Woonsocket Historical Soc. v. City of Woonsocket
| Decision Date | 02 June 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-362-A,77-362-A |
| Citation | 387 A.2d 530,120 R.I. 259 |
| Parties | , 12 ERC 1545 The WOONSOCKET HISTORICAL SOCIETY et al. v. CITY OF WOONSOCKET et al. ppeal. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
The plaintiffs here are the Woonsocket Historical Society and certain individuals acting in their capacities as taxpayers and residents of the city of Woonsocket on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated. They brought this action in the Superior Court against the city of Woonsocket, its mayor, departments, agents and servants, and its redevelopment agency; Frederick C. Williamson in his capacity as the Rhode Island Historic Preservation Officer; and Club Marquette, Inc., the owner of a certain building alleged to have historical significance. The action was brought to enjoin the demolition of a building known as St. Ann's Gymnasium or more lately as the Club Marquette Building (the building). The demolition of the building was planned by the redevelopment agency in the process of widening Cumberland Street in Woonsocket from its present width to a four-lane roadway.
The prayer for injunctive relief is based upon an alleged violation of the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 470a-t (1974). Section 470f of the statute reads as follows:
The NHPA was adopted in 1966 and was amended in 1976 to include properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register as well as those actually so included. The complaint alleges that the building was determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and that notification of this eligibility was given to the city of Woonsocket by a representative of the Secretary of the Interior on August 20, 1976, thus imposing the obligations of the statute upon federal agencies to take certain steps prior to the approval of the expenditure of any federal funds.
The complaint further alleges that the redevelopment agency had embarked upon a series of federally funded activities in the "Social Flatlands" area of Woonsocket pursuant to a general plan adopted by the city council in 1969 and has received in excess of $5,000,000 in federal grants since 1971. It appears undisputed by the parties, though not set forth in the complaint, that an ordinance adopting an urban renewal plan for this area known as "Neighborhood Development Program No. RI A-3-3" was passed and approved by the mayor on April 3, 1973, to become effective April 13, 1973. The instant action was commenced August 12, 1977.
Although the complaint alleges that a number of actions took place following the notice of eligibility of the building and that these actions were purportedly in compliance with section 800.5 of the "Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties," 36 C.F.R. § 800 (1977), established by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the complaint alleges that for various reasons the purported compliance was inadequate and insufficient.
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction since action had been commenced in excess of 30 days after the adoption of the urban renewal plan. The Superior Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs had failed to comply with that 30-day limitation established by G.L.1956 (1970 Reenactment) § 45-32-22. This statute had previously been construed quite stringently as barring any actions, including constitutional challenges, brought more than 30 days after the adoption of the redevelopment plan. Corrado v. Providence Redevelopment Agency, 105 R.I. 470, 252 A.2d 920 (1969). This strict interpretation was reaffirmed in Paiva v. Providence Redevelopment Agency, 116 R.I. 315, 356 A.2d 203 (1976).
The plaintiffs claim that the Superior Court had jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the NHPA and that the court was required to enjoin demolition of the building until procedures mandated by the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation were appropriately and properly obeyed.
It is significant to note at this juncture that the instant complaint does not seek to subject to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court the head of the federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over this undertaking.
The general rule as set forth by Professor Moore is that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction of federal questions unless such jurisdiction has been removed expressly or by necessary implication. 1 Moore, Federal Practice P 0.6 at 230-40 (2d ed. 1977). Indeed, the first Judiciary Act contemplated federal jurisdiction in the state courts subject only to review by the United States Supreme Court, and Congress did not vest federal question jurisdiction in the lower federal courts until 1875. Id. at 230-32. As succinctly stated in Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S. 130, 136, 23 L.Ed. 833, 838 (1876):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Preservation Coalition v. Federal Transit Admin.
...(holding that the NHPA imposes no duties upon state officials but only upon federal officials); Woonsocket Historical Soc'y v. City of Woonsocket, 120 R.I. 259, 387 A.2d 530, 532 (1978) (dismissing action against state officials under the NHPA because "[t]he mandate [of the NHPA] is directe......
-
Patterson v. The Bonnet Shores Fire District
... ... indispensable party. See Woonsocket Historical Society v ... City of Woonsocket , 120 ... ...
-
Patterson v. Bonnet Shores Fire Dist.
...of Civil Procedure provides for a motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party. See Woonsocket Historical Society v. City of Woonsocket, 120 R.I. 259, 387 A.2d 530 (1978). "Indispensable parties are persons who have an interest in the controversy of such a nature that a fina......