January 26, 2024
Representing Rhode Island on NECA Public Policy panel.
RI Veterans Home residents getting free cable, internet
by: Lauren Brill
Jun 14, 2023 / 08:04 PM EDT
BRISTOL, R.I. (WPRI) — With more residents of the Rhode Island Veterans Home going online, state leaders added funding in their latest budget to provide them with better service at no cost.
i3 Broadband is offering the enhanced technology, which Resident Council President Ray Hall said will help veterans stay connected to their loved ones and the outside world.
“We all have very limited access to the outside,” Hall said Wednesday.
“It’s the main source of our entertainment, it’s the main source to our enjoyment, it’s the main source to our information, and it’s the main source to our continuing education,” he added.
From video chats to streaming their favorite TV shows, the need for improved internet access has increased greatly since the pandemic, according to Kasim Yarn, director of the Rhode Island Office of Veterans Services.
“We’ve gotten feedback from our residents, family members about free cable and internet services, we heard from our elected officials, our military services, and we listened,” Yarn said.
Gov. Dan McKee discussed the importance of ensuring a facility like the Rhode Island Veterans Home continues to advance. “Putting dollars in the budget to make sure after COVID this facility here opens up to new men and women who have served,” McKee explained.
i3 Broadband will also provide veterans with a client services team to help them transition into this new technology.
Lawmakers introduce long-awaited bill aimed at clarifying public's right to the shoreline →
The Providence Journal
March 28, 2022
Long-awaited legislation aimed at clarifying the public's right to use the shoreline is here. House Bill 8055 would establish that the public has the right to be 10 feet above the "recognizable high tide line" on any sandy or rocky shoreline. It was introduced by Rep. Terri Cortvriend, D-Middletown, and House Minority Leader Blake Filippi, R-Block Island, on Friday.
"This is not an expansion of shoreline access, but rather a restoration or preservation of constitutional shoreline access rights," said activist and surfer Conrad Ferla. A secretive group known as Shoreline Taxpayers for Respectful Traverse, Environmental Responsibility and Safety, Inc., is prepared to argue the contrary, and warning of lawsuits if the bill is passed.
"I can say with some confidence that there are national groups that are watching this bill very closely," lobbyist Christopher Boyle told The Providence Journal. "We believe that if it was to be enacted, there’d be national involvement in litigation." The bill is the product of a study commission chaired by Cortvriend and Filippi.
Over the course of six months, commission members heard testimony from legal experts, scientists and the general public, and came to near-unanimous consensus on a path forward. So far, the bill's co-sponsors include lawmakers from a number of coastal communities: Reps. Kathleen Fogarty, D-South Kingstown; Deb Ruggiero, DJamestown; Lauren Carson, D-Newport; Robert Craven, D-North Kingstown; Arthur Handy, D-Cranston, Samuel Azzinaro, D-Westerly, and Jason Knight and Liana Cassar, DBarrington. Previously: How much of RI's beaches are open to the public? Panel is closer to an answer
What's in the bill?
First off, House Bill 8055 starts out with two pages of "legislative findings." Among other things, they include an acknowledgement that "a lack of a workable, readily identifiable right of access to the shore by the public has led to confusion, conflict and disputes." The "findings" section also states that "private property owners may maintain a title interest to the sandy and rocky shores, but certain components of ownership, such as the ability to share in reasonable use of the shore, are held in trust for the general public under the state constitution."
A 1982 Rhode Island Supreme Court decision accepted the mean high water line as a boundary between private property and public shoreline. But that line "cannot be determined by the naked eye and requires special surveying expertise and equipment," the bill notes, which makes it "impossible" for the general public to find. Additionally, the method for calculating mean high tide doesn't take dynamic forces like wind and waves into account.
