George R. Kelder Jr., CFSP, CEO/Executive Director
In New Jersey’s separated funeral and cemetery industries, regulatory clarity is critical. Yet, in the most densely populated state in the country, two pieces of legislation that are fundamentally contradictory have collided into what may become a single, perplexing bill that threatens to create a crisis in cremation.
The first proposed legislation, the stand-alone crematory bill, A-4216/S-3720, would lift the restriction that limits crematories to cemetery properties. Given the steady increase in cremation rates within New Jersey, this legislation would appear to provide relief by allowing crematories to be constructed on stand-alone sites, increasing flexibility in where facilities can be developed. However, the New Jersey State Funeral Directors Association has been opposed to this legislation because the problem lies in the ownership and control of these stand-alone operations. This bill would only allow those individuals or groups that are not funeral directors/homes and cemeteries to construct and run these non-cemetery-based facilities, creating the possibility for all sorts of nefarious scenarios that we have read about in headlines across the country.
The second bill does the opposite. The restricted location of a crematory bill, A-5275/S-4008 imposes a sweeping setback requirement: prohibiting the construction of crematories within 1,000 feet of any school, park, or residence – on cemetery grounds. In a state where space is at a premium and urban sprawl leaves few areas free from such buffers, this is effectively a de facto moratorium on new crematory construction in most New Jersey’s cemeteries.
From an operational standpoint, this creates a classic statutory paradox. On paper, the first bill appears to expand the potential footprint for crematories across the state, absent cemetery and funeral home oversight. Yet, the second one all but eliminates practical cemetery sites due to the sheer density of New Jersey’s population and development patterns. What the industry could be left with is a textbook case of conflict that makes it nearly impossible to execute either intent effectively.
Cemeteries, particularly those in urban or suburban areas, will find themselves virtually boxed out from constructing much-needed cremation facilities, and independent operators looking to establish off-site crematories may not be constrained by the same geographical impossibilities. The result? Stalled projects, rising costs and escalating capacity challenges for New Jersey families increasingly opting for cremation.
National cremation rates continue to trend upward, with projections showing continued dominance as consumer preferences shift toward simpler, cost-effective and environmentally conscious end-of-life options.
New Jersey’s cremation rate, now more than 50 percent, is no exception. Yet the state will in the future suffer from a shortage of crematory capacity, with the potential for many facilities to run at or near full schedules, forcing extended waiting times that affect grieving families and strain funeral homes and cemeteries alike.
Instead of addressing this growing demand with practical, balanced laws, following on the testimony given at the last hearing, the likelihood of a merged or hybrid bill adds a layer of confusion and contradiction. Is this true progress? Or is it political patchwork stitched together to appease opposing constituencies to get two bills and their shareholders off the docket and out of the faces of the bill sponsors?
Unfortunately, this is emblematic of a larger trend in policymaking. Rather than crafting separate, thoughtful legislation based on science and facts not emotion and social media claims, which could address crematory locations and community sensitivity on their own merits, lawmakers may resort to bundling unrelated provisions into a single measure. The result will be a self-defeating piece of legislation that solves nothing and potentially creates significant problems in the future.
Industry stakeholders, cemeteries, crematories and funeral homes, need clarity, not legislative whiplash. It’s no longer just a matter of zoning technicalities; it’s about providing essential services to New Jersey’s residents in a timely, respectful manner.
The bill sponsors, shareholders and representatives of the cemetery industry must return to the table and not allow these two bills to become entangled. Separate, carefully amended bills could address legitimate concerns: one modernizing where crematories can be built to meet service demand and another setting reasonable guidelines for the community to ensure public trust and safety.
Until then, the possibility of a combined or hybrid bill risks leaving the funeral industry–and the public we serve–trapped between expansion on paper, paralysis in practice and problems in the future.