Advisory Opinion to Governor, In re
Decision Date | 06 August 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 74-207-M,74-207-M |
Parties | In re ADVISORY OPINION TO the GOVERNOR. P. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Pursuant to amend. XII, sec. 2, of the state constitution, Your Excellency has requested our written opinion on seven specific questions which relate to two acts passed by the General Assembly at its January, 1974, session. The two acts are 74-H 7356, Substitute A, which is entitled 'An Act Establishing a State Department of Economic Development,' and 74-H 7788, Substitute A, which is entitled 'An Act Relating to Surplus Federal Property and Property Reverting to the State of Rhode Island.'
The first, 74-H 7356, Substitute A (hereinafter Port Authority Act) established, inter alia, the Rhode Island Port Authority and Economic Development Corporation (hereinafter Port Authority), which is a public corporation created to promote economic development within the state by acquiring and developing real and personal property. The second, 74-H 7788, Substitute A (hereinafter Federal Lands Act), (1) empowers the Port Authority 'to acquire and receive as agent of the State of Rhode Island' certain real and personal property which the federal government has or will declare surplus (hereinafter surplus lands) and dispose of under federal law, and (2) empowers the Governor, with the approval of the State Properties Committee, to transfer, grant, and convey to the Port Authority certain real property, which by virtue of P.L.1939, chap. 696, has or will revert to the state (hereinafter reverter lands). Under sec. 3 of the Federal Lands Act, the Port Authority is authorized to use and dispose of the surplus and reverter lands in accordance with its corporate purposes.
Your Excellency informs us that the Port Authority, in the near future, will have taken all the required steps necessary to perfect its organization and soon thereafter plans to issue bonds and undertake the development of projects pursuant to its charter. In order to discharge Your Excellency's duties as Governor and to enable the Port Authority to become operative, issue bonds, and use and dispose of the surplus lands, reverter lands, and other properties, Your Excellency has requested our opinion on the following questions of law:
(1) Does the capital reserve fund deficiency provision contained in Section 18 of the Port Authority Act, under which the General Assembly in any given year may be asked to restore said fund to the minimum capital reserve fund requirement established for the fund, violate Article XXXI, Section 1, of Amendments to the Rhode Island Constitution in that a state debt is incurred, or a pledge of the faith of the state for the payment of the obligation of others is made, without the consent of the people?
(2) Do the purposes for which the General Assembly enacted the Port Authority Act constitute public purposes, and not local or private purposes, within the purview of Article IV, Section 14 of the State Constitution thereby permitting the General Assembly to approve an appropriation bill submitted by the Governor pursuant to paragraph (d) of section 18 of said Act by a simple majority vote?
(3) Do the provisions of the Port Authority Act constitute a violation of Sections 2 and 10 of Article IV as an unlawful delegation of legislative authority and of Article III as a violation of the distribution of power provision of the State Constitution?
(4) Are the surplus lands described and designated in Section 1 of the Federal Lands Act 'public property' within the purview of Article IV, Section 14 of the State Constitution?
(5) If the answer to question 4 is in the affirmative, does the Federal Lands Act constitute a bill appropriating such 'public property' (i.e. the surplus lands and the reverter lands) within the purview of Article IV, Section 14 of the State Constitution?
(6) If the answers to question 4 and 5 are both in the affirmative, can the Port Authority, after it has received title from the State to said surplus lands pursuant to the authority and directive set forth in the Federal Lands Act validly sell, convey, mortgage, pledge, lease, exchange, transfer and otherwise dispose of said surplus lands for such consideration and upon such terms and conditions as it shall determine without each such sale, conveyance, mortgage, pledge, lease, exchange, transfer or other disposition thereof having been assented to by two-thirds of the members elected to each House of the General Assembly as provided for in Article IV, Section 14 of the State Constitution?
(7) Can the Port Authority, upon acquisition of title to said reverter lands pursuant to the authority and directive set forth in the Federal Lands Act, validly sell, convey, mortgage, pledge, lease, exchange, transfer and otherwise dispose of said reverter lands for such consideration and upon such terms and conditions as it shall determine without each such sale, conveyance, mortgage, pledge, lease, exchange, transfer or other disposition thereof having been assented to by two-thirds of the members elected to each House of the General Assembly as provided for in Article IV, Section 14 of the State Constitution?
Under sec. 18 1 the Port Authority is authorized to establish certain capital reserve funds. This section further provides that each capital reserve fund is required to have a minimum capital reserve. The first question concerns the constitutionality of the capital reserve fund deficiency provision, which is found in para. d of this section.
Section 18(d) provides as follows:
(Emphasis added.)
The question asked is whether this provision violates amend. XXXI, sec. 1, of the state constitution, which provides:
This question was considered in Opinion to the Governor, 112 R.I. 151, 308 A.2d 809 (1973). There we were asked whether the capital reserve deficiency fund provision of the Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage Finance Corporation Act 2 violated amend XXXI, sec. 1. We advised that the capital reserve fund deficiency provision of that act did not constitute the incurrence of a debt or pledge of the state's credit because the General Assembly retained its right to concur or disagree with the Governor's budgetary recommendations. Id. at 157-58, 308 A.2d at 812.
The capital reserve fund deficiency provision found in sec. 18(d) of the Port Authority Act is virtually identical to the one we considered in Opinion to the Governor, 112 R.I. 151, 308 A.2d 809 (1973). There is nothing in this act which would cause us to change our opinion on the constitutionality of this provision. Accordingly, it is our opinion that sec. 18(d) does not violate amend. XXXI, sec. 1. We, therefore, answer this question in the negative.
Article IV, sec. 14, of the state constitution provides: 'The assent of two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the general assembly shall be required to every bill appropriating the public money or property for local or private purposes.' The second question is whether the purposes for which the Port Authority Act was promulgated are 'public purposes' and not local or private in nature within the scope of art. IV, sec. 14, thereby permitting the General Assembly to approve an appropriation bill submitted to the Governor under sec. 18(d) by a simple majority vote. For the reasons hereinafter expressed, it is our opinion that the purposes set forth in this act are public.
In sec. 2 3 of the Port Authority Act, the General Assembly has made several findings to support the need for the enactment of this legislation. That section, in its most pertinent parts, reads:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cranston Police Retirees Action Comm. v. City of Cranston
...findings as to the purpose of legislation are "entitled to great deference by the judiciary." In re Advisory Opinion to Governor , 113 R.I. 586, 593, 324 A.2d 641, 646 (1974). Therefore, we are of the opinion that the trial justice did not err by according these findings some deference.14 I......
-
Maready v. City of Winston-Salem
...249 Or. 329, 438 P.2d 725 (1968); Basehore v. Hampden Indus. Dev. Auth., 433 Pa. 40, 248 A.2d 212 (1968); In Re Advisory Opinion to Governor, 113 R.I. 586, 324 A.2d 641 (1974); Nichols v. South Carolina Research Auth., 290 S.C. 415, 351 S.E.2d 155 (1986); Clem v. City of Yankton, 83 S.D. 38......
-
In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor
...to address Your Excellency's questions in the context of an advisory opinion. We held clearly in In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 113 R.I. 586, 597, 324 A.2d 641, 647 (1974), that this Court will not issue advisory opinions which require a direct or indirect exercise of our fact-find......
-
Rhode Island Economic Dev. V. Parking Co.
...69 A.2d at 535 (citing Narragansett Electric Lighting Co., 50 R.I. at 298, 146 A. at 782). See also In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 113 R.I. 586, 593, 324 A.2d 641, 646 (1974) (When deciding if a condemnation comports with the Takings Clause, "the self-serving recitation of a public......