The Taking Issue 



7. In exercising their regulatory powers over land development and use, the agencies of 

 the State and the municipalities must be allowed to strike the proper balance of competing 

 interests, giving full regard to the rights of the public to be protected from the harm of 

 destruction and impairment of natural environmental systems. 



8. In the past, court decisions have at times had the effect of creating an imbalance, by 

 deemphasizing the pubUc's right to protection against land development which creates long- 

 term harm to the public-at-large. The decision in Annicelli v. Town of South Kinestown . 

 RI 463 A2d. 13 (1983)^ did not take sufficient cognizance of the harm which flows from 

 development of barrier beaches. 



9. Recreational utilization of land is a valuable, beneficial use of the property. The value 

 of property is not necessarily destroyed by the inability to build a permanent dwelling upon 

 it. 



10. No land owner has a vested right to develop his property to achieve die maximum, or 

 any profit from it, or to be free fo environmental regulation enacted after he or she acquires 

 it. 



11. It is necessary for the health and welfare of the people of the State of Rhode Island that 

 the agencies and municipalities of the State be granted the fullest latitude, constrained only 

 by tiie Constitution of the United States, in balancing die needs of the public for protection 

 and preservation of the natural environment of the state against the wishes of land owners 

 to develop land in a way that will be destructive of the natural environment 



Recommendations Concerning Article I Section 16 of the Rhode Island Constitution 



1 . Despite court decisions apparendy distinguishing the prevention of "public harm" from 

 promotion of the "pubhc good," the attempt provides litUe or no guidance to government. 

 Such distinctions have had the effect of chilling government's abiUty to anticipate and 

 prevent harm to the environment and natural resources of the State which are held in trust 

 for die people of Rhode Island. To die extent that the Rhode Island Supreme Court 

 decision in Annicelli v. Town of South Kingstown relied on the Rhode Island Constitution, 

 this Constitutional Amendment seeks to overturn that decision. 



2. Those state and local government decision-makers whose responsibilities are to protect 

 the environment and human health should be encouraged to exercise tiiose responsibilities 

 so as to prevent potential harm, rather than having to wait for those harms to occur. For 

 example, the landfilling of solid waste, recendy thought to be solely an aesthetic or 

 nuisance issue, is now generally perceived to be a practice posing substantial risks to 

 underground drinking water aquifers. It is essential diat government act to anticipate 

 potential harms to the environment without being required to pay compensation to 

 landowners whose use of their land may be affected. 



3. If a local or state government is found by a judicial tribunal to have exceeded its 

 legitimate police powers that entity should be permitted to elect whedier to pay 

 compensation to the affected landowner, or alternatively to amend, repeal, or not enforce 

 the regulation, decision, or act at issue. 



235 



