In the Aug. 16, 2024, episode of “A Lively Experiment,” moderator Jim Hummel and his panelists discussed why Rhode Island’s attorney general said the Washington Bridge lawsuit needed his approval. They also examine whether shoreline access may soon change for the state’s beachgoers.
Hummel was joined by Arlene Violet, former Rhode Island attorney general; Harrison Tuttle, of Black Lives Matter Rhode Island political action committee; and Steve Arias, the former national committeeman of the Rhode Island Republican Party.
This discussion has been condensed and edited for clarity. Watch the full episode of “A Lively Experiment” here.
On Aug. 16, Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha announced that the state was suing 13 companies that worked on the Washington Bridge. A complaint in Providence Superior Court alleges that the companies failed in a timely way to adequately identify worsening structural issues that led to the emergency closing of the bridge in December 2023.
The lawsuit also includes claims of breach of contract, fiduciary duty and negligence, with claims varying against the defendants.
Attorney general made the right call
Violet said that Neronha was correct in filing the suit and was not surprised by his actions, adding that Gov. Daniel McKee “insulted” the attorney general by not consulting him about the issue.
“Under Rhode Island law, the attorney general is really the lawyer for all the state agencies theoretically, unless there’s a conflict of interest as determined by him or her,” she said. “It’s clear that McKee never brought this matter to his attention.
“But he theoretically can veto this, but he has the responsibility to represent the taxpayers of the state. So I think Neronha clearly is correct about this.”
Tuttle said the Washington Bridge impacts the quality of life for Rhode Island residents, adding that all elected officials needs “to be on the same page.”
“And it doesn’t appear like that is the reality right now,” he said. “And so this really isn’t the time to take potential political jabs.
“I really think that Rhode Islanders are looking for this bridge to be fixed and details to be announced as well as the person who is responsible or entities that are responsible for what happened to the bridge.”
Arias said he had very little confidence in the governor and how he handled the bridge situation, noting that “you don’t shoot and ask questions later.”
“I think Peter Neronha is a very capable attorney general and I think it’s good that he’s involved in this and it’s unfortunate McKee didn’t have him involved earlier,” Arias said. “What will be interesting on litigation to me is I would assume that some of the people are gonna be sued, they’re gonna have a simple defense.”
Arias said the defendants would argue that the state Department of Transportation had been overseeing the project and had signed off on their actions.
“I think that’s gonna be a significant problem in litigation that we’re going to encounter is like when they point the finger back at (DOT Director) Pete Alviti, DOT under (former Gov. Gina) Raimondo and McKee and say, this was happening under your watch, we did what we were doing,” Arias said. “And you signed off on all our reports and things we were doing at the time.”
Throwing sand on the shoreline access bill
Rhode Island’s new shoreline access law has been working its way through the courts. The measure was passed by the state Legislature and signed into law by McKee last year. It defines the area where members of the public are allowed to exercise their shoreline rights under the state constitution as the recognizable high tide line — commonly called the “wrack line” or “seaweed line” — plus 10 feet landward.
Property owners in Westerly and South Kingstown sued, claiming the law violated the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by authorizing a public easement that violates their property without compensating them for their losses.
In two decisions filed in July, Rhode Island Superior Court Associate Justice Sara Taft-Carter denied Neronha’s motion to throw out the cases.
“I mean, I haven’t read the decision, I don’t know all the details, but here’s the bottom line,” Arias said. “There’s a constitutional right to have shoreline access, but guess who interprets what the parameters of a constitutional right is? It’s the judges, it’s the court, it’s court precedent.
“It’s not the Legislature sitting over there going, ‘Well I think it should be 10 feet here or it should be over there.’ So I think that this is not gonna work out so well for the General Assembly because in the end it’s the courts interpreting the constitutional right. And of course if they wanna fix it, all they have to do is have a constitutional convention.”
Violet agreed with the judge’s ruling.
“I think she’s correct. It is a taking of property,” Violet said, adding that if the case goes to the state Supreme Court, she believes that Taft-Carter’s decision will be upheld.
Tuttle stressed that residents of Rhode Island should have access to the beach and the shoreline.
“You know, we’re gonna create a solution.”
