Prohibits restrictive covenants related to grocery stores.
H5902 would add a new section to Rhode Island’s property law making restrictive covenants or land-use restrictions on retail establishments that sell fresh food for off-premises consumption—such as grocery stores and supermarkets—generally void and unenforceable. In practical terms, the bill is aimed at preventing property restrictions from blocking the operation of grocery stores on certain sites, which can affect redevelopment, relocation, and continued access to food retail space.
The bill includes a narrow exception for situations where a grocery store is being relocated from a recently used site to a nearby replacement site under specified conditions. To qualify, the original site must have been used as a grocery-type retail establishment within the prior six months, the seller must have acquired a new site for a similar store, the new store must be similar in size and product scope, located within one-half mile of the old site, reopened within one year, and the restriction on the old site must last no more than 18 months. The bill also preserves preexisting restrictive covenants entered into before the act’s effective date and includes a severability clause.
The bill’s impact would be to limit the enforceability of private property agreements that prevent grocery stores from operating on certain parcels of land, thereby changing how estates in real property can be restricted under Rhode Island law. It would likely benefit grocery operators, developers, and communities seeking to maintain or restore access to fresh food retail, while reducing the ability of sellers or neighboring property interests to use covenants to control future land use in this context.
No committee transcript or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded debate or roll-call sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears policy-driven and targeted at preserving grocery access, with no visible evidence in the provided materials of opposition or support from legislators. The absence of recorded discussion also means there are no identified points of contention in the supplied context.
Notable issues that could generate debate include the bill’s interference with private contract rights, the specific geographic and timing limits in the relocation exception, and whether the measure is broad enough to address food access concerns without unduly affecting property owners. The bill’s grandfathering of existing agreements may also be relevant to stakeholders concerned about retroactive effects.
H5902 would amend Rhode Island General Laws chapter 34-4 by creating a new rule that voids and makes unenforceable restrictive covenants affecting grocery stores and similar fresh-food retail establishments, subject to a limited relocation exception. It would directly affect property owners, sellers, grocery operators, developers, and parties to land-use agreements by limiting the use of private covenants to restrict grocery store operations on designated retail sites.
No committee discussion or voting record was provided, so there is no documented legislative sentiment in the supplied materials. From the bill text and caption alone, the measure appears intended to support grocery access and retail continuity, suggesting a generally pro-consumer and pro-community policy rationale, but the provided record does not show whether lawmakers or stakeholders supported or opposed it.
The main potential point of contention is the bill’s restriction on private restrictive covenants, which may be viewed by some as an intrusion on contract and property rights. Another likely issue is the narrowness of the exception for relocating stores, including the one-half-mile limit, one-year reopening requirement, and 18-month cap on the covenant term. Stakeholders focused on redevelopment flexibility, landlord rights, or enforceability of existing land-use agreements may object, while advocates for food access and grocery preservation would likely support the bill.