Consequently, relying on mean high tide as a boundary "results in the public only having meaningful access at or near the time of low tide if at all," the bill states. As a result, the bill's authors go on to say, the "constitutional right and privileges of the shore may be illusory." It's unusual for a bill to contain so much contextual information — but one concern that was raised during the commission's meetings was that Rhode Island laws can be tough for courts to interpret, because the General Assembly often fails to explain its intent. Rhode Island's constitution has long guaranteed the right to exercise the "privileges of the shore," but state law has never explained what's considered the "shoreline."
House Bill 8055 would amend state law to include the following definition: "The public's rights and privileges of the shore may be exercised, where shore exists, on wet sand or dry sand or rocky beach, up to the recognizable high tide line; provided, however, that the public's rights and privileges of the shore shall not be afforded where no passable shore exists, nor on land above the vegetation line, sea walls, or other legally constructed shoreline infrastructure."
To translate: You can walk, fish, or gather seaweed up to the "recognizable high tide line," though there may be places where the shoreline has been built up in a way that makes that impossible. Whether you can also sit down and lay out a beach towel below the recognizable high tide line is a matter of ongoing debate — and outside the scope of the bill.
The "recognizable high tide line" is defined in the bill as a boundary 10 feet landward "from the line or mark left upon tide flats, beaches, or along shore objects that indicates the intersection of the land with the water's surface level at the maximum height reached by a rising tide."
Visual markers could include "a line of seaweed, oil or scum along shore objects," or "a more or less continuous deposit of fine shell or debris on the foreshore or berm."
The battle ahead for RI shoreline access
STARTERS, the group opposing the legislation, was formed last year in response to a bill that would have decriminalized trespassing within 10 feet of the most recent high tide line. "We acknowledge that constitutional right to shoreline access, we absolutely acknowledge that," Boyle said. "The question is just where that line is drawn." In the group's view, the 1982 Supreme Court decision firmly established that the mean high water mark as the boundary between private and public. If that boundary moves further inland, "we really do believe that's an encroachment on someone’s private property, same as if the state was to build a highway," Boyle said.
Such an encroachment would be considered a "taking" under the U.S. Constitution, which would mean that landowners would have to be compensated, Boyle argued. "It could be an enormous price tag for the taxpayer," he said. Publicly available information about STARTERS is largely limited to records in the state's lobbying database, which indicate that Boyle and former State Police Col. Brendan P. Doherty are getting paid $2,000 a month to represent the group.
Boyle would only describe the group's members as "property owners." Filippi, in an email to The Journal, dismissed the group's warnings as "meritless." "
The public has no shore rights if they exist only below the waterline, as is the case on many beaches in this state," he wrote. "The General Assembly’s duty is to fix this generational wrong in a fair and reasonable manner that respects private property.
That’s what our legislation does, and it's why STARTERS’ threats are meritless." He added: "I’m confident that the House and Senate will uphold the constitutional shore rights of all Rhode Islanders, and be undeterred by vague threats from secret legal groups hired by unknown property owners."
Who rules RI's forgotten old roads?
Advocates push to preserve public access Also gearing up for battle is Scott Keeley, the activist who was arrested while collecting seaweed in 2019. "I think we’re facing a small group of shoreline property owners that have come from other states and maybe they were misled by a real estate agent and they thought they had a private beach," he said. "And when they found out about the Rhode Island constitution, they just decided they didn’t like it." "That might be part of why my arrest became such a story in 2019, because it really hit a chord with the residents of Rhode Island," he added. "It wasn't about me."
Keeley noted that there would need to be a concerted push from activists to get the General Assembly to pass the bill. "We need a lot of people to come out and write letters, and we need people from all over the state to ask their representatives to co-sponsor or at least commit to supporting the bill," he said.
The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, but is not yet scheduled for a hearing.
Activist Conrad Ferla and a friend access the Narragansett shoreline. - David DelPoio
Legislative action and a potential legal battle loom as RI debates changes to shoreline access law →
By Bill Seymour Special to the Independent Apr 2, 2022
It’s an ambiguous and contentious line in the sand.
The state constitution guarantees the right to ocean access for the public. But private landowners claim their beachfront property rights exclude the public.
