Law 69 fails the reasonable relationship test because it allegedly does riot further what Plaintiff characterizes as the City’s proffered rationale for the Law&emdash;to reduce the poaching of high-value recyelables. Plaintiff argues that the true motive of the City is to generate revenue by shifting the cost of refrigerant recovery from the City to manufacturers. The City responds that it had other motives. These arguments are misplaced. Whether a law falls within the City’s police powers does not depend on the lawmakers’ subjective intent or the parsing of their proffered or true motives. Rather, the test is whether the law bears a reasonable relationship to the health, safety or welfare of the community, which waste disposal plainly does. See Good Humor Corp., 49 N.E.2d at 155-56 (<HOLDING>); cf. Albany Area Builders Ass’n, 534 N.Y.S.2d
holding that the question of whether police had a reasonable basis for finding that a third party had authority to consent to search is a question of law recognizing that whether a duty exists is a question of law for the courts holding that the question of whether an existing constitutional right is infringed is strictly a question of law holding that a defendant is in custody and miranda applies even when the purpose of defendants detention is unrelated to the purpose of the interrogation holding that the the statement of the purpose of the law in question in the committee report is not conclusive and reiterating that the question is whether the law is reasonably calculated to achieve a legitimate police power purpose