Opinion ID: 1923517
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Equal Protection Is the Ordinance Discriminatory?

Text: As previously noted, plaintiff's truck center is the only facility subject to the provisions of this ordinance. See note 1 supra. Plaintiff relies on this fact and contends that the ordinance is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. Plaintiff further argues that criminal conduct which has occurred at the Center is also prevalent elsewhere in the town. The fact that plaintiff's parking lot is the only facility in Kearny which is subject to the ordinance does not in itself make the ordinance unlawfully discriminatory. Harvey v. Essex Freeholder Board, 51 N.J. Super. 363, 367 (Law Div. 1958), aff'd, 30 N.J. 381 (1959); Silco Automatic Vending Co. v. Puma, 105 N.J. Super. 72, 83 (Law Div. 1969), rev'd on other grounds, 108 N.J. Super. 427 (App. Div. 1970). Similarly, the ordinance is not invalid merely because it could have done more to combat the evils which it seeks to address. Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 486-87, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 1162-63, 25 L.Ed. 2d 491, 503 (1970); Troy Hills Village v. Parsippany-Troy Hills Tp. Council, 68 N.J. 604, 633 (1975); N.J. Chapter, American Inst. of Planners v. N.J. State Bd. of Professional Planners, 48 N.J. 581, 602 (1967), appeal dismissed, 389 U.S. 8, 88 S.Ct. 70, 19 L.Ed. 2d 8 (1967); Robson v. Rodriguez, 26 N.J. 517, 524 (1958). Rather, the ordinance should be stricken only if its classification lacks any factual basis and bears no rational relationship to the purposes of the enactment. The appropriate standards for this type of determination were set forth by this Court in Guill v. Mayor & Council of Hoboken, 21 N.J. 574 (1956): The classification satisfies the constitutional test of equality and reasonableness if it rests upon some ground of difference having a real and substantial relation to the basic object of the legislation or some relevant consideration of public policy. Even though the distinction be narrow, it suffices if it is reasonably concerned with the end legitimately in view. Ring v. Mayor and Council of Borough of North Arlington, 136 N.J.L. 494 (Sup. Ct. 1948), affirmed 1 N.J. 24 (1948). If the local legislative action be not plainly unreasonable or unduly oppressive or discriminatory in this regard, its policy is not a justiciable question.... In the selection of the class for police regulation, neither abstract symmetry nor mathematical nicety is requisite.... There is no infallible or all-inclusive test to determine whether a given difference between the subjects of legislation is enough to justify the subjection of one and not the other to a particular form of disadvantage; the nearest approach to a definite rule is that, while the difference need not be great, the classification cannot be arbitrary or illusory, but must bear some just and reasonable connection with the primary object of the legislation; a particular classification is not repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment merely because inequality actually results; every classification of persons and things for regulation by law produces inequality in some degree; to vitiate the regulation the inequality must be actually and palpably unreasonable and arbitrary. ... It suffices if the classification have a rational and just relation either to the fulfillment of the essential legislative design or to some substantial consideration of policy or convenience bearing upon the common welfare....