RI Bill for Access To Shoreline

["uffah!!"]

I'm not one for drawing things up, but, If someone could make up a partition or something, I'll diffinitly be one of the first to sign it..With the amount of people in this organization, maybe we can make a difference...

[Pete_G]

10 feet above the high water mark is an aggressive move. It would be incredible though.

DZ, who do we need to write or email in support of this?

[SeaWolf]

it wll be nice to see, but there will undoubtedly be people that object to people walking on their property, which it may be. the law is supposed to (as far as my understanding) allow walking thru their property and not stopping to sit on the beach or fish. the 10' would be above the current high water line, be it high tide or low tide and is not to be confused w/ the often challenge ri law on mean high water mark. i thought this was due to go into the next assembly discussion, but i could be wrong.

[stripersnipr]

At this point identifying any opposing legislators and applying some pressure to them to change their position would be very worthwhile.

[Fishpart]

I am told that if one of our elected servants gets SIX calls on an issue, they consider that issue very critical....

RI Residents call your State Rep and Senator.... DO IT NOW!!!! http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Scripts/email/LegEmail.asp

Imagine that SIX calls consitiutes a crisis no wonder these guys and gals get away with what they do WE their BOSSES aren't watching them....

[JohnR]

Good point Ed!

Hmmm, we need to get more involved in this one, eh??

[Mike P]

Just a caution---if this bill passes, a court challenge from shorefront landowners is virtually a certainty.

Some years ago, the Mass Legislature considered a bill that expanded the long-standing "right of passage" in the intertidal zone (ie, between mean high and low water). In Mass, a shorefront property owner has title to the mean low water mark. However, from ancient Colonial times, there has also been a right of passage between high and low water for purposes of fishing, waterfowling and portage. The bill would have expanded this right of passage to the general public, for any purpose. Before the bill could be voted on, a court challenge to it was instituted, as Mass allowed, at the time, for courts to issue what are called "advisory opinions" in certain circumstances. The challenge went all the way to the Mass Supreme Judicial Court, which held that it would be a "taking" of private property, under eminent domain, for public purposes and required compensation to the landowners. The bill was never enacted.

However, as I understand it, Maine, which has identical property laws to Mass, did successfully enact a bill giving the public at large a right of passage, that survived a court challenge.

Your mileage in Rhody may vary. As I understand it, RI adheres to the general US and English rule that a landowner owns to the mean high water mark. Redifining the "shore" as beginning 10' landward of high water might be considered a "taking" of 10' of property from the landowner for public purposes. Or it might not.