The above photo is of the pool area inside the Lighthouse Inn that has been abandoned by Procaccianti Developers.    

I filed a motion to open an investigation with the RI Attorney General's Office since the RIDEM informed me that Procaccianti Developers (PRIX) do not have a month-to-month lease to operate an illegal parking lot on leased land.   The RIDEM sent me a letter stating the Records Do Not Exist for a month-to-month lease, and they referred me to the RFP and the old lease.  They stated they were allowed Procaccianti Developers to be awarded the operation of the parking lot based on the RFP and the old lease.    This reasoning does not make sense.    Why did the RIDEM grant a 6-month extension to the previous lease that expired last summer if Procaccianti Developers would have been allowed to continue to operate the parking lot without a new lease?    When the RFP where all rejected, the RIDEM stated it wanted to award Procaccianti Developers with a 19-year parking lot lease, and that it would have to be approved by the State Properties Committee.   If Procaccianti Developers could continue to operate its lease based on the RFP and the old lease that was referenced as a source of reference to me, then why did they note a 19-year parking lot lease needs to be issued and approved by the State Properties Committee when the RIDEM rejected all of the proposals submitted for the RFP it generated?

I state the parking lot is being operated illegally as a Special Use Permit was never issued by the Town of Narragansett as required for parking to be allowed in the GB - Galilee Business Zone, and there is no evidence a legal lease has been signed for Procaccianti Developers to continue to operate a parking lot throughout this summer.   The area of land is zoned GB - Galilee Business, and it is intended to be used as a mixed-use development, and not primarily a parking lot.   In addition, the RFP that was generated jointly by the RIDEM and Procaccianti Developers stated the proposals for the entire 5-acre parcel had to help the State, the Town of Narragansett, and the Commercial Fishermen.  How is giving Procaccianti Developers 2 of the 3 lots to be used as a parking lot helping the State, the Town, and the Commercial Fishermen?  Procaccianti Developers also intentionally abandoned the Lighthouse Inn that was in direct violation to the 1990 lease that stated the property needed to be maintained.     No one is allowed to intentionally abandon his or her property, so it becomes a health, safety, and an environmental hazard.   Therefore, the RIDEM should not be able to award a lease to a private developer that has caused harm to the State, the Town, and the Environment.   Ironically, the RIDEM is supposed to protect the environment.    I feel a cease-and-desist order should be issued to the RIDEM and Procaccianti Developers for operating an illegal parking lot for all of the above reasons.  

In addition, the Town of Narragansett's Building Inspector should perform its own inspection of the Lighthouse Inn and determine if it has to be condemned in its entirety or if any of it is salvageable.  In addition, Procaccianti Developers should be charged for intentional abandonment of its building, summoned into court, and fined.   In addition, Procaccianti Developers should be responsible to pay for any demolition fees.

In an email from the Town Council President, I was informed the Town reached out to all of the parking lot operators in the Galilee Special District and asked them to apply for a Special Use Permit.    Two of the lots on the same side as the fishing vessels and the docks are zoned GFI, Galilee Fishing Industries, and the 2 parcels of land are supposed to be used for the fishing industry, but the 2 lots are being used for paid parking.    Therefore, it appears the Town of Narragansett has not been previously enforcing the zoning ordinances in that area.  I feel the 2 lots closest to the boats need to be issued a cease-and-desist order too as they are being used for parking in areas not zoned for parking..    Presently, the fishermen have no parking spaces allotted to them.   One of the GFI lots could allocate a portion of the lot for the fishermen to exclusively park their cars, but the lot should not be used for commercial parking.   The lots should be used to enhance and help the fishing industries.     The Town should request a copy of the parking lot leases for those lots zoned GFI, and verify the State Properties Committee Approved them.    If the State Properties Committee did not approve the leases, the leases should be null and void.   In addition, if the State Properties Committee did approve a parking lot lease on land not zoned for parking, the State Properties Committee should be required to revoke the lease as they approved a lease that is in violation to the Town of Narragansett's Ordinances.    

As recently as last week, Monday, August 8th, 2022, there were fights at Block Island and on the Block Island Ferry.   The amount of parking in Galilee needs to be regulated.    There is a zoning map in Narragansett that notes carrying capacity.   When the Galilee Master Development Plan was created and the Zoning was created for the area it was done for the purpose of helping the State, the Town, and the Commercial Fishermen.    If the State and the RIDEM allow more parking lots in Galilee for it to be used for people to go over to Block Island without utilizing the 5 acre parcel of land as it was intended to be used as a mixed use development, and if parcels zoned GFI, Galilee Fishing Industries are continued to be used for more parking where the majority of people use the parking lots to go to Block Island, we will continue to be exceeding the carrying capacity of the number of people who could safely go over to Block Island and return safely.    It was evident in the videos there were fights on Block Island and on the Ferry.  Potentially, people could have died.   If Block Island exceeds its carrying capacity by being overwhelmed and inundated with visitors, then its police, fire, and rescue will not be able to handle the crowds when problems do arrive.   Some fights in Block Island seemed out of control.   And the coast guard had to jump aboard the Ferry to impose law and order.   Both visitors and residents could also be put in a precarious and potentially deadly situation if the police, fire and rescue are reporting to incidence on what part of the island, and they cannot be available for an emergency on the other side of the island.   As there were not enough officers to be on the Block Island Ferry due to the excessive crowds, people on the Ferry could have died as a result of the fights.    If Galilee creates a showcase in the 5-acre parcel that encourages people to stay in Galilee, and lots that are NOT zoned for parking are instead used for their intended purpose to help the fishing industry, then the number of people getting over to Block Island will be limited to a number that is more manageable.   

