The State of Rhode Island quietly passed a law in 2023 that allowed it to take over private property without paying a cent. Now, at least one property owner is fighting back.
The law moved the public beach boundary line further inland—right onto private property. It stripped property owners of the right to exclude the public from dry sand areas that were previously considered private.
David Welch, who owns a small beachfront home on stilts in South Kingstown, filed a lawsuit alleging that the law constitutes a direct assault on his property rights.
“They moved essentially—transferred the public beach, or expanded it rather… from what’s called the wet beach area… inland to the dry beach area, which is private property,” said David Breemer, senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, who is representing Welch in a lawsuit against the state.
Breemer told Townhall that Rhode Island’s actions are a brazen act of “government land theft.” This battle will not only decide whether Welch’s property rights will be respected, but also those of thousands of coastal properties in the state.
Traditionally, the public-private boundary on Rhode Island beaches has been the mean high tide line. It’s not a visible line, but the state and US Supreme court both recognized it as the clear barrier between private and public land.
However, the 2023 law extended the public access line ten feet inward into the dry sand where private homes like Welch’s are located. This legislation granted the public a new easement onto land that was privatedly owned without compensating property owners or even informing them of the change.
Stilts LLC, Welch’s legal entity that owns the property, filed suit arguing that the law is a per se taking under the Fifth Amendment. The Superior Court sided with Welch and denied Rhode Island’s motion for summary judgment. However, the state appealed the ruling, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court will decide the matter.
But the story doesn’t end here.
Rather than settling the matter in court, the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) decided to employ a new tactic. The agency implemented a new rule requiring property owners to “voluntarily” surrender their land to public access as a condition for obtaining building permits.
This means that if a storm hits and causes damage to one’s home, they have to obtain a permit before repairing the damage. Yet, with this new rule, they are forced to relinquish their property rights to get the permit.
“They’re saying, ‘We’ll give you a permit if you agree to donate your land to a public beach,’” Breemer told Townhall. “And they’re doing this to everybody.”
“Let’s say David Welch ultimately wins… if he has to agree to conditions in the meantime to get a permit, he would win but lose,” Breemer continued. “He’d be stuck with that [easement] forever—even though a court is saying it’s unconstitutional.”
The attorney described this rule as “an underground de facto policy now of requiring you to agree to give up some of your property.”
He added, “But it’s not voluntarily because you’re over a barrel.”
The CRMC’s permit requirements weren’t limited only to grabbing more land. It also included a clause granting the state the right to inspect private property “at all times.” This means people like Welch would be subject to random inspections if they want to obtain a permit to build or conduct repairs on their own property.
Yet, even this rule has already been addressed by the high court. “The Supreme Court has held that you can’t require people who are seeking a government permit or benefit to waive or give up their constitutional rights in order to get that permit,” said Breemer.
When state governments wish to take private property, they typically go through the eminent domain process. Under the takings clause, the state is required to pay a fair price for any property seized through eminent domain. This appears to be the reason why Rhode Island is seeking to take property without eminent domain.
“They don’t want to use eminent domain… they just declare that it’s public,” Breemer explained. “They’re always trying to get something for nothing because beach property is expensive.”
Coastal access activists, who believe that no part of a beach should be privately owned, have supported Rhode Island’s law. They insist that it has become too difficult to enforce public access and complain about people getting “yelled at” for walking on sand located on private property.
Breemer had a simple answer for those making these arguments. “Buy it. You want a public trail through private property? Buy it. You want public access in Rhode Island? Buy it,” he said.
The attorney noted that this entire case boils down to property rights.
“Property owners want to keep the right to tell someone to leave if they need to,” he said. “That’s the point… the state government’s taking away your right of control over your property.”