Court Opinion

ID: 9753935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:35:35.674943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:45.320542
License: Public Domain

Proctor, J.
(dissenting). I must dissent, as it is my belief that the County of Bergen has a sufficient interest to maintain the present action.
All the assessed property in Bergen County contributes to the support of the county government. If the use of tax-exempt Port Authority property for private rental is unlawful, then the removal of that property from the assessment rolls unlawfully reduces the amount of property liable for contribution, and distributes the burden of contribution unfairly throughout the county.
It is obvious that Bergen County’s annual budget is determined with regard to the amount of property liable for contribution. Surely a board of freeholders, sensitive to its duties and the welfare of the county’s inhabitants, cuts its budgetary cloth to the pattern fixed by the property available for taxation. Therefore, it seems to me unrealistic for the majority to assert that the county’s interest in protecting the assessment rolls from unlawful reduction'- is “indirect and rather remote.” It is conceded that any taxpayer in Bergen County, with his minute economic stake in the present controversy, would have standing to sue. Why, then, should the county, whose stake is cumulative of every taxpayer, and whose ability to distribute the cost of litigation is,similarly.cumulative, not .have the same standing?
*323This court has recognized that a county board of freeholders, “like any taxpayer within the county,” has standing to obtain judicial relief from unlawful intrusion by another public body upon the county’s revenues. Nolan v. Fitzpatrick, 9 N. J. 477, at page 484 (1952). In the interests of the public as well as the plaintiff the serious legal questions raised by this case should be disposed of on their substantive merits without undue delay. Cf. Al Walker, Inc. v. Borough of Stanhope, 23 N. J. 657 (1957); Vanderwart v. Department of Civil Service, 19 N. J. 341 (1955).
For affirmance—Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Burling, Prancis, Hall and Sohettino—5.
For reversal—Justices Jacobs and Proctor—2.