Follow us on social media:
Rhode Island
Superior Court judge upholds Barrington property owners’ right to block public access to seawall • Rhode Island Current
If it’s not in writing, you can’t enforce it.
So ruled Rhode Island Associate Justice Kristen Rodgers in an Aug. 9 decision, affirming a Barrington couple’s argument that they should not have to maintain a public access walkway along a seawall at the edge of their property because the public access permit wasn’t included in land records until years later.
Rodgers’ 18-page order overturns a December decision by the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, calling its decree to maintain public access to the seawall “non-sensical” and “in no support of the law.”
“Accepting CRMC’s conclusion would mandate that every unrecorded interest in property will ultimately become enforceable against bona fide purchaser for value whenever that unrecorded interest surfaces,” Rodgers wrote in the decision.
CRMC affirms public access along Barrington seawall despite lack of documentation
The ruling is the latest twist in a three-year battle between state coastal regulators and Holly and Lance Sheffield, who purchased the six-bedroom home on Barrington’s Nayatt Road in May 2021. The couple has insisted in oral and written testimony that they had no idea the 430-foot-long seawall separating their property from Narragansett Bay must include a 2-foot-wide public path to the adjacent public access point on Elm Lane.
Daniel Procaccini Jr., the attorney representing the Sheffields, said his clients were pleased with the decision.
“The Court recognized what they have said from the very beginning—CRMC cannot enforce an unrecorded assent against unknowing, innocent homeowners,” Procaccini said in an email Tuesday. “It is disappointing that my clients had to spend the better part of 3 years litigating this issue through multiple appeals to obtain a ruling that was obvious from the outset. The Sheffields are now looking forward to putting this issue behind them and to enjoying the same level of privacy that any homeowner could expect.”
But the dispute may not be settled.
“The CRMC is reviewing the court’s decision and is considering appealing it to the Supreme Court,” Laura Dwyer, an agency spokesperson, said in an email Tuesday.
The 1982 permit requiring the public access point was never entered into land records, because state law didn’t require such recordings until 1988. Further obscuring access to the information were subdivisions of the land and multiple sales since the 1982 permit.
But after the couple put up wire fencing, cameras, and later a security guard to block alleged “trespassers,” state coastal regulators intervened, issuing a pair of cease and desist orders in September 2021 and May 2022 based on the 1982 public access permit.
The dispute landed in Providence County Superior Court in March 2023 because the council failed to respond to the Sheffields’ petition to administratively dismiss the public access requirement within the time frame set out by state law. A judge sent the issue back to the CRMC in November 2023 with a strict, 20-day deadline to make its decision. The council upheld public access to the path, maintaining that the Sheffields’ plea of ignorance did not let them flout state law enshrining shoreline access. Less than a week later, the Sheffields through their attorney appealed the decision back to Superior Court. The December complaint alleges the council was “arbitrary, capricious and legally erroneous,” pointing to the lack of case law or state statute cited by the council to back up its decision.
“Indeed, in CRMC’s revisionist history, it appears no court had any occasion to comment on this unique exception to an otherwise well-understood and broadly applicable doctrine,” the complaint states.
The CRMC in response pointed to new evidence shared in the Sheffields’ court testimony — but not previously included in its public decision process — regarding Holly Sheffield’s familiarity with state coastal regulations; in other words, she should have known to investigate potential rules around the seawall. The CRMC argued the omitted information meant the decision should be sent back (again) to the state agency.
But Rodgers disagreed, instead siding with the Sheffields based on state law allowing for judicial review when all other administrative options for contested cases were “exhausted.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
New East Bay Bike Path bridges are open and ready for bikes
What’s it like to ride over the new East Bay Bike Path bridges? We sent a reporter to try them out.
I’ve long thought bike paths are among Rhode Island’s premier attractions, up there with the beaches, the mansions and the bay.
We like to knock government, but credit where it’s due, the state has done an amazing job building out an incredible pedaling network.
It’s clearly a priority.
At least I thought it was.
But they’ve just dropped the ball on what should have been a beautiful new stretch.
The plan was to finish a mile-long connector from the East Providence end of the Henderson Bridge all the way to the East Bay Bike Path.
There was even $25 million set aside to get it done.
Except WPRI recently reported that it’s now been canceled.
The main fault lies with the Trump administration, which is no friend of bike paths, and moved to kill that $25 million.
But it gets complicated, as government funding always does.
To try to rescue that money, the state DOT reportedly worked with the administration to refunnel it into a road project. Specifically, the $25 million will now be spent helping upgrade the mile-long highway between the Henderson Bridge and North Broadway in East Providence, turning it into a more pleasant boulevard.
That totally sounds worthy.
But it’s insane to throw away the bike path plan.
Especially for a particular reason in this case.
They’d already put a ton of money into starting it.
When state planners designed the new Henderson Bridge between the East Side and East Providence, they included a bike path.
It’s a beauty – well protected from traffic by a barrier, a great asset for safely riding over the Seekonk River.
The plan was to continue it another mile or so along East Providence’s Waterfront Drive, ultimately connecting with the East Bay Bike Path, which runs all the way to Bristol. Which, by the way, is one of the nicest bike paths you’ll find anywhere.
But alas, that connector plan has been canceled.
So the expensive stretch over the Henderson Bridge to East Providence is now a bike path to nowhere. Once the bridge ends, the path on it continues a few hundred yards or so and then, just … ends.
Too bad.
We were so close.
Most of the stories on the issue have been about the complex negotiation to rescue the $25 million by rerouting it to that nearby highway-to-boulevard project. But I don’t want to get lost in the weeds of that bureaucratic process here because it loses sight of the heart of this story.
Which is that an amazing new addition to one of the nation’s best state bike path systems has just been scrapped.
