Rhode Island Property Law : Rhode Island Real Estate & Environmental Attorney & Lawyer John Boehnert for Development & Permits in RI

An American Bar Association Webinar will bring to a national audience Rhode Island’s and Massachusetts’ experience with the proposed development of a LNG facility as part of a discussion of issues facing states in the siting of potentially hazardous facilities in their communities.

Recall the political furor that developed when Weaver’s Cove Energy LLC proposed constructing a LNG (i.e. liquefied natural gas) facility in Fall River, Massachusetts, which would bring LNG  through Rhode Island and Massachusetts coastal waters in ships similar to the one pictured here.

I would be the first to argue that all of that furor was not justified, but by way of disclosure I should also note that I represented Weaver’s Cove Energy in its federal consistency review filing with the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council.

I will moderate the panel discussion and will be joined by veteran litigator Terrence Tierney, Esq., now with the University Of Massachusetts School Of Law and formerly with the Rhode Island Attorney General’s Office, where he was involved in litigation opposing siting of the LNG facility.

Also on the panel is an experienced planner, David Westcott, AICP, the chief planner and environmental scientist with Mason & Associates, Inc. in North Scituate, Rhode Island, who will be discussing the siting of locally unwanted land uses, also known as LULUs.

For my part, I will be discussing how the 34 coastal and Great Lakes states can use the Coastal Zone Management Act’s federal consistency program to protect its communities in the siting of potentially hazardous facilities.

And relying on Rhode Island’s first in the nation ocean zoning program, I will also be discussing how other states can follow Rhode Island’s lead and actually strengthen the protections available under the federal consistency review program.

So all and all Little Rhody is going to have the opportunity to showcase lessons learned here and how this may help other states.

The Webinar airs October 19^th at 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm Eastern, 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm Central, 11:00 am – 12:30 pm Mountain, and 10:00 am – 11:30 am Pacific.

Registration information is available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

To all those developers rushing off to federal court to sue because state regulations preventing development have “taken” your property without just compensation—NOT SO FAST!

And to all those real estate investors who can’t wait to get into real estate development to make the really Big Money—NOT SO FAST!

That first warning was the clear and unequivocal message from the First Circuit Court of Appeals on a Rhode Island inverse condemnation case, issued just days ago. Downing Salt Pond Partners  v. State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, No. 10-1484  (1st. Cir. May 23, 2011).

And the second warning may be buried within the pages of the Court’s decision.

Developer’s Worst Nightmare

The facts are every real estate developer’s worse nightmare.

The developer, Downing Salt Pond Partners, acquired real estate in Narragansett for a residential development, and in 1992 received a Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) Assent to develop the property for a 79 lot residential subdivision.

After building 26 homes from 1992 through 2007, the Rhode Island Historic Preservation and Heritage Commission determined that artifacts found during construction indicated the property was the site of a Narragansett Indian settlement. The Historic Commission urged CRMC to withdraw the Assent.

While CRMC did not formally invalidate the Assent, it wanted to assess the issues raised by the Historic Commission.

Construction was halted, and Downing alleges the Historic Commission wanted to either prevent further development of the project or require the developer to undertake an archeological data recovery project that Downing asserted would cost it $6 million.

So there the developer sat, with the uncertainty of whether it could ever complete its project, after having purchased the land, gotten its permits, installed infrastructure to support development, and built less than a third of the houses it expected to sell.

By June, 2009 the issue had not been resolved, Downing started development, CRMC issued a cease and desist order, and Downing headed to federal court, claiming its property had been taken without just compensation, and also alleging denials of constitutional due process and equal protection provisions.

The Court Speaks—And Things Get Even Worse For The Developer

The federal District Court found against Downing, saying the developer was required to bring its claims in State court. Downing/Salt Pond Partners, L.P. v. Rhode Island, 698 F. Supp. 2d 278 (D.R.I. 2010)  On May 23, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

In essence, the Court held that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), establishing ripeness requirements for such suits in federal court, required that the suit be brought in state court because Rhode Island had an adequate remedy for inverse condemnation claims and the claim must therefore be pursued in State Court.

