Eminent Domain in Rhode Island II

In 2005, at least 3 bills relating to the government’s power of eminent domain were introduced to the Rhode Island General Assembly…

The strongest measure was House bill 5242 sponsored by state representatives Raymond Church (D-Burriville/North Smithfield), Al Gemma (D-Warwick), and Charlene Lima (D-Cranston). H5242 would have added a new chapter to Title 37 of Rhode Island’s General Laws, restricting the government’s power of eminent domain. It’s more legalistic than Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey's version, but seems to move the law in the right direction -- restricting use of eminent domain to property taken for true public use. (The bill does contain at least one interesting loophole. The bill says eminent domain can be used to transfer property to a private entity, so long as “the property remains subject to public oversight, following transfer to a private entity”. Is this setting up an exception, perhaps, for the taking of land for the creation or expansion of gambling facilities?)

The bill was referred to the Judiciary committee and died there, without a vote ever being taken.

It is doubtful that the Rhode Island House killed the bill because it sincerely wanted to study the issue before acting. Representatives Victor Moffitt (R-Coventry), Nicholas Gorham (R-Foster/Coventry/Glocester), Charlene Lima (D-Cranston), John Savage (R-East Providence), and Carol Mumford (R-Cranston/Scituate) introduced House bill 5116, which would have created a commission to study eminent domain issues. The House also killed this bill -- without a vote -- by sending it to the Judiciary committee, then ignoring it.

The House did unanimously approve one action. The day after the Kelo decision, they passed a resolution (House bill 6636) asking Congress to amend the Constitution to "more fully protect and guarantee private property rights and to nullify the Kelo decision". But, given the other two bills which died in committee, the resolution was little more than a cynical attempt to provide political cover to the legislature's defense of the status quo – where government can seize your property if they think they can increase its assessed value. 5242, a bill that would actually prohibit Kelo-like property seizures, was sitting there in committee, waiting for action, but completely ignored when 6636 was passed. The Rhode Island legislature could have changed the law, but chose not to. Apparently, the state’s Democratic leadership and the Juidiciary committee chairman (Representative Robert Flaherty (D-Warwick)) were not interested in providing better protection to Rhode Island’s citizens.

If the people of Rhode Island really want action on the subject of eminent domain, it looks like they are going to have to act through voter initiative.