Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division.

April 12, 1960.

Morrison, Lloyd & Griggs, Hackensack, (William R. Morrison, Hackensack, appearing), for plaintiffs.

Theodore I. Botter, Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendant Bergen County Board of Taxation (David D. Furman, Atty. Gen., attorney).

WAESCHE, J.S.C.

This action is a procedure in lieu of the prerogative writs of Certiorari and Mandamus. There is an alliance between these two proceedings. They have a common interest, but they seek different forms of relief. They will be treated separately in this opinion. The proceeding in the nature of Certiorari will be considered first.

The plaintiffs are the Village of Ridgefield Park, a municipal taxing district of Bergen County, and several residents and taxpayers of Ridgefield Park. The residents and taxpayers are suing on their own behalf and also on behalf of all the other taxpayers of Ridgefield Park who are similarly situated. The defendants are the Bergen County Board of Taxation and its members, the County of Bergen and its treasurer, and the assessors of the other 69 municipal taxing districts of Bergen County. This action, in lieu of Certiorari, brings before this court for review the 1959 valuation assessments for taxation on the real and personal property in each of the 70 municipalities of Bergen County; the proceedings and action of the Bergen County Board of Taxation respecting its review of the 1959 tax assessment lists of the respective taxing districts of the county; the equalization table and table of aggregates for the year 1959 prepared by the Bergen County Board of Taxation; the 'apportionment valuation' of each taxing district required by N.J.S.A. 54:4--49; and the constitutionality and legality of the Bergen County taxes apportioned for the year 1959 against the Village of Ridgefield Park, together with all things touching and concerning the same.

The only taxes involved in this litigation are the Bergen County taxes. Bergen County lies on the westerly side of the Hudson River directly opposite New York City. The picturesque Palisades on the west bank of the Hudson River are in Bergen County. On the top of the Palisades lies the Palisade Interstate Park, and the beautiful Parkway leading from the George Washington Bridge northward into New York State. The westerly end of the George Washington Bridge is in the Borough of Fort Lee, Bergen County. On the westerly side of the county is the Passaic River, and halfway between the Passaic River and the Hudson River is the Hackensack River, which is navigable up as far as the City of Hackensack. The county is criss-crossed by several super-highways: Garden State Parkway, New Jersey Turnpike, State Highway Routes Numbers 4, 46, and 17, as well as several others; and it is also crossed by several railroads. The area of the county is 246.31 square miles of which 236.05 square miles is land. The estimated population of Bergen County as of December 31, 1958 was 728,044. In 1950 its population was 539,139. Bergen County is a rapidly growing county both in population and in industry and commerce.

There are 70 municipalities in Bergen County. They vary in size both in area and in population; and they are very different in their development, location, and also in their natural characteristics. The largest municipality in area, Mahwah, lies in the northwest corner of the county. It has a population of approximately 7,000, and an area of 25.93 square miles. It is primarily a residential and farming community, but it has some industry. The smallest municipality, South Hackensack, lies in the southerly part of the county. It has an area of a little more than half a square mile (.61 of a square mile), and a population of approximately 1,800. It is an important industrial community. Teterboro, also in the southerly part of the county, has a population of 30, but it has many large, modern industries. In Paramus and in the City of Hackensack, there are immense commercial and shopping centers. Leonia, Haworth, Saddle River Borough, Old Tappan and many other municipalities have no industry whatever. They are strictly one-family residential communities. Many of the other communities that are primarily single-family residential in character have some industry and some commercial establishments. Each municipality in Bergen County has its own zoning ordinance restricting and regulating the use of the land within its borders. No two municipalities are exactly alike; and there are great differences between some.

In Bergen County there is valuable river waterfront land: land which lies along the Hackensack River, Passaic River, and Hudson River. There is also valuable land along the super-highways, and land which has important railroad accommodations. There is land available for residential use, for commercial and industrial use, for farming, and for almost any other use. The value of land is determined by its availability and convenience for use. In the case of Cleveland C.C. and St. L.R. Co. v. Backus, 154 U.S. 439, 445, 14 S.Ct. 1122, 1124, 38 L.Ed. 1041, 1046, (1894), the United States Supreme Court said 'The value of property results from the use to which it is put, and varies with the profitableness of that use, present and prospective, actual and anticipated. There is no pecuniary value outside of that which results from such use. The amount and profitable character of such use determines the value.'