The First Circuit refused to address the argument that even if the inverse condemnation claim was not ripe for hearing in federal court, the due process and equal protection claims were ripe. And while it did not address that argument substantively, it did suggest it did not find it a compelling argument.

(If you want to read an excellent commentary on the mess the Williamson County case has made for property owners claiming a taking, see the recent posting (May 30, 2011) by attorney Robert H. Thomas about the Downing Salt Pond case on inversecondemnation.com.)

So after four years of uncertainty, the developer still has no resolution, and no compensation, and presumably has to head back to court—this time State court—and perhaps back to the negotiation table.

Lessons Learned

It appears fairly clear that the federal courts continue to be reluctant to entertain land use regulatory takings cases, and your remedy is in State court.

There is a reason real estate developers expect to make Big Money; they take Big Risks, and the developer’s return is the compensation for those risks. And sometimes those Big Risks result in Big Losses.

So the next time you see a real estate developer driving a big fancy car, well, you may just want to wish him well!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Many real estate developers and property owners got a significant break from the General Assembly late last year, when legislation passed to extend the expiration date of a broad range of governmental permits.

And many don't know it!

And the General Assembly recently improved on that substantial benefit.

And many still don't know it!

Because these measures passed with so little fanfare, many are unaware that hundreds of State permits which would ordinarily have expired get a new lease on life.

The first bill extended these permits until June 30, 2011. The second bill extended them even further, given the continuing economic slump.

The Legislature was concerned that because of  the economic crisis, banks were not lending and many real estate developers and ordinary property owners were in the position of not having sufficient funds to perform under governmental permits that had been issued to them.

Why Action Was Appropriate

The legislation first enacted says it well:

“The general assembly hereby finds that the current economic conditions in the real estate market demonstrate that there is little or no demand for new construction. In addition, the banking crisis has made it extremely difficult for real estate developers to obtain financing for new real estate construction. Currently there are real estate developers who have expended substantial amounts of money to obtain permits and approvals from various local and state agencies. Many of the permits and approvals will expire prior to an improvement in the economy and the financial and banking industries.”

The General Assembly’s first solution was simple and effective. All permits in effect at the time of passage, November 9, 2009, would not expire until June 30, 2011, regardless of what the permit terms say. (See the legislation.)

But in June of this year the General Assembly acted again, as the economy remained in the doldrums and no doubt there was concern that the original extension of permits may not be sufficient.

First, the new  legislation increased the number of permits protected from expiration by providing that it was not limited to permits in effect on November 9, 2009 but also included permits issued after November 9, 2009 and on or before June 30, 2011.

Secondly, the new legislation said that permits in effect on November 9, 2009 "will be recalculated as of July 1, 2011 by adding thereto the number of days between November 9, 2009  and the day on which the permit or approval would otherwise have expired".

This second bill went on to provide that the expiration date of permits issued between November 10, 2009 and June 30, 2011 "will be recalculated as of July 1, 2011 by adding thereto the number of days between the day the permit or approval was issued and the day the permit or approval otherwise would have expired". (See most recent legislation.)

Permits Affected

The legislation extends to permits issued by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, and by municipalities under subdivision and zoning ordinances. (See DEM’s Emergency Regulations.)

Not just professional developers will benefit from this legislation. For example, if a homeowner has obtained a variance to put an addition on his house, only to find that the local bank will not lend for the project, the homeowner’s permit will remain valid substantially beyond its normal expiration. Hopefully, lenders will then be in a feistier mood and the funds will be flowing.

A Tip of the Hat!

Given how costly it can be to get development permits, this has to be one of the smartest things the General Assembly has done in some time. And they not only did it right once, they actually improved upon it.  A tip of the hat to the folks on Smith Hill for this one!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link