|
Such safety considerations, In the case of Sea Isle City v. it. The court further elaborated on
<br /> however,would not have provided a Caterina 123 N.J. Super, 303 A2d the factors to be considered in the ra-
<br /> reasonable basis for excluding blacks (1973) the court upheld an ordinance tional basis test for ordinances
<br /> or members of any other class based which established a fee structure for challenged by nonresidents on equal
<br /> elupon race, creed, color, ethnic back- seasonal and weekly beach passes. protection grounds. "The require-
<br /> ground, or national origin. Members Seasonal passes cost $2.50 before ment of equal protection is satisfied if
<br /> of minority groups belong to May 31 and $5 after. Plaintiff all persons within a class reasonably
<br /> "suspect" classifications because challenged the fee structure on equal selected are treated alike. And a
<br /> these individuals have historically protection grounds, alleging dis- classification is reasonable if it rests
<br /> been victimized by discriminatory crimination against those nonresi- upon some ground of difference hav-
<br /> practices. Anydiscrimination against dents unable to purchase the passes ing a real and substantial relation to
<br /> such groups receives"strict scrutiny" before May 31. the basic object of the particular
<br /> by the courts. In other words, the According to the court, municipal enactment or on some relevant con-
<br /> municipality bears the heavy burden ordinances are presumed to be con- sideration of public policy . . . The
<br /> of demonstrating a compelling state stitutional until clearly proven Legislature has a wide range of dis-
<br /> interest which justifies the dis- otherwise by the party challenging cretion in this area and distinctions
<br /> criminatory practice. In addition,the j
<br /> municipality must show that no
<br /> other alternative exists which would
<br /> have mitigated the adverse impact
<br /> on the suspect class. As a result,
<br /> when a suspect class is involved, itis CUSTOMER SECURITY
<br /> almost impossibbleefor the hemu munici-
<br /> itslity to
<br /> discriminatory
<br /> natrye nnableness of OFFERS PEACE OF MIN®.
<br /> its discriminatory action.
<br /> "Rational basis" test Your headaches and watches, rings, wallets
<br /> liabilities are gone and keys. Or bigger k
<br /> when their valuables lockers—perfect for
<br /> Nonresidents, however, are not are in a security the storage of clothing i . b
<br /> members of a suspect class. Ordi- locker, or bulkier articles; a 9
<br /> nances which discriminate against American has the both can be adjusted z
<br /> this group will be upheld if they can healthiest coin-con-
<br /> trolled
<br /> for free use,various
<br /> • fees,or tokens.
<br /> satisfy the "rational basis" test. In trolled locker. Hun- r
<br /> other words, the municipality must dyads of pools, rec- So, for Peace of ".
<br /> demonstrate a reasonable relation •
<br /> centers, spas, clubs, Mind...both yours and `'
<br /> gymnasiums and rinks your customer's...let
<br /> ship between the regulation and have them. There is a American 'work out' at n •
<br /> legitimate governmental goals. The model just right for your place. " t `'
<br /> rational basis test,therefore, involves your checking prob- Call toll-free ACAR
<br /> tem
<br /> a much lighter burden of proof than be It's Mini-
<br /> . May800/828.9118
<br /> Check—for small per- LCOSet SECURIN MEM
<br /> the strict scrutiny test for suspect sonal effects like In N.Y. Slate calf American Lackey Jonestown
<br /> Systeme,Inc.
<br /> classes. In "McClain," the exclusion collect 71t)/1i64.91i00 P.O.Box 4A9 Jamesiuwn tw tn70i
<br /> of nonresidents bore a reasonable „,,
<br /> relationship to the proper and safe `�, ( j I ,: i
<br /> distribution of patrons at the pool. �r �!'� .'k r n
<br /> The court avoided any problems 'r t� `'j' '
<br /> // t f,1 . Nq y
<br /> posed by the plaintiff's race, finding , i# ,,�
<br /> she was"excluded because she was a • ''' ,1 �'' • t�, •,
<br /> nonresident not because she was • r , I;
<br /> black.” t�'" , .,'t
<br /> The court further found that the mu- :r<;
<br /> nicipality had no duty to nonresi- k' ,;
<br /> dents which would require general Y ' l �y N
<br /> public access to the pool. "South
<br /> \\ >s I � � ( id,r�a
<br /> Pasadena has the sovereign duty of 1 7. P; 4�{
<br /> maintaining the health of its resi- • f" /4 ` .
<br /> dents. It owes no duty to nonresi- ,, , -------'•:- . ;:
<br /> dents. Residents are entitled to
<br /> preference over nonresidents and jx.
<br /> such action is not in contravention of
<br /> the rights of nonresidents.The prim
<br /> E ,t
<br /> ary purpose of a municipality cor- R
<br /> poration is to contribute toward the
<br /> welfare, health, happiness, and in- ,/
<br /> terest of its inhabitants . . . not to 1,
<br /> further the interests of those residing ,r. •
<br /> outside its limits." Please circle reader sank@ card number 26
<br /> PARKS& RECREATION/MARCH 1982 33
<br />
|