New Jersey Senate Bill S3666

New Jersey 2022-2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/28/23
• Refer: 2/28/23

Caption

Prohibits ownership of certain protected land adjacent to military facilities in State by certain foreign governments and persons.

Impact

The enactment of SB 3666 would significantly alter property rights regarding foreign ownership near military installations. It allows current foreign owners a grace period but necessitates a shift in ownership to non-foreign entities. The law highlights the issues of national security interwoven with local real estate laws, indicating a growing trend in state legislatures to scrutinize and regulate foreign investment in strategic areas. Further, the bill states that any existing treaties with foreign countries will take precedence over these regulations, potentially subjecting it to international legal standards, which may provoke legal challenges regarding enforcement and applicability.

Summary

Senate Bill 3666 aims to prohibit sanctioned foreign governments and certain foreign persons from acquiring or holding interests in specific parcels of land designated as 'protected land' in New Jersey. This protected land is defined as any land that lies within 1,000 feet of military facilities operated by the federal government. The bill emphasizes national security concerns, asserting that foreign ownership of such proximity to military sites poses risks that need to be mitigated. Among its provisions, the bill allows for existing foreign holdings to remain for a limited period but mandates these entities to divest their interests within a five-year timeframe following the bill's effective date.

Contention

This bill might ignite controversy among those who advocate for property rights versus national security. Critics may argue it unfairly targets specific foreign individuals and governments, potentially leading to international tensions. Moreover, there could be concerns regarding the bill's implications on existing property rights and market stability within the state. The discussion may touch on whether the regulations could result in discrimination against particular foreign investors, raising questions about equity and fairness in property ownership across different demographics.