Limits resale of certain real property formerly owned by public body in certain circumstances; bans deed restrictions limiting use of commercial real property in certain circumstances.
Assembly Bill 5105 would impose two related restrictions on certain real estate transactions. First, if real property owned by a public body is sold to a private party, the property could not be resold for 10 years unless the new purchaser first enters into a formal agreement requiring payment of prevailing wages for construction, reconstruction, demolition, alteration, custom fabrication, duct cleaning, repair, maintenance, painting, or decorating work performed during that period. The bill is aimed at ensuring labor protections continue to apply to work done on property that was formerly publicly owned.
Second, the bill would invalidate deed provisions that bar commercial real property from being used for the same commercial purpose as the seller used the property. Such restrictions would be deemed contrary to public policy and unenforceable, although any other lawful deed restrictions would remain in effect. The bill applies to real property sold and deeds entered into on or after its effective date.
The bill would amend the State’s prevailing wage law, P.L.1963, c.150, to add resale-related conditions for real property formerly owned by a public body and to authorize the Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development, in consultation with the Division of Local Government Services, to adopt implementing rules. It would also add a new provision to Title 46 declaring certain commercial deed-use restrictions void as against public policy. In practical terms, the bill would affect public bodies selling property, private purchasers of such property, contractors and subcontractors performing work on that property, and parties using commercial real estate subject to restrictive deed language.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to reflect a pro-worker and pro-commercial-use policy approach, with an emphasis on preserving prevailing wage coverage and limiting restrictive covenants on commercial property. The absence of recorded action also means the overall political sentiment cannot be reliably assessed from the supplied materials.
The main points of contention likely concern the bill’s expansion of prevailing wage requirements into post-sale private transactions involving formerly public property, which could increase labor costs and constrain redevelopment or resale flexibility. Property owners, developers, and some commercial landlords may object to the 10-year resale condition and the mandated wage agreement as burdens on marketability and project economics. On the other side, labor advocates and supporters of broader commercial reuse may favor the bill because it protects wage standards and prevents deed restrictions from limiting future business uses of commercial property.