State law draws the line within which the public must stay when they access a shore fronting private property. But that line, which has long been murky and hard to locate, needs to be higher and drier – about 10 feet above the high-tide line – to be useful for the public, according to a special legislative commission issuing a report this week.
A new law proposed last week adopts this recommendation. It will first be considered by the House of Representatives and any approval moves it to the state senate and the governor for consideration.
Activists on both sides are already lobbying legislators. With access advocates on one side, and homeowners on the other, the sides are fighting over where this mark in the sand goes.
“Basically it (the proposal) doesn’t let people walk across a bulkhead or front yard, only just along sandy and rocky shorelines,” Rep. Blake Filippi said.
His district, which includes Block Island, Charlestown and parts of South Kingstown and Westerly, has plenty of beaches and he doesn’t see this change infringing on property rights of oceanfront homeowners.
Those homeowners see a different view from their windows – what was formerly an exclusive private beach would become de facto public property.
“We believe when applying Rhode Island and U.S. Supreme Court decisions this amounts to a taking of private property. When property is taken, government needs to compensate,” said Chris Boyle, an attorney and lobbyist representing a group of property owners opposed to changing current law.
Their group is called Shoreline Taxpayers Association for Respectful Traverse, Environmental Responsibility and Safety Inc.
Filippi responded that right now the constitutional rights to the public access are “illusory” because the court-defined area is underwater around most beaches. The legislature is defining for the first time where the usable area should be to conform with a constitutional right to it, he added.
The Rhode Island State Constitution says in part that people are guaranteed a right to “enjoy and freely exercise all the rights of fishery, and the privileges of the shore, to which they have been heretofore entitled under the charter and usages of this state, including but not limited to fishing from the shore, the gathering of seaweed, leaving the shore to swim in the sea and passage along the shore.”
There’s nothing in those words or the rest of Article I, Section 17, that defines how far inland those rights are in effect.
In stepped the courts over three decades ago to define a place. A judicial ruling set the access line as the mean high-tide mark over 18.6 years.
The conflict
“God bless if you can go to the end point to where the average mean high tide line is over 18.6 years,” exclaimed Filippi when discussing the matter three years ago.
Those comments came after a shoreline access advocate was arrested for trespassing while walking the beach. The South Kingstown Police Department later dismissed the charges, deciding that the impracticable definition in the law was too hard to enforce.
Around the same time, one homeowner hired a security guard to keep watch and report stray loiterers on her beach.
The controversy led to a legislative commission whose recommendation were released this week. The panel heard testimony from citizens, advocates, experts in law, sea and beach erosion.
It reached a recommendation that a more definite – and dry – spot at the actual high tide line plus 10 feet, was necessary to guarantee access to the water. But it will take passage by the General Assembly for that recommendation to take effect.
“The legislature for the first time would actually decide on how to make that realistically happen,” said Filippi, who is sponsoring the bill.
But according to the group representing private homeowners, re-drawing the access line amounts to a state expropriation of their property.
“We think this is a major encroachment,” said Boyle. “It’s nothing different than if the state wanted to build a highway and took someone’s property. And the state would have to pay for it,” he added.
“I think any reasonable person would assume that would be an astronomical figure when you look at the amount of shoreline we have in Rhode Island,” he said.
Boyle’s group is planning a legal challenge if the change is adopted into state law.
Filippi says that the state constitution requires access to at least some portion of land. “I would like to know where Mr. Boyle thinks the line should be. Given where it is now, he doesn’t have even a reasonable position. It’s underwater at most beaches.”
Public Right of Ways
Having the right to walk along the beach is different than the right to enter the beach. This is where public right-of-ways add another twist to the problem.
Many shoreline access points, semi-secret footpaths established when waterfront neighborhoods were a hodgepodge collection of humble summer cottages, now abut multi-million dollar mansions.
The 2019 protest over beach access rights also drew in the controversy and questions about rights-of-way to those beaches.
