
    Request of the Senate
    No. 7218
    Opinion of the Justices
    May 26, 1975
    The following request of the senate for an opinion of the justices was adopted on May 15, 1975, and filed in this court on May 20, 1975:
    “Whereas, RSA 162-G was inserted by Chapter 57 of the Laws of 1972 to permit cities and towns to engage in industrial development; and
    “Whereas, in Opinion of the Justices dated March 8, 1974, the New Hampshire Supreme Court indicated that RSA 162-G had one or more defects in its present form and was of questionable validity; and
    “Whereas, Senate Bill 182 was prepared on behalf of concerned cities and towns which wish to utilize the provisions of RSA 162-G; and
    “Whereas, RSA 162-G is of no use without proper and adequate amendment such as is proposed in Senate Bill 182; now therefore be it
    “RESOLVED, that the Justices of the Supreme Court be respectfully requested to give their opinion as to whether or not the passage of Senate Bill 182 will cause RSA 162-G to become valid and constitutional in all respects.
    “Be it resolved that the Secretary of State transmit seven copies of this resolution to the Clerk of the Supreme Court for consideration by said Court with the respectful request that such opinion be returned if at all possible in time for consideration of Senate Bill 182 by the House of Representatives in this session of the legislature.”
    The following answer was returned:
   To the Honorable Senate:

The undersigned justices of the supreme court give the following answer to the question contained in your resolution of May 15,1975, and filed here May 20, 1975.

The proposed legislation (Senate bill 182) would make certain changes in RSA ch. 162-G designed to meet the constitutional difficulties referred to In Opinion of the Justices, 114 N.H. 170, 316 A.2d 190 (1974). It was there pointed out that the failure to adequately define the “net project cost” for which the governmental unit might be liable made the statute of questionable validity. The proposed legislation eliminates all reference to “net project cost” as being an obligation of the governmental unit, thus removing this constitutional objection and would provide safeguards and standards not included in the existing statute RSA ch. 162-G.

As we have so often stated before, we “cannot predict every issue” which adversaries might raise if Senate bill 1824s enacted. Opinion of the Justices, 111 N.H. 199, 205, 278 A.2d 357, 361 (1971). We have examined the proposed legislation which on its face appears to be constitutional.

Whether industrial development should proceed locally under the proposed legislation or State-wide under the provision of RSA ch. 162-1 as inserted by Laws 1975, ch. 98 approved April 22, 1975, is a question of policy, wisdom, and procedure, determination of which is a legislative and not a judicial function.

Frank R. Kenison

Laurence I. Duncan

Edward J. Lampron

William A. Grimes

Robert J. Griffith

May 22, 1975  