Title 28: Historic Memorials, Monuments and Sites

Section 1: Legal Paraphrase

Title 28 of the New Jersey Revised Statutes governs the preservation, custody, and care of the State's historic memorials, monuments, and sites. Chapter 1 establishes the State commission's authority over historic properties: it may acquire areas, properties, or interests in land "of historic interest or other unusual features" by gift, purchase, or eminent domain, subject to legislative appropriations (N.J.S.A. 28:1-5); it holds custody of all state-owned monuments (N.J.S.A. 28:1-6); and it may arrange for commemorative highway markers, monuments erected by societies, and celebrations of historic events (N.J.S.A. 28:1-7 through 28:1-9). Chapter 2 addresses specific sites and monuments — including the Princeton Battlefield, Washington's headquarters, the Doyle Veterans' Cemetery, and several museums — and vests control, custody, care, and preservation of public monuments in the bodies or organizations to which they were entrusted (N.J.S.A. 28:2-1 et seq.).

Section 2: ELI-10 Explanation

Imagine New Jersey is a giant house and the state is the family that owns it. Some things in the house are old and special — a battlefield where soldiers fought, an old farmhouse where George Washington once slept, a statue in a town square. Title 28 is the family's rulebook for taking care of that special stuff. It says the state may buy special old places so everyone can enjoy them, and it says who is in charge of guarding each monument — like a museum assigning each treasure a caretaker. If a town wants to remove a statue, this rulebook answers "who gets to decide?" Because once something special is given to a town to look after, the town is the one responsible for it — just like once you give a friend a toy to keep, it's their toy to take care of.

Section 3: General Application & Case Example 1

How It Is Applied

Title 28 operates chiefly through State government. The commission holds custody of state-owned monuments and may acquire historic property by gift, purchase, or condemnation within appropriation limits (N.J.S.A. 28:1-5, 28:1-6); it may make arrangements with counties, municipalities, or local historical societies for monument care (N.J.S.A. 28:1-6), and it contracts in the State's name for preservation work (N.J.S.A. 28:1-11). Because the State often owns or leases historic sites, private parties encounter the Title indirectly: nonprofits lease historic structures from the State and its subdivisions, caretakers occupy apartments on historic grounds, and disputes over those arrangements are resolved by courts applying ordinary property and landlord-tenant law, with Title 28 defining the State's preservation interest in the property. The Title also reinforces local historic-preservation policy (cf. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2j). Its mechanisms are acquisition, custody, contracts, and oversight rather than licensing or penalties.

Case Example

• Case Name & Citation: The Meadows Foundation, Inc. v. Williamson, 368 N.J. Super. 416, 846 A.2d 653 (App. Div. 2004)
• Audit note (2026-08-31): this case does not construe N.J.S.A. 28:1-5 or 28:1-6. Those sections appear only in footnote 2, which states: "The record does not indicate whether the State lease is pursuant to N.J.S.A. 28:1-5 and 1-6." The decision construes the Anti-Eviction Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1. It is offered here as background, not as authority on Title 28.
• Statute Applied: N.J.S.A. 28:1-5 and 28:1-6
• Brief Summary: The Meadows Foundation, a nonprofit that stewards the historic Hageman Farmhouse complex in Franklin Township (the land is owned by the State of New Jersey), subleased an apartment to the Williamsons as "resident caretakers" at $550 per month. After the arrangement soured, the Foundation obtained a judgment of possession and the Williamsons invoked the Anti-Eviction Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1. The Appellate Division affirmed the eviction, holding that the tenancy was not fundamentally residential but was created for caretaker services tied to the historic property, so the Act's protections did not apply. In footnote 2, the court noted that the State's lease of the site may have been "pursuant to N.J.S.A. 28:1-5 and 1-6" and took notice of the Legislature's recognition of the State's interest in the preservation and maintenance of historic sites expressed in Title 28 and N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2j. The case illustrates how Title 28 frames the legal status and stewardship of State-associated historic sites in ordinary property disputes.
• Source Link: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4758959035802909987&q=%2228:1-5%22+%22historic%22&hl=en&as_sdt=6,31

Section 4: ELI-10 Application & Case Example 2

Real World Example (Explained Simply)

Suppose your town has an old statue of an explorer in the park, and some people want it removed. Who gets to say? Title 28 has a rule for this. N.J.S.A. 28:2-1 says a public monument stays in the care of whoever was given charge of it — usually the town. It is like a library book: if your class donates a book to the library, the library is in charge of it from then on. You cannot show up later and say "that is my book, I want it back" just because you helped pay for it — unless there is a written deal saying otherwise. That is why a club that liked a statue cannot stop the town from removing it: the town has the custody, care, and control of the monument, and liking it is not the same as owning it.

Case Example

• Case Name & Citation: Italian American One Voice Coalition, Inc. v. Township of West Orange, Civ. No. 2:20-cv-12650 (D.N.J. July 30, 2021) (unreported)
• Audit note (2026-08-31): the decision date previously read "Mar. 31, 2023", which is the date the docket was last retrieved by a database, not a ruling date. The opinion issued July 30, 2021. This is an unreported federal district court decision; it is persuasive only and binds no New Jersey state court.
• Statute Applied: N.J.S.A. 28:2-1
• Brief Summary: In the summer of 2020, following protests and significant public comment, the Township of West Orange removed a Christopher Columbus monument at the intersection of Valley and Kingsley Streets that had been dedicated in 1992 and funded by the Valley Civic Association. The Italian American One Voice Coalition (IAOVC) sued, asserting a constitutionally protected property interest in the monument. The District Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. Relying on N.J.S.A. 28:2-1 — which provides that "the control, custody, care and preservation of any public . . . monument . . . shall continue to be vested in the body or organization . . . to which such" monument is entrusted — the court held that IAOVC had not adequately alleged any transfer of an interest in the monument to it, and therefore possessed no property right of which the Township's removal could deprive it. The case is a direct federal application of Title 28 to a monument-removal dispute.
• Source Link: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13475562458524582350&q=%22N.J.S.A.+28:2%22&hl=en&as_sdt=6,31