Block Island, RI Regulations Report 2020

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

For this one, they can. If it's a town facility that's paid for by local property taxes, they absolutely have the right to limit it to town residents only or to charge out-of-town users.

A charge can be required for use, that is often the practice, but in the USA one in not allowed to limit a public land access or use to just local residents. There can be restrictions of use, such occupancy constraints, types of activities, time of use, noise levels, alcohol, smoking, etc. but the restrictions have to apply equally to residents and non-residents.

The legal issue being founded in the first amendment of the US Constitution:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The highlighted rights above are the basis for not restricting a place as a forum of speech, or a place for peaceable assembly or to petition the government for redress of grievances. Although I suppose someone could also pursue free exercise of religion such a prayer service on public lands and pursue non-resident rights under the prohibition of free exercise of religion on public spaces. E.g. Muslim salat during the five salah times, or say, an Easter sunrise service.

There have been numerous court cases in State and Federal that have resolved this.

[Woodland Hills]

[QUOTE=rslifkin;3138311]For this one, they can. If it's a town facility that's paid for by local property taxes, they absolutely have the right to limit it to town residents only or to charge out-of-town


They can charge non-residents, but cannot ban them. If it is a private community and there is a community center paid for with HOA funds they can ban non-residents, like the clubhouse bar at a private golf course, are you saying that is the situation at Block Island? Is Block Island a private club restricted to members only?

[ixnax]

Originally Posted by Montanan

A charge can be required for use, that is often the practice, but in the USA one in not allowed to limit a public land access or use to just local residents. There can be restrictions of use, such occupancy constraints, types of activities, time of use, noise levels, alcohol, smoking, etc. but the restrictions have to apply equally to residents and non-residents.

The legal issue being founded in the first amendment of the US Constitution:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The highlighted rights above are the basis for not restricting a place as a forum of speech, or a place for peaceable assembly or to petition the government for redress of grievances. Although I suppose someone could also pursue free exercise of religion such a prayer service on public lands and pursue non-resident rights under the prohibition of free exercise of religion on public spaces. E.g. Muslim salat during the five salah times, or say, an Easter sunrise service.

There have been numerous court cases in State and Federal that have resolved this.

"There have been numerous court cases in State and Federal that have resolved this."

Fascinating. Could you please direct my attention to those cases? In particular to the case law that addresses how First Amendment freedom of assembly rights translate into an eminent domain access to a local municipalities investments when paid for by the municipalities local tax dollars.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by ixnax

"There have been numerous court cases in State and Federal that have resolved this."

Fascinating. Could you please direct my attention to those cases? In particular to the case law that addresses how First Amendment freedom of assembly rights translate into an eminent domain access to a local municipalities investments when paid for by the municipalities local tax dollars.

My server access to my law data search is down as our IT person is away from the office and has to travel back to reset.

Here is a well analyzed case I found by Googling.

http://cehdclass.gmu.edu/jkozlows/lawarts/10OCT01.pdf

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by ixnax

"There have been numerous court cases in State and Federal that have resolved this."

Fascinating. Could you please direct my attention to those cases? In particular to the case law that addresses how First Amendment freedom of assembly rights translate into an eminent domain access to a local municipalities investments when paid for by the municipalities local tax dollars.

This might be of interest as to local control over public lands during the Covid 19 quarantine. Touches on some places limiting access to locals, part of the broader travel restrictions and social distancing protocols; presumably directed to inhibiting non-local travellers.

Here in Montana, it appears that the major National Parks, Glacier and Yellowstone will open initially for day use only, no camping or back country, very limited services and facilities, lodges and restaurants closed, think find a tree or a bush to do your business, yes a bear does S&%$ in the forest. Lot's of discussions going on with the States, Counties and Cities near the parks as to how to deal with visitors. Montana still has a two week quarantine upon arrival into the state, Wyoming has discontinued their quarantine requirements.

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/en...-pandemic.html

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by ixnax

"There have been numerous court cases in State and Federal that have resolved this."

Fascinating. Could you please direct my attention to those cases? In particular to the case law that addresses how First Amendment freedom of assembly rights translate into an eminent domain access to a local municipalities investments when paid for by the municipalities local tax dollars.

Public Trust Doctrine.

Page 7:

https://www.monmouth.edu/uci/documen...ss-report.pdf/

[CarlF]

This really isn't a Constitutional issue. The town has a public health regulation that requires quarantining for 14 days for all people arriving on the island . The OP didn't want to do that on his boat and he didn't own or rent a house. So he can't come ashore - onto either public or private property.

But separately, it is common practice for decades for many towns to restrict access to public facilities like beaches to residents or long term renters. If it violates the Constitution, you'd think someone would have sued.

As an example, here is the regulation in the town of Bourne, Massachusetts for beach stickers. Non-residents can get a sticker for $50 (residents pay $25) but they also have to show a rental agreement for at least a 30 day stay.

https://www.townofbourne.com/sites/b...y_20160303.pdf

[ixnax]

Originally Posted by Montanan

My server access to my law data search is down as our IT person is away from the office and has to travel back to reset.

Here is a well analyzed case I found by Googling.

http://cehdclass.gmu.edu/jkozlows/lawarts/10OCT01.pdf

I'll wait for the case law counselor. In the meantime I will continue to hold that a dinghy dock is not a public forum.

[Cool Hand Luke]

And I booked 4th of July slip in Block Island for 5 days. Hmmmm... I wonder if it'll be cancelled.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Likely to be country specific legislation amending their rights under UNCLOS.

It is worth noting that UNCLOS is not law per se. International agreements under the auspices of the United Nation do not generally have the force of law until instantiated by law in countries. There are a large number of agreements that have universally (or nearly so) been adopted. IMO and ITU regulations regarding frequencies for marine radio, COLREGS (despite US variations in the Inland Rules), the Geneva Convention.

To my understanding "safe harbor" is not law. Again, I'll point out cruise ships turned away by multiple countries in the face of COVID-19.