Opinion ID: 1481610
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Ford Auto-Assembly Plant is a General-Purpose Property.

Text: Equality of treatment in sharing the duty to pay real estate taxes is a constitutional right. Murnick v. City of Asbury Park, 95 N.J. 452, 458, 471 A. 2d 1196 (1984). All real property must be assessed at true value. In New Jersey, the concept of true value has been expressed in terms of the price that could be obtained for the property in money at a fair sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller. New Brunswick v. State, Div. of Tax Appeals, 39 N.J. 537, 543, 189 A. 2d 702 (1963). In the case of certain properties, conventional market theories are not readily adaptable. [C]ourts of this state have long recognized that for certain types of unique property that were constructed for a special purpose and are only suited for that particular purpose, the market and income approaches to value are not applicable. Transcontinental Gas v. Bernards Township ( Transcontinental II), 111 N.J. 507, 526-27, 545 A. 2d 746 (1988); see, e.g., Hackensack Water Co. v. Borough of Old Tappan, 77 N.J. 208, 215, 390 A. 2d 122 (1978) (Handler, J., dissenting); CPC International v. Borough of Englewood Cliffs, 193 N.J. Super. 261, 269-270, 473 A. 2d 548 (App.Div. 1984) (discussing other cases). With regard to such special purpose property, the cost approach is usually relied upon for property tax valuation purposes. Transcontinental II, supra, 111 N.J. at 527, 545 A. 2d 746; see, e.g., Pantasote Co. v. City of Passaic, 100 N.J. 408, 412, 495 A. 2d 1308 (1985); Dworman v. Borough of Tinton Falls, 1 N.J. Tax 445, 452 (Tax 1980). However, a property does not qualify as special purpose where it possesses certain features which, while rendering the property suitable to the owner's use, are not truly unique. Sunshine Biscuits, Inc. v. Borough of Sayreville, 4 N.J. Tax 486, 495 (Tax 1982). Special-purpose property is most easily understood in terms of property that cannot be converted to other uses without large capital investment, such as a public museum, a church, or a highly-specialized production facility like a brewery. Id. at 495 n. 3. Because of Edison's great emphasis on the special features of the property  its heavy steel framing, its spray-paint booths and baking ovens, its massive boilers, its terrazzo and tile amenities, the Appellate Division may have been led to refer to the property as special-purpose property. Both Ford and Edison have agreed that the property does not qualify as special-purpose property, regardless of their disagreement concerning the limits on the market for this property.