A Council Member Who's a Realtor, and Matters Affecting Property Values

Does a council member who is a realtor have a conflict with respect
to any council matter that affects real estate, including a matter that affects property values ? That appears to be
the view of NJ Superior Court Judge Grasso in a decision this week,
according to <a href="http://www.app.com/article/20130619/NJNEWS/306190125/Voting-conflict-pu…; target="”_blank”">an
article in Thursday's Asbury Park <i>Press</i></a>.<br>
<br>

The particular matter involved overnight parking restrictions for
non-residents in the beach community of Point Pleasant. Surely, property values could
be affected by people spending the night at a town beach. But
property values can be affected by numerous things, as the council
member pointed out in his letter of resignation from the council,
which can be found in <a href="http://pointpleasant.patch.com/groups/editors-picks/p/corbally-resignin…; target="”_blank”">a
Point Pleasant <i>Patch</i> article</a> from Thursday.<br>
<br>
Three things about this case really bother me. One is that a judge
made the decision, rather than an ethics commission.<br>
<br>
Two is that it appears to have been an important consideration that,
without the council member's vote, the parking restrictions would
have been voted down. First of all, this puts all the emphasis on
the vote, when in fact a council member with a conflict should not
participate in any way, including speaking privately or publicly on
the matter, trying to sway votes, make deals, etc.<br>
<br>
Second, participating with a conflict is wrong no matter what the
vote is. When a matter arises, there is no telling what the vote
will be. An official cannot decide how to handle a conflict
situation based on what he thinks the vote may eventually be. The
decision has to be made at the very start. Also, the final vote may
reflect the official's participation, if the vote is all that is
considered important. Had the council member not participated, the
vote might have been different.<br>
<br>
Three is that this conflict issue was raised by lawyers opposed to
the overnight parking restrictions. One such lawyer, named Jackson, brought the
suit, but according to the Asbury Park <i>Press</i> article, another lawyer
who opposed the plan "was pleased with the judge’s decision. He
credited [the lawyer who brought the suit] for raising the conflict
issue because, while Jackson opposed the plan for other reasons, it
was that argument that ultimately invalidated the ordinance they
opposed."<br>
<br>
In other words, an attorney approached a government ethics case solely
from an ends-based approach, that is, that the ends justify the
means. Of course, the most important consequence of this decision,
if it is not overturned on appeal, will be that anyone involved in
the realty business in New Jersey will not be able to participate in
matters that might affect property values, something that any
property owner cares about, not only realtors. This is a classic case of what is known as the class exception," whereby there is no conflict if a large group of people are in the same position (property owners, senior citizens, parents, etc.).<br>
<br>
This decision is seriously
damaging to local governments in New Jersey, with respect to the participation in local government of the large numbers of professionals who deal with real estate. Does the victory
relating to overnight parking really offset this loss? I think it is
terrible that an attorney would take this position.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---