You can knock the Rhode Island government for blowing a lot of things.
The PawSox.
The Washington Bridge.
But they’ve done great with bike paths.
And especially, linking many of them together.
Example: not too many years ago, Providence bikers had to risk dicey traffic on the East Side to get to the more pleasant paths in India Point Park and on the 195 bridge to the East Bay Path.
But the state fixed that by adding an amazing connector that starts behind the Salvation Army building and beautifully winds along the water of the Seekonk River for a mile or so.
That makes a huge difference – and no doubt has avoided some bike-car accidents.
We were close to a comparable stretch on the other side of the river – that’s what the $25 million would have done.
But it’s now apparently dead.
Online commenters aren’t happy about it.
On a Reddit string, “Toadscoper” accused the state of being “complicit” with the feds in rerouting the money from bikes to cars.
And there was this fascinating post from FineLobster 5322, who apparently is a disappointed planner who worked on the project: “Mind you money has already been spent on phase one so rejecting it at this point is wasting money and also against the public interest … but what do I know? I only worked on the project as an engineer … I didn’t get into this to build more highways. I do it … to give back to communities and give them more access to their environment.”
Wow. One can imagine the state planning team is devastated. That’s not a small consideration. Good people go into government to make life better in Rhode Island, and it’s a bad play to take the spirit out of the job by first assigning a great human-scale project and then, after a ton of work, trashing it.
A poster named Homosapiens simply said, “We just accept this?”
Hopefully not.
The first stretch of the path over the Henderson Bridge is done, money already sunk.
What a shame to leave that as a path to nowhere.
It doesn’t have to happen.
Between Governor McKee and our Washington delegation, there’s got to be a way to get this done.
There’s got to be.
mpatinki@providencejournal.com
WARWICK, R.I. (WPRI) — Two people are dead and another person seriously hurt after a crash involving two vehicles on the highway in Warwick Saturday.
Rhode Island State Police said the crash happened around 1:34 p.m. on the ramp from Route 113 West to I-95 South.
According to police, a Hyundai SUV that was driving in the middle lane of the highway started to drift to the right, crossed the first lane, and then crossed onto the on-ramp lane. The car struck the guardrail twice before driving through the grass median.
The Hyundai then struck the driver’s side of a Mercedes SUV that was on the ramp, causing the Mercedes to roll over and come to a rest. The impact sent the Hyundai over the guardrail and down an embankment.
The driver of the Hyundai, a 73-year-old man, and his passenger, a 69-year-old woman, were both pronounced dead at the hospital.
A woman who was in the Mercedes was rushed to Rhode Island Hospital in critical condition.
State police said all lanes of traffic were reopened by 4:30 p.m.
The investigation remains ongoing.
Download the WPRI 12 and Pinpoint Weather 12 apps to get breaking news and weather alerts.
Watch 12 News Now on WPRI.com or with the free WPRI 12+ TV app.
A federal judge on Friday tossed the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) lawsuit aiming to force Rhode Island to hand over its voter information as part of the Trump administration’s push to acquire voter data from several states.
Rhode Island U.S. District Court Judge Mary McElroy wrote that federal law does not allow the DOJ “to conduct the kind of fishing expedition it seeks here,” siding with Rhode Island election officials. She added that the DOJ did not provide evidence to suggest that Rhode Island violated election law.
McElroy, a Trump appointee, wrote that she sided with the similar decision in Oregon. That decision ruled that the DOJ was not entitled to unredacted voter registration lists.
“Absent from the demand are any factual allegations suggesting that Rhode Island may be violating the list maintenance requirements,” she said in her ruling.
Rhode Island Secretary of State Gregg Amore (D) praised McElroy’s decision. He said in a statement that the Trump administration “seems to have no problem taking actions that are clear Constitutional overreaches, regularly meddling in responsibilities that are the rights of the states.”
“Today’s decision affirms our position: the United States Department of Justice has no legal right to – or need for – the personally-identifiable information in our voter file,” he said. “Voter list maintenance is a responsibility entrusted to the states, and I remain confident in the steps we take here in Rhode Island to keep our list as accurate as possible.”
The Hill reached out to the DOJ for comment.
The DOJ called for the voter lists as it investigated Rhode Island’s compliance with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which allowed Americans to register to vote when they apply for a driver’s license.
The DOJ sued at least 30 states, as well as Washington, D.C., in December demanding their respective voter data. This data includes birth dates, names and partial Social Security numbers.
At least 12 states have given or said they will give the DOJ their voter registration lists, according to a tracker operated by the Brennan Center for Justice.
The department stated after it lost a similar suit against Massachusetts earlier this month that it had “sweeping powers” to access the voter data and that, if states fail to comply, courts have a “limited, albeit vital, role” in directing election officers on behalf of the administration to produce the records. The DOJ cited the Civil Rights Act as being intended to unearth alleged election law violations.
Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
-
Movie Reviews55 seconds agoFILM REVIEW: ROSE OF NEVADA – Joyzine
-
World13 minutes ago
Oil prices rise anew after a US-Iran standoff in the Strait of Hormuz strands tankers
-
News19 minutes agoVideo: 8 Children Killed in Louisiana Shooting, Police Say
-
Culture55 minutes agoPoetry Challenge: Memorize “The More Loving One” by W.H. Auden
-
Lifestyle1 hour agoPhotos: How overfishing in Southeast Asia is an ecological and human crisis
-
Technology1 hour agoBlue Origin successfully reused its New Glenn rocket
-
World1 hour agoDistress call captures tanker under fire, Iran shuts Hormuz trapping thousands of sailors
-
Politics1 hour agoTrump ally diGenova tapped to lead DOJ probe into Brennan over Russia probe origins