Below is the email I sent to the RI AG's Office to encourage them to open the investigation on my behalf.  Several days later after they received the below email, the RI AG's Office opened up an investigation.   

Dear RI Attorney General's Office, 

I am wondering about my request for the RI Attorney General to open an investigation on the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) for the RIDEM failing to provide me records on a month-to-month lease for the parking lot that is being illegally operated.   It was noted in their correspondence to me no records are available.  They also noted that Procaccianti Developers can continue to operate the parking lot based on the terms outlined in the RFP and the attached documentation.   This reasoning is fallacious to me.   Why did the RIDEM even announce it wanted to award a 19-year parking lot lease that needed to be approved by the State Properties Committee if Procaccianti Developers can continue to operate its illegal parking lot without a lease approved by the State Properties Committee?    In an email from a Special Assistant to the RI Attorney General's Office, he informed me a 19-year parking lot lease has not been forwarded to the State Properties Committee for consideration.    Is there some type of loophole for our State Agencies to break the law in circumventing the law by not providing a lease that needs to be approved by the State Properties Committee that I am unaware of?    I do not think anyone can operate an illegal parking lot on land that is not zoned for a parking lot and does not have a Lease with a State Agency on Leased land without consequence?    Our Town of Narragansett will fight against the request for a parking lot lease approval on 2 of the 3 lots on the 5-acre parcel as the zoning for that area requires a Special Use Permit to operate a parking lot that the Town has not approved.   The RIDEM is supposed to be operating in a Fiduciary Capacity.  For all we know, without a lease, the RIDEM may not be getting any income at all from Procaccianti Developers.   The 6-month lease extension has already expired.    The State Properties Committee has not approved any more leases outside of the 6-month extension.    Your help in this matter would be most appreciated as we are all fighting for openness and transparency in our Governmental Agencies.     We all saw what had happened in Block Island where a retired judge stepped in and tried to overturn the RI Attorney General's Office finding that Champlin Marina was illegally expanded upon.  Now the case is being heard by the RI Supreme Court.   Let us hope the Supreme Court does not call in a retired judge to hear the case.

                                        Respectfully Submitted,  Dr. Albert Alba   

Below is the letter from the RI Attorney General's Office noting they are opening an investigation on my behalf.  

August 10, 2022

Dr. Albert Alba aalbaphd@gmail.com

Re:      Alba v. Department of Environmental Management [8-10-2022]
 

Dear Dr. Alba:

I am in receipt of your Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”) complaint filed against the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (“DEM”). By correspondence dated August 9, 2022, you allege that DEM violated the APRA by failing to provide records responsive to your request for a month-to-month lease with Procaccianti Developers and for failing to respond to your administrative appeal.1

In accordance with our policy, a copy of your complaint will be sent to legal counsel for the above- mentioned entity, along with our investigatory request. We will request that legal counsel forward its response to you so that you may have one opportunity to rebut DEM’s response. Your rebuttal should be limited to the matters addressed in DEM’s response and should not raise new issues that were not presented in your complaint or addressed in DEM’s response. You have five (5) business days from receipt of the DEM’s response to provide a rebuttal to this Office.

 Please note that after this opportunity to respond, neither party will be allowed additional response without permission or inquiry from this Office. After the expiration of this timeframe, we shall conduct our investigation based upon the evidence presented in the parties’ written submissions. If you have any additional information that you wish this Office to consider, or if this acknowledgment letter does not accurately reflect your complaint, please contact me in writing within five (5) business days. After the expiration of this five (5) business day period from receipt of this letter, no further correspondences will be accepted by this Office without permission, besides your rebuttal. In addition, please confirm (by cc or otherwise) that any additional correspondence sent to this Office was also forwarded to legal counsel the public body, Joseph LoBianco, Esquire, Joseph.lobianco@dem.ri.gov.

1 To the extent your complaint raises additional allegations, such as the propriety of the lease with Procaccianti Developers or anything involving the State Properties Committee, these allegations are outside of our authority under the APRA and will not be investigated. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-8(a).

Alba v. Department of Environmental Management [8-10-2022] Page 2

You should also be advised that at all times during this Office’s investigation of this matter, and if necessary during all judicial proceedings, the Office of Attorney General serves only as the attorney for the State of Rhode Island. This Office does not, and cannot, represent or act as an attorney for either the complaining party (individual) or the respondent (public body). Nothing prohibits either the complaining party or the respondent from obtaining their own legal counsel to represent their interests in this matter and nothing prohibits you from pursuing this complaint in the Superior Court, rather than pursuing it with the Office of Attorney General.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Please ensure that all parties, Complainant and Respondent, are copied on all communications regarding this Complaint.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Kayla E. O’Rourke

Kayla E. O’Rourke

Special Assistant Attorney General korourke@riag.ri.gov