Push to raise Block Island ferry landing fees moves forward at R.I. State House
Both New Shoreham and Narragansett are asking for a 50-cent increase to passenger landing fees to absorb the costs associated with providing municipal services, including public safety, for tourists, like those seen arriving here at the Port of Galilee in Narragansett. (Photo by Janine L. Weisman/Rhode Island Current)
Sailing away on the Block Island Ferry may soon cost more, pending the passage of state legislation that would increase traveler landing fees to and from the island for the first time in nearly 35 years.
Two companion proposals in the Rhode Island General Assembly — each with a Senate and House version, for a total of four separate bills — would authorize a 50-cent increase in the landing fees charged to passengers ages 12 and up arriving at both Narragansett's Port of Galilee and Block Island's Old Harbor. That would mean a total increase of $1 per passenger for a round-trip to and from the island.
'For every person that steps off the ferry, there is assessed a landing fee to help the municipalities cover expenses that they are responsible for on both sides of that journey, from police details to garbage pickup to area maintenance and things like that,' Sen. Alana DiMario, a Narragansett Democrat and sponsor of the two Senate bills, said at a May 27 committee hearing.
On Tuesday, the House and Senate floors will vote on their respective versions of the bill to up the fee on Block Island's side, and the House Committee on Municipal Government and Housing will hear the bill to raise the fee at Narragansett's port. The Senate passed its version of the Narragansett bill on June 3.
The price range of a round trip for riders aged 12 and up is between $16.60 and $20.60 for the traditional speed ferry, which takes about an hour from Galilee. The high-speed ferry takes about half an hour and costs $57 with the landing fee. The traditional ferry runs year round, while the high-speed service runs on a more limited timetable in the off-season.
At both ports, those prices add on a 50-cent surcharge for each passenger arriving by boat, which is collected from both private vessels and ferry operators, with the latter redirecting this surcharge into ticket prices. While Narragansett raised its landing fees from 35 cents to 50 cents in 2022, New Shoreham's fee has not budged since 1991. But the town services supported by the fees certainly have, according to Amy Land, New Shoreham's interim town manager, the only municipality on Block Island.
'This includes funding for seasonal police staff, support for the Block Island Medical Center, for fire, for rescue services, recreation, maintenance of public restrooms, improvements to beaches and public access,' Land told the House Committee on Municipal Government and Housing at a May 1 hearing on the New Shoreham bill.
'So all those expenses that are derived from our tourist economy, and clearly the volume and costs of providing those services have increased and escalated in the 35 years since the landing fee was first introduced,' she added.
A hot summer's day on Block Island can draw 20,000 to 30,000 tourists on average, Land said. In recent years, the town has typically grossed about $180,000 to $190,000 in landing fees annually.
Land said the majority of landing fee revenue — about $135,000 — comes from Interstate Navigation's ferry from Galilee. An additional $35,000 is collected from ferries out of New London, Connecticut, and Orient, New York. Smaller amounts flow from the Montauk ferry, plus passengers on ships that use the town's moorings, anchorages, and dockage. Land said the town is also collaborating with private marinas to have them collect and remit landing fees on the town's behalf.
'That seems like your collection is low, comparatively, because the only way to get there is by boat,' said Charlestown Democratic Rep. Tina Spears, who sponsored the bill on the House side.
'Not necessarily,' Land replied. 'We are confident that our primary channel, Interstate, is remitting fairly and appropriately. You may have people who come and stay for an extended period. You have others that come and go. So the timing of visitors is something we've always been challenged to document.'
For every person that steps off the ferry, there is assessed a landing fee to help the municipalities cover expenses that they are responsible for on both sides of that journey, from police details to garbage pickup to area maintenance and things like that.
– Sen. Alana DiMario, a Narragansett Democrat
Rep. Lauren Carson, a Newport Democrat, suggested New Shoreham should raise landing fees more, then nodded to her own successful legislation last year that saw Newport raise its fees for docked cruise ships from $6 to $20 per passenger.
'We are hoping to come back more frequently over time,' Land said.
In the Senate Committee on Housing and Municipal Government, Chair Jake Bissaillon, a Providence Democrat, had only one question for lobbyist Rick McAuliffeof The Mayforth Group, which represents New Shoreham: Why wasn't the bill introduced alongside the previous Narragansett legislation in 2022?
'To be honest with you, we weren't prepared,' McAulliffe said. 'We wanted to make sure that we had a number that would justify the public safety and things that we have.'
McAuliffe said there are two State Police troopers who come to the island during the summer, plus additional police detail to handle the summer months' massive crowds. The medical center is 'very full' on a hot summer's day, he added.
