Opposing a Municipality’s Attempt to Impose Local Restrictions on the State Building Code in Violation of the Home Rule Amendment
This case dealt with the interplay between state and local building regulations and the harmful effects that excessive regulation may have on private property rights. The Massachusetts state building code identifies four kinds of systems as the only ones that may be used to notify a fire department of a fire in a building. The City of Springfield, Massachusetts, issued an ordinance restricting use within the City to only one of these systems. In addition, the ordinance required removal and replacement of any of the other three systems whose use is permitted by the state building code. The St. George Greek Orthodox Cathedral of Western Massachusetts challenged Springfield’s ordinance in Superior Court and won. On appeal, the matter was taken by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”), and NELF (joined by co-amicus NAIOP) filed an amicus brief in support of the Cathedral, arguing that the SJC should affirm because Springfield’s attempt to narrow the permissible range of systems thwarted the Massachusetts legislature’s intent to establish a comprehensive building code that is uniformly applicable across the Commonwealth. NELF also explained the ways in which the local restriction would conflict with other legislative goals, such as controlling costs and preventing unwarranted preferential treatment of devices and materials. NELF argued that, because the effect of the ordinance was to second-guess the discretionary decisions of the State Board of Building Regulation and Standards, the ordinance clearly was not local action authorized under the Massachusetts Home Rule Amendment, which grants certain rights to the Commonwealth’s cities and towns. In its decision issued on May 4, 2011, the SJC, agreeing entirely with NELF, ruled that Springfield had exceeded its authority when it enacted the ordinance limiting which of the fire notification systems could be used within the city. Following very closely NELF’s reasoning in its brief, the Court rejected the ordinance, holding that, “[w]here the Legislature demonstrates its express intention to preempt local action, inconsistent local regulations are invalid under the Home Rule Amendment.”
This case dealt with the interplay between state and local building regulations and the harmful effects that excessive regulation may have on private property rights. The Massachusetts state building code identifies four kinds of systems as the only ones that may be used to notify a fire department of a fire in a building. The City of Springfield, Massachusetts, issued an ordinance restricting use within the City to only one of these systems. In addition, the ordinance required removal and replacement of any of the other three systems whose use is permitted by the state building code. The St. George Greek Orthodox Cathedral of Western Massachusetts challenged Springfield’s ordinance in Superior Court and won. On appeal, the matter was taken by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”), and NELF (joined by co-amicus NAIOP) filed an amicus brief in support of the Cathedral, arguing that the SJC should affirm because Springfield’s attempt to narrow the permissible range of systems thwarted the Massachusetts legislature’s intent to establish a comprehensive building code that is uniformly applicable across the Commonwealth. NELF also explained the ways in which the local restriction would conflict with other legislative goals, such as controlling costs and preventing unwarranted preferential treatment of devices and materials. NELF argued that, because the effect of the ordinance was to second-guess the discretionary decisions of the State Board of Building Regulation and Standards, the ordinance clearly was not local action authorized under the Massachusetts Home Rule Amendment, which grants certain rights to the Commonwealth’s cities and towns. In its decision issued on May 4, 2011, the SJC, agreeing entirely with NELF, ruled that Springfield had exceeded its authority when it enacted the ordinance limiting which of the fire notification systems could be used within the city. Following very closely NELF’s reasoning in its brief, the Court rejected the ordinance, holding that, “[w]here the Legislature demonstrates its express intention to preempt local action, inconsistent local regulations are invalid under the Home Rule Amendment.”
RSS Feed