“The more land development there has been, and now more homes in summer communities, the secret right of ways that people once used are the object of complaints from people with more money who have fixed up these homes,” said Rob Lyons, chairman of Charlestown’s Coastal Pond Management Commission.
Local towns, such as Narragansett, Charlestown, South Kingstown, North Kingstown and East Greenwich, all now have increased interest and complaints about various public rights of way, marked, unmarked and needing improvement.
They all have public panels to determine boundaries and what slices of land belongs to the town or public trust and what is owned by a private property owner. Along with this will come rules regarding parking and congregating at those sites.
The University of Rhode Island Sea Grant Institute has reviewed this issue. One assessment pointed out that “the integration of (rights of way) into neighborhoods can spark protests of “NIMBY,” or “Not In My Backyard,” it said.
Residents often raise concerns with an easement’s maintenance needs and the potential bad behavior of visitors, such as noise, dog waste, litter, and disregard for danger.
At the core of these conflicts is fear of change in general and fear that that change will alter the character of the place, according to the review done by Sea Grant’s Amanda Valentine last October.
Such a situation brought legal actions in Narragansett. At the end of Conant Avenue, a well-marked public right-of-way features a modest stone staircase to the shore and attractive plantings welcoming visitors to use the site.
Signs clearly indicate that parking is allowed on the shoulder of the road during the day, the result of the Narragansett Town Council reversing earlier parking prohibitions imposed by the previous council.
Yet, that change prompted opposing neighbors to seek a court ruling to keep their no-parking zone.
Not far away and near the Point Judith Lighthouse is a path at Pilgrim Avenue. It provides access to a popular surfing site through an unmarked right-of-way to the shore.
The path to the water is being encroached upon by abutting landowners, whose plantings and property boundary stakes are seemingly designed to keep the public away, according to the institute’s review.
Solutions
These conflicts and a desire to know exact boundaries of right-of-ways brought the Narragansett Town Council in February to approve the town’s Coastal Access Improvement Committee recommendation for an engineering study.
Surveys for five specific right of ways – Pilgrim Avenue, Conant Street, Hazard Avenue, Newton Avenue and Bass Rock Road – aim to determine encroachment of adjacent property owners, provide safe practical parking areas and improve access to these areas.
“It is critical to preserve these Public Ocean Access Points with parking and safeguard for future generational use by all,” according to a council record of the approval for the survey.
In North Kingstown, its committee intends to continue to use geographic information system mapping to find candidate locations and submit them to the town council and CRMC, according to the URI review.
GIS mapping, used by many municipalities, integrates computer technology with connecting various kinds of stored data and putting it into a map. For instance, a list of all known right-of-ways and addresses could be collected and displayed on a map to show their locations.
The Sea Grant office noted that East Greenwich has six public access points to the harbor reaching from Scalloptown Park at the south to Division Street in the north.
Long Street, falling in the middle of these two points, marks the site of a public access puzzle. One of the current boat ramps on the street, though constructed in the most intuitive location for a right-of-way on that side of the harbor, resides within the private parking lot of a local business, according to the institute review.
Meanwhile, the area’s actual public access points are situated elsewhere along the harbor and in places blocked by docks.
Andrew Nota, town manager of East Greenwich, took to solving this problem with a rather unusual agreement between the Coastal Resources Management Council, East Greenwich, and the business owner, the review said last October.
“This is an ongoing conversation we’re having with the property owner regarding a possible land swap,” he said.
The agreement between the three parties would reallocate this boat ramp as a public right-of-way and would provide a replacement parking space for the business.
“We’re working collaboratively to try and solve this problem, and really create a win-win for both sides,” he told those from URI doing the review.
Filippi said that his shoreline access bill does not address the right-of-way matter. It focuses only on the lapping edges of the water and reasonable places for the public to walk or even sit down.
The right-of-way concerns are more of town and private property rights issue than the more universal application of the state constitution for shoreline access, he said.