The value of land in Bergen County depends upon a great many different considerations.

The Legislature's Control over Taxation

The power of taxation is exclusively a legislative function. In the early case of State (Wagner, Prosecutor) v. Collector of Taxes of Delaware Tp., 31 N.J.L. 189, 195 (Sup.Ct.1865), the court said that 'The power of taxation is beyond a doubt a legislative power, * * *.' In the case of Munday v. Assessors of City of Rahway, 43 N.J.L. 338, 346--347 (Sup.Ct.1881), affirmed 44 N.J.L. 395 (E. & A. 1882), the Supreme Court said:

'And in the latest decision of the Supreme Court of the United States touching this subject, (Meriwether v. Garrett, ubi supra (102 U.S. 472, 26 L.Ed. 197)) all the judges concur in the view that the power of taxation is legislative, that the levying of taxes is not a judicial act, but one which belongs to the legislative department exclusively, to be performed upon considerations of policy, necessity and the public welfare.

'The same doctrine has been frequently enunciated in our state courts. State v. Newark (26 N.J.L. 519), 2 Dutcher 519; State, Ruckman, v. Demarest (32 N.J.L. 528), 3 Vroom 528; State, Gaines, pros., v. Hudson Co. Ave. Com'rs (37 N.J.L. 12), 8 Vroom 12. See 2 Dill. on Mun.Corp., § 737, (588), note 2, (3d ed.)'

In the case of State Board of Assessors v. Central R.R. Co., 48 N.J.L. 146, 308, 4 A. 578, 605, (E. & A. 1886), Mr. Justice Dixon in his opinion said:

'It is laid down that the power to tax belongs to the legislature and its agents exclusively, * * *. The struggle for fairness of taxation must remain in the parliamentary arena, * * *.'

In the case of Trustees for Support of Public Schools v. Inhabitants of City of Trenton, 30 N.J.Eq. 667, 678 (E. & A.1879), the court said:

'Whether taxes be assessed by an officer elected by the people, and called an assessor, or by a commissioner appointed by a municipal body * * * are matters of little importance, which the framers of the constitutional amendments wisely left to the legislative discretion.'

In the case of Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U.S. 345, 8 S.Ct. 921, 926, 31 L.Ed. 763 (1887), the Supreme Court of the United States said:

'The power to tax belongs exclusively to the legislative branch of the government. (Cases cited.) In the words of Chief Justice Chase, condensing what had been said long before by Chief Justice Marshall: 'The judicial department cannot prescribe to the legislative department limitations upon the exercise of its acknowledged powers. The power to tax may be exercised oppressively upon persons; but the responsibility of the legislature is not to the courts, but to the people, by whom its members are elected.' (Cases cited.)'

1 Cooley on Taxation (4th ed.), sec. 64, p. 160, states the law as follows:

'The state government has inherent power to levy taxes. This means the proper department of the state. In the creation of three distinct departments of the government, and the apportionment of power between them, the authority to tax necessarily falls to the legislative. This is manifest from the slightest consideration of what taxation is. It is the making of rules and regulations under which the necessary revenues for all the needs of government are to be apportioned among the people and collected from them. Taxation is a legislative power; and when the people, by their constitutions, create a department of government upon which they confer the power to make laws, the power of taxation is conferred as part of the more general power.'

See, also, State v. Branin, 23 N.J.L. 484, 494 (Sup.Ct.1852); State (Golding, Prosecutor) v. Collector of Borough of Chambersburg, 37 N.J.L. 258, 260 (Sup.Ct.1874); State Board of Assessors v. Central R.R. Co., 48 N.J.L 146, 4 A. 578 (E. & A. 1886); Jersey City v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 133 N.J.L. 202, 205, 43 A.2d 799 (Sup.Ct.1945).

No matter how the proceeds of a tax are appropriated, every tax is a state tax which can only be imposed by the authority of the Legislature, subject to the constitutional requirement of uniformity. Camden & Amboy R.R. & Tr. Co. v. Commissioners of Appeal, 18 N.J.L. 71 (Sup.Ct.1840); State (Camden & Burlington R.R. Co., prosecutor) v. Cook, Col., 32 N.J.L. 338 (Sup.Ct.1867); Vreeland v. Mayor, etc., of Jersey City, 43 N.J.L. 135 (Sup.Ct.1881); State Board of Assessors v. Central R.R. Co., 48 N.J.L. 146,...