The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently ruled that a state law allowing a specific liquor license in Providence must have local voter approval. This decision affects Myles Standish Associates, LP, who opposed the license for Estiatorio at 225 Waterman Street. The ruling emphasizes the importance of local governance and the rights of voters in home rule municipalities.
The case, Myles Standish Associates, LP v. The City of Providence, was filed after the Providence Board of Licenses granted a liquor license to Estiatorio, despite objections from Standish and other nearby property owners. The court's decision highlights the need for local voter consent in matters that pertain specifically to a city's governance.
The dispute began when Estiatorio applied for a liquor license in July 2022. Myles Standish and other property owners within a 200-foot radius objected to the application, which led to the Board of Licenses being unable to issue the license. In response, Estiatorio lobbied the Rhode Island General Assembly to enact a special law allowing the Board to override local objections. The General Assembly passed the law, known as § 3-7-19(d)(63), without local voter approval.
After the Board granted the liquor license to Estiatorio, Standish appealed to the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation (DBR), arguing that the special act was unconstitutional because it lacked local voter approval. The DBR issued a decision that stayed the issuance of the license and remanded the matter back to the Board for further proceedings. Standish then filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the special act violated the Rhode Island Constitution.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court, led by Justice Long, reviewed the case and found that the trial justice had misinterpreted the Rhode Island Constitution. The court ruled that the special act was void because it did not receive local voter approval, as required by article 13, section 4 of the Rhode Island Constitution. The court stated, "the special act relates to a particular city because it specifically refers to the City of Providence," and thus required local approval.
The court's ruling emphasized that the General Assembly cannot unilaterally enact laws that affect only one municipality without local voter consent. The decision aligns with previous court rulings that assert the importance of local governance and the rights of voters in home rule municipalities. The court vacated the judgment of the Superior Court and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of Myles Standish.
This ruling has significant implications for local governance in Rhode Island. It reinforces the principle that local voters have the right to approve or reject laws that specifically affect their municipality. This decision may also set a precedent for future cases involving local governance and the authority of the General Assembly in matters that pertain to specific cities or towns.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether the City of Providence or Estiatorio will seek to appeal the decision. However, the ruling underscores the importance of local voter approval in matters of municipal governance and may influence how similar cases are handled in the future.