Getting to the shoreline is important, he said, and if towns run into problems, they should be able to turn to state agencies for assistance, he said.
“Clearly the state has a responsibility through the CRMC and the Attorney General’s office to find them and all and make sure that they are open for people to use,” the state representative said.
Nonetheless, the state lawmaker advocated that people should exercise their rights to public right-of-ways that are blocked or obscured so long as they are sure these have a public designation.
“These are public rights and they should use them no matter what. But, if public takes action in own hands, there’s a responsibility to know they are public, otherwise it is trespassing,” he said.
Would R.I. lose lawsuits if it expanded shore access? Probably not, an expert says. - January 27, 2022 - Brian Amaral/Boston Globe →
BUT THAT’S PROBABLY NOT TRUE, A LEGAL EXPERT TOLD A STATE STUDY COMMISSION LOOKING AT WAYS TO GET RHODE ISLANDERS MORE LATERAL ACCESS TO THE SHORE.
RHODE ISLAND LAWMAKERS COULD ACTUALLY REDEFINE THE RIGHTS OF THE “SHORE” FURTHER LANDWARD THAN THE LAW DOES NOW, SAID MICHAEL C. BLUMM, PROFESSOR AT THE LEWIS & CLARK LAW SCHOOL.
IF IT DID, “THE STATE LEGISLATURE WOULD NOT SEEM TO OPEN THE STATE UP TO SUCCESSFUL TAKINGS CLAIMS,” BLUMM WROTE TO THE COMMISSION.
IN FACT, IN FOUR OTHER STATES THAT HAVE TAKEN STEPS TO ENSURE PUBLIC ACCESS — NEW JERSEY, OREGON, NORTH CAROLINA AND MAINE — NO LANDOWNER HAS BROUGHT A SUCCESSFUL CLAIM OVER TAKING PROPERTY RIGHTS AWAY, BLUMM SAID.
THAT WAS WELCOME NEWS TO THE 12-MEMBER STUDY COMMISSION, WHICH IS EAGER TO RECOMMEND CHANGES TO THE LAW IN RHODE ISLAND, BUT IS NOT EAGER TO PUT THE STATE IN A POSITION TO BE SUED.
“IT’S EXTREMELY INSTRUCTIVE,” SAID JAMES BOYD, REPRESENTING THE RHODE ISLAND COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL ON THE PANEL.
THE COMMISSION, MADE UP OF TWO LAWMAKERS AND EXPERTS FROM AROUND THE STATE, MET AT THE STATE HOUSE ON THE LAST THURSDAY OF JANUARY — DECIDEDLY NOT A BEACH DAY FOR ANYONE BUT THE MOST HARDCORE ENTHUSIASTS OF FRIGID SALT SPRAY — FOR THEIR SECOND-TO-LAST MEETING. BORN OUT OF A PROPOSAL TO DECRIMINALIZE TRESPASSING IF SOMEONE’S WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE MOST RECENT HIGH TIDE LINE, THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO PREPARE A REPORT ABOUT THEIR FINDINGS. LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS WILL COME OUT OF IT, TOO.
WHETHER THAT LEGISLATION CAN GET THROUGH THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS ANOTHER QUESTION, BUT A LIMITED CONSENSUS EMERGED THURSDAY: THE CURRENT LAW IS TOO MUDDLED AND LIMITED FOR PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY ENJOY THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION, WHICH INCLUDE WALKING ALONG THE SHORE, LEAVING IT TO FISH OR SWIM AND COLLECTING SEAWEED.
“IF THERE’S ANY CONSENSUS HERE AT ALL, IT’S THAT THE CURRENT MEAN HIGH WATER MARK IS NOT PRACTICAL, IT’S NOT VIABLE, FOR THE PUBLIC GENERALLY AND FOR PROPERTY OWNERS,” SAID TOPHER HAMBLETT, DIRECTOR OF ADVOCACY AND POLICY FOR SAVE THE BAY. “SO THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.”
