Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2004

Home

Page 2 -- December 24, 2003 Discrimination -- Property owner claims animal ordinance racist Ordinance limited amount of dogs on property to six NEW JERSEY (10/17/03) -- Koorn purchased a home and property in the Town- ship of Lacey. After moving in with close to 20 dogs, he was soon informed by the local code. enforcement officer that an ordinance limited property owners to slx dogs. Later, Koorn and the township discovered what the enforcement officer had believed was an official ordinance was in fact an informal policy. However, in response to neighbors' complaints, the township enacted an Animal Control Ordinance limiting the number of dogs that could be kept in a dwelling to six. Koorn sued, claiming the ordinance was enacted out of racism because he was black and his wife was Hispanic. Specifically, Koorn claimed township officials instrumental in the enactment of the ordinance had made racist com- ments. The court ruled in favor of the township. Koorn appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The ordinance was not unconstitutional. There was no fundamental fight to keep more than a certain amount of dogs in a dwethng unit. Protecting residents' health and safety was a legitimate interest of municipal government. Large concentrations of dogs could be dangerous and unsanitary. As a re- sult, a municipality could rationally conclude limiting the number of dogs in any ~ven dwelling would protect the health and safety of its residents. The township did not need to prove the number of dogs it chose to allow was any more or less rational than any other number, distinguish between large and small dogs, address other pets, or impose sanitation standards. Koorn did not allege any conduct so egregious it shocked the conscience. Eve~ if township officials made racist remarks, these acts had no direct, legal effect on Koorn's property fights. The ordinance limited the number of dogs Koorn could keep at one dwell- lng. It did not foreclose him from owning any number of dogs or from owning any particular dwellings. Finally, it did not deny Koorn any right enjoyed by any white citizens. Citation: Koorn v. £acey Township, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 03- 123t (2003). The 3rd Circuit has jurisdiction over Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Virgin Islands. see also: Nicholas v. PennsylvaJ~ia Stare Universi~, 227 F. 3d 133 (2000). 142 Ordinance -- Video gaming devices banned from village FroperO./ owner claims ordinance ~iolates constitutional rights ~LiNO[$ ( i0/3 1/031/-- The Village of Elmwood Park passed an ordinance