Requires all entities delegated eminent domain powers under this section to adopt a plan and approval prior to exercising such power for a public purpose.
Summary
H6112 amends Rhode Island’s eminent domain law to add procedural requirements before any entity with delegated eminent domain authority may use that power for public purposes. The bill expands the chapter’s focus beyond economic development takings and requires a governing-body-approved plan before a taking begins. That plan must describe the development purpose, community benefits, needed infrastructure, any substandard or environmental conditions to be addressed, and the parcels to be acquired. It must also support a rational-basis finding that the public benefits outweigh any incidental private benefits.
The bill also requires public notice, a public hearing, and at least a 30-day public comment period before adoption of the plan. Property owners must receive advance notice of a potential taking and an opportunity to negotiate a sale at a mutually agreed price. For economic development takings, local projects would need city or town council approval, while state projects would need approval by an act of the General Assembly. The act would take effect immediately upon passage.
Impact
The bill would revise §§ 42-64.12-6 and 42-64.12-7 of the General Laws governing eminent domain by broadening the chapter’s application and imposing new procedural safeguards on the exercise of condemnation authority. It would affect state agencies, municipalities, and other entities with delegated eminent domain powers by requiring formal planning, public participation, owner notice, and higher-level approval before certain takings, especially those tied to economic development. It also removes the prior limitation that these restrictions applied only to economic development purposes, making the planning and approval framework applicable to public-purpose takings under the section.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the measure appears to reflect a cautious, oversight-oriented approach to eminent domain rather than a controversial policy shift. Its structure suggests support for transparency, due process, and limiting arbitrary takings by requiring documented public benefits and public review. No formal vote history or transcript record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from legislators or stakeholders in the available materials.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be the bill’s expansion of procedural hurdles for eminent domain, especially the requirement for detailed planning, public comment, and approval by elected bodies before takings can proceed. Supporters would likely view these provisions as protections for property owners and communities, while critics may argue they could slow infrastructure, redevelopment, or public-works projects and make it harder for governments to act quickly. Another possible issue is the bill’s extension of the framework beyond economic development to broader public-purpose takings, which could raise questions about how much discretion public entities retain.