A 1982 STATE SUPREME COURT DECISION FIXED THE LINE BETWEEN PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND PUBLIC ACCESS AT WHAT’S CALLED THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE. THAT CAN’T BE MEASURED WITH THE NAKED EYE OR JUST BY LOOKING AT THE FARTHEST PLACE THE SEA TOSSED SOME SEAWEED, THOUGH. IT’S THE AVERAGE OF ALL THE HIGH TIDES OVER 18.6 YEARS.
THE SCIENCE IS COMPLEX BUT DOES NOT FAVOR ACCESS, CRITICS SAY. THE LINE ITSELF DOESN’T CHANGE DAY BY DAY, BUT WHERE IT INTERSECTS WITH A DYNAMIC AND SHIFTING SHORE DOES: THINK OF THE LINE LIKE A LASER POINTER LOCKED INTO PLACE AND THE BEACH AS A PLATE OF MASHED POTATOES. THE BEAM OF LIGHT MIGHT NOT MOVE, BUT IF YOU MOVED THE MASHED POTATOES AROUND WITH YOUR FORK, OR REMOVED THEM FROM YOUR PLATE ALTOGETHER — EROSION, IN THIS METAPHOR — IT WOULD LAND ON A DIFFERENT SPOT ON THE MOUND.
THROUGH A HALF-DOZEN MEETINGS, THIS 12-MEMBER COMMISSION HAS SCRUTINIZED THE IBBISON DECISION AND OTHER PARTS OF THE SCIENCE AND THE LAW — INCLUDING WHETHER THE IBBISON DECISION HAD BEEN EFFECTIVELY OVERTURNED BY A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IN 1986 WITHOUT ANYONE REALLY NOTICING — WHILE ALSO COLLECTING THE VIEWPOINTS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY INTERESTS.
“I DO THINK IT IS WISE FOR US TO KEEP IN MIND THE CONCERN ABOUT GOING TOO FAR,” COMMISSION MEMBER AND ATTORNEY MARK MCKENNEY SAID. BUT, HE ADDED: “IT’S BEEN MADE EXCEEDINGLY CLEAR THAT TRYING TO USE AN 18.6-YEAR LINE THAT NO ONE CAN IDENTIFY IN WALKING ON THE BEACH ON A GIVEN DAY PROBABLY IS NO LONGER THE BEST WAY TO ENSURE THE PEOPLE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEIR RIGHTS ARE.”
SOME QUESTIONS REMAINED: WHAT WOULD BE A BETTER LINE THAN THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE? THE “WRACK LINE,” OR THE FARTHEST PLACE WHERE THE OCEAN TOSSED SOME DEBRIS? WHAT ABOUT THE MOST RECENT HIGH TIDE LINE? SHOULD YOU ALSO ADD SOME MORE SPACE FOR DRY SAND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE NEW LINE? IF SO, HOW MANY FEET? SIX? 10? AND SHOULD YOU DO IT BY DECRIMINALIZING TRESPASSING, AS THE BILL LAST YEAR WOULD DO, OR WOULD YOU SIMPLY REDEFINE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY? OR, TO GET EVEN MORE GRANULAR, COULD YOU DECLARE THAT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PROPERTY ALONG THE WATER CAN BE PRIVATELY OWNED, BUT ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC BY RIGHT? PLUS, WHAT WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DO ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT LINE? SET DOWN A TOWEL? TURN ON A BOOM BOX? OR JUST COLLECT SEAWEED AND KEEP MOVING?
MANY OF THESE QUESTIONS ARE NOT NEW TO SHORE ACCESS DEBATES IN RHODE ISLAND.
“RHODE ISLAND LAW IS A LAW AT WAR WITH ITSELF,” SAID MICHAEL RUBIN, A FORMER LAWYER IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE.
