RI Bill for Access To Shoreline

[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.

[Young Salt]

you bet the'll challenge it...........crying bloody murder as if were the end of the world. would take alot of pressure on our side for it to get it to pass.

There is another bill trying to provide parking for the 220 CRMC row in the state. That one, im told, stands a better chance at passing.

Yes, in RI we have access to mean high water. The only problem is defining where that point actually is. Basicly if you're close to the water at anything other than moon high tide you should be a-ok. Even if someone complains, the have no way to prove you were 11 feet above mean high tide.
Of course they'll try to take away the parking in the area, which right now is unprotected, and the #1 access killer.

[Young Salt]

read the bills here. The changes are highlighted.


http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/BillTex...xt06/H7317.pdf

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/BillTex...xt06/H7700.pdf