'Certainly, tourism dollars are important to the island, but there's a cost to host so many residents, so many tourists,' McAulliffe said. 'I can't say we won't come back in another 35 years.'
In March, the New Shoreham Town Council originally considered asking the General Assembly for permission to raise the landing fee from the current 50 cents to $1.75 — a $1.25 increase. Councilors voted on March 27 to seek approval from the General Assembly for the $1.25 landing fee increase.
But at the April 2 council meeting, Interstate lawyer Michael McElroy said that such a drastic increase would trigger Narragansett to do the same and ultimately push round-trip landing costs to increase by $3.25 per passenger, according to the Block Island Times.
'$1.75 is a big deal and Narragansett will want to match it,' McElroy was quoted in the Times.
The New Shoreham Town Council revised its plan on April 9 to reduce the proposed increase to 50 cents, for a $1 landing fee on the island. DiMario's first bill submitted on April 16 had sought the $1.25 increase. A week later, councilors met with DiMario and Spears virtually to align their proposals on Smith Hill with the requested 50-cent increase.
McElroy's hunch about Narragansett was confirmed on May 19. On that night, the Narragansett Town Council approved a resolution for a 50-cent increase to match New Shoreham.
Interstate Navigation did not immediately respond to requests for comment for this story.
Each of the four bills must pass both the House and Senate before the legislation can arrive on the governor's desk. The bills would take effect upon passage.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
32 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Democrats are at odds over response as Trump announces the US has entered Israel-Iran war
After nearly two years of stark divisions over the war in Gaza and support for Israel, Democrats seemed to remain at odds over policy toward Iran. Progressives demanded unified opposition before President Donald Trump announced U.S. strikes against Tehran's nuclear program but party leaders were treading more cautiously. U.S. leaders of all stripes have found common ground for two decades on the position that Iran could not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. The longtime U.S. foe has supported groups that have killed Americans across the Mideast and threatened to destroy Israel. But Trump's announcement Saturday that the U.S. had struck three nuclear sites could become the Democratic Party's latest schism, just as it was sharply dividing Trump's isolationist 'Make America Great Again' base from more hawkish conservatives. Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, noted that in January, Trump suggested the U.S. could 'measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.' 'Today, against his own words, the president sent bombers into Iran,' Martin said in a statement. 'Americans overwhelmingly do not want to go to war. Americans do not want to risk the safety of our troops abroad.' Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, said the U.S. entering the war in Iran 'does not make America more secure.' 'This bombing was an act of war that risks retaliation by the Iranian regime,' Welch said in a statement. While progressives in the lead-up to the military action had staked out clear opposition to Trump's potential intervention, the party leadership played the safer ground of insisting on a role for Congress before any use of force. Martin's statement took a similar tact, stating, 'Americans do not want a president who bypasses our constitution and pulls us towards war without Congressional approval. Donald Trump needs to bring his case to Congress immediately.' Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine called Trump's actions, 'Horrible judgement' and said he'd 'push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.' Many prominent Democrats with 2028 presidential aspirations had been silent on the Israel-Iran war , even before Trump's announcement — underscoring how politically tricky the issue can be for the party. 'They are sort of hedging their bets,' said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of state who served under Democratic President Barack Obama and is now a strategist on foreign policy. 'The beasts of the Democratic Party's constituencies right now are so hostile to Israel's war in Gaza that it's really difficult to come out looking like one would corroborate an unauthorized war that supports Israel without blowback.' Progressive Democrats also are using Trump's ideas and words Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., had called Trump's consideration of an attack 'a defining moment for our party.' Khanna had introduced legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., that called on the Republican president to 'terminate' the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran unless 'explicitly authorized' by a declaration of war from Congress. Khanna used Trump's own campaign arguments of putting American interests first when the congressman spoke to Theo Von, a comedian who has been supportive of the president and is popular in the so-called 'manosphere' of male Trump supporters. 'That's going to cost this country a lot of money that should be being spent here at home,' said Khanna, who is said to be among the many Democrats eyeing the party's 2028 primary. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who twice sought the Democratic presidential nomination, had pointed to Trump's stated goal during his inaugural speech of being known as 'a peacemaker and a unifier.' 'Supporting Netanyahu's war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake,' Sanders said about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Sanders reintroduced legislation prohibiting the use of federal money for force against Iran, insisted that U.S. military intervention would be unwise and illegal and accused Israel of striking unprovoked. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York signed on to a similar bill from Sanders in 2020, but so far was holding off this time. Some believed the party should stake out a clear anti-war stance. 'The leaders of the Democratic Party need to step up and loudly oppose war with Iran and demand a vote in Congress,' said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama aide, on X. Mainstream Democrats are cautious