OPINIONS VARIED INSIDE THE COMMISSION ON HOW TO FIND A WAY TO PEACE. OUTSIDE, THEY VARY EVEN MORE: SOME SAY THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE IS PERFECTLY GOOD, AND TRYING TO MEDDLE WITH IT IS JUST INVITING TROUBLE.
A GROUP THAT CALLS ITSELF SHORELINE TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION FOR RESPECTFUL TRAVERSE, ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AND SAFETY, INC. HAS ENTERED THE FRAY: CHRIS BOYLE, A LOBBYIST FOR THE GROUP, WROTE A LETTER TO THE COMMISSION QUOTING FROM A 2021 U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION CALLED CEDAR POINT NURSERY: “THE GOVERNMENT MUST PAY FOR WHAT IT TAKES.”
THE LETTER, AND A PREVIOUS WHITE PAPER, ARGUED THAT THE STATE COULD NOT, WITHOUT COMPENSATING THE OWNERS, GIVE THE PUBLIC THE RIGHT TO TRESPASS ACROSS PRIVATE PROPERTY.
ASKED ABOUT THE PROSPECT THAT CHANGES TO THE LAW WOULD SPARK LAWSUITS, BOYLE TOLD THE GLOBE: “THERE’S A HIGH DEGREE OF PROBABILITY THAT IT WOULD RESULT IN LITIGATION.”
BUT DENNIS NIXON, A MEMBER OF THE STUDY COMMISSION AND A LEGAL EXPERT ON SHORE MATTERS, SAID AT THE MEETING EARLIER THURSDAY THAT THESE TYPES OF THREATS RING HOLLOW: EVEN IN THE ONE SUCCESSFUL LAWSUIT OVER LATERAL ACCESS THERE’S BEEN SUCCESSFUL LAWSUITS, THE COURT JUST TOLD THE STATE — CALIFORNIA — TO STOP. NO MONEY CHANGED HANDS. THAT SHOULD GIVE THE STATE THE CONFIDENCE TO GET AGGRESSIVE.
“IF THEY SAY WE’VE GONE TOO FAR,” NIXON SAID, “THERE’S ALWAYS ROOM TO RETREAT.”
Newport this Week - A Newport Life in Politics - November 23, 2016 →
Providence Journal - Mission to Israel - November 9, 2015
MISSION TO ISRAEL
House Speaker Speaker Nicholas Mattiello and Senate President M. Teresa Teresa Paiva Weed are scheduled to spend the next week in Israel.
They were invited to join the Jewish Alliance of Greater Rhode Island on an expense-paid, week-long "Community Leaders' Mission" to Israel, starting this past Sunday.
As their spokesmen explained: "The Alliance hosts these missions for community leaders to build potential partnerships with Israel and exchange information in areas such as government, education and entrepreneurship." A total of 18 people are expected to take the trip.
Among the events listed on their itinerary: "Meet with officials at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv; Receive a geopolitical briefing at the Golan Heights from a military colonel; Meet with officials and military staff at the Israeli Parliament 'The Knesset'; Receive a briefing from David Horovitz, founding editor of the Times of Israel; Meet with Amit Segal, political correspondent and anchorman on Israeli TV; Visit Yad Vashem, the Jewish National Memorial to the 6 million Jewish victims of the Holocaust; Visits to such sites as the Dead Sea, Masada, the Golan Heights, Nazareth, the port city of Jaffa."
As of late last week, those slated to take the trip included: the Rev. Donald Anderson, executive minister, R.I. State Council of Churches; Toby Ayers, executive director, R.I. for Community and Justice; lawyer, Newport Grand lobbyist and one-time House Majority Whip Chris Boyle; Department of Environmental Management Director Janet Coit; Barbara Cottam, the Citizens Financial Group VP who chairs the state Board of Education; Central Falls Mayor James Diossa; Margaret M. Van Bree, the president of Rhode Island Hospital, and its pediatric division, Hasbro Children's Hospital; and Superior Court Judge Richard Licht, a past chairman of the Jewish Alliance Board.
