The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a complaint filed by five West Orange residents in opposition to a municipal ordinance that permitted borrowing $6.3 million for a downtown redevelopment project
WEST ORANGE -- When it comes to filing legal challenges to redevelopment bond ordinances in New Jersey, timing is everything.
The New Jersey Supreme Court made that point on Monday when it upheld the dismissal of a complaint filed by five West Orange residents in opposition to a municipal ordinance that permitted borrowing $6.3 million for a downtown redevelopment project.
Under state law, such challenges must be filed within 20 days of the final publication of a bond ordinance. Since the residents filed their complaint 53 days after the final publication of the township ordinance, the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling that dismissed the complaint.
The "clear purpose" of that 20-day rule "is to assure bondholders and
financial markets that bonds, once issued, will not be subject to attack," Justice Barry T. Albin wrote in the unanimous opinion.
"Permitting late-filed challenges to bond ordinances would erode public confidence in the legitimacy of bonds that are issued and almost certainly lead to delay in the implementation of such ordinances," Albin wrote.
The opinion states a court should consider extending the filing period to challenge a municipal bond ordinance "only in the most extraordinary of circumstances," but that such circumstances have not been presented in the West Orange case.
In a statement, West Orange Mayor Robert Parisi said: "The Township is pleased with the State Supreme Court's decision, which supports its enormous effort to redevelop Main Street. We look forward to this important project coming to fruition for the benefit of all our residents."
George B. Campen, the attorney who represented the residents in the matter, could not be reached for comment. The five residents either declined to comment or could not be reached for comment.
With a mix of residential and retail construction, the redevelopment project involves the rehabilitation of the historic Edison Battery Building on Main Street, which was part of an industrial complex built by Thomas Edison in the early 20th Century, according to documents on the municipal website.
RELATED: Despite failure of bond, W. Orange to redevelop
The legal battle has centered on the ordinance enacted by township officials on March 20, 2012, according to the Supreme Court opinion. The legislation allowed the township to issue $6.3 million in bonds to support the redevelopment project, the opinion states. The publication of the ordinance occurred on March 22, 2012, the opinion states.
Several township residents formed a committee to challenge the ordinance and, on April 5, 2012, the committee filed a referendum petition with Township Clerk Karen Carnevale to place the ordinance on the ballot for voter approval, the opinion states.
But on April 16, 2012, Carnevale rejected the petition after finding a redevelopment bond ordinance could not be placed on the ballot for approval by voters, and that the committee had submitted an insufficient number of valid signatures to trigger a referendum, the opinion states. The clerk rejected an amended petition on May 2, 2012 for the same reasons, the opinion states.
On May 14, 2012 - 53 days after the publication of the ordinance - a "Protest Committee" consisting of the five residents filed the complaint to challenge both the validity of the ordinance and Carnevale's rejection of the referendum petition, the opinion states.
The residents who filed the complaint are: Windale Simpson, Mark Meyerowitz, Althia Tweiten, Michael Scharfstein, and Rosary Morelli. The township, Parisi and Carnevale were named as defendants in the complaint.
The complaint alleged the bond ordinance was void because the municipality had not submitted the ordinance to the state's Local Finance Board for approval, and that the clerk wrongly rejected the petition, the opinion states.
A Superior Court judge dismissed the complaint and a state appellate panel affirmed that dismissal before the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. In its opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Division.
The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings that "an ordinance enacted under the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law is not subject to approval at the ballot box," the opinion states.
The court also rejected the residents' argument that the 20-day time frame did not begin until after the clerk's second rejection of the referendum petition.
"Pursuing a referendum in no way alters the twenty-day period in which an action in lieu of prerogative writs must be filed to challenge the legal validity of a bond ordinance," the opinion states.
Since the Supreme Court found the complaint must be dismissed for being filed after the 20-day deadline, the court did not rule on whether the bond ordinance required Local Finance Board approval.
Bill Wichert may be reached at bwichert@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @BillWichertNJ. Find NJ.com on Facebook.
