Municipal Ordinance Discrimination
My question involves business law in the state of: NEW JERSEY
A local township recently changed their ordinance in regards to contracting companies to provide towing services for the police department within the township.
The newly drafted ordinance states;
"In the event that the official tower is conducting business operating under a trade or business name, the applicant shall submit a certificate of such name as proof that such name has been appropriately filed with the County Clerks Office of Bergen County and/or with the Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey. No Fiduciary obligation in more than a single tow company"
Our family owns 3 towing companies that tow for the township. Our competitors are jealous because we have more than one company that tows for the town, which means we get more calls than them. The have coerced the city council members (probably through bribery) to add this verbiage into the ordinance. It would be understandable if there was one real company and two paper companies, however, we own three brick and mortar businesses in different towns. Each company has its own tax id, its own employees, their own 6 trucks each (as required by the ordinance), they pay their own insurance, have their own phone numbers and addresses, etc. However, they all have the same CEO.
One of our competitors has one company and a paper company. They operate out of the same yard and use the same trucks. Both companies are on the same Certificate of Occupancy. They work out of one location. I agree that this shouldn't be allowed.
We have three Body shops in different towns, and they each have their own "towing division." The auto-body repair work comes from the towing. Why should we be limited to one company to tow for the township? One shop will have work and the other two locations will starve for work. Is this legal ? I am aware there is the Clayton Act however I don't believe our companies fall under those thresholds. I believe this is discrimination, but is it illegal discrimination.
Just food for thought, in the same town, one man owns three gas stations on the same street within a few miles of each other. They are Gulfs. It would be like the guy who owns the Lukoil complaining "its not fair that the gulf has more locations than me." My father is the business owner and he started working on cars in his backyard when he was fourteen. He bought the first location when he was 20, then another ten years later, then another about 8 years later. Why should his entrepreneurship be punished. Its not his fault the other companies are too stupid to have opened more than one business. When we go to the town hall meetings the other companies literally kick and scream like baby's who got their pacifier taken away and literally state "Its not fair" If I had a dollar for every time I heard "Its not fair" I could retire. Thank you for any input.
Re: Municipal Ordinance Discrimination
If you quoted that ordinance correctly, it is very badly drafted. The first sentence merely sets out a requirement for the towing operator to submit proof that the trade name has been properly registered. The second sentence, “No fiduciary obligation in more than a single tow company” is baffling. I have no idea what that’s supposed to do in the ordinance. If the idea is that it somehow prevents related towing firms from being eligible for business, as the rest of your post states, I certainly don’t get that from the second sentence. Without knowing exactly what this ordinance is supposed to do, I cannot comment on whether the ordinance is valid. Note, however, that unless the ordinance was targeting you because of race, sex, religion, or perhaps sexual orientation, the test generally applied to determine if the discrimination is constitutionally valid is called the rational basis test. That test looks at whether the government can offer some rational basis for the distinction it is making. If it can offer any rational reason, even if it is weak, the courts generally uphold it. I suggest you discuss with a local attorney what effect that ordinance actually has and what options you have to deal with it. Given how badly it’s worded, the township might have a problem enforcing its interpretation of it.
Re: Municipal Ordinance Discrimination
Thank you for the reply, it seems as if they just haphazardly added it in there to take a swing at our companies. I copied the text verbatim.
http://www.mahwahtwp.org/uppages/Age...cs%2072315.pdf
It is page 11 [4-2.4.(2)]of the PDF you can see the full context. Like you mentioned, it just thrown in there poorly and really doesn't make sense.
Re: Municipal Ordinance Discrimination
Quote:
Quoting
john.marston
Thank you for the reply, it seems as if they just haphazardly added it in there to take a swing at our companies. I copied the text verbatim.
http://www.mahwahtwp.org/uppages/Age...cs%2072315.pdf
It is page 11 [4-2.4.(2)]of the PDF you can see the full context. Like you mentioned, it just thrown in there poorly and really doesn't make sense.
Has the township taken any "legal action" against you as a result of the change?
If not, you have the option of just ignoring it until they do.
Re: Municipal Ordinance Discrimination
Quote:
Quoting
adjusterjack
Has the township taken any "legal action" against you as a result of the change?
If not, you have the option of just ignoring it until they do.
The three companies are still operating. The contract is coming up for renewal and they changed the terms (the ordinance) What will happen is if they follow through with this action we will simply not be on the new list of towers and will not get called.
- - - Updated - - -
any other thoughts? ***bump***
Re: Municipal Ordinance Discrimination
Going back to the language,
Quote:
"In the event that the official tower is conducting business operating under a trade or business name, the applicant shall submit a certificate of such name as proof that such name has been appropriately filed with the County Clerks Office of Bergen County and/or with the Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey. No Fiduciary obligation in more than a single tow company"
As you have already been told, the problematic phrase at the end of that provision makes no sense as written.
Among the possibilities.... You can apply for the licenses and see what happens, with the possibility of having to take legal action after-the-fact. You can speak to a lawyer now about the possibility of taking proactive legal action, something that may not be possible at this time due to the fact that the phrase from the ordinance has not been applied to you and may never be applied to you. You can try asking the township what the phrase is intended to mean, and see what they say....
Re: Municipal Ordinance Discrimination
According to the posted link the ordinance changes are not law yet. Tonight is the introduction of the ordinance. There will not likely be a public hearing on the introduction. There will be a second reading and a public hearing on the ordinance probably next month.
OP, go to the meeting and challenge the meaning and reason of the added passage ( No Fiduciary obligation in more than a single tow company") at the hearing. You may want to speak to a local newspaper about this change and see if they would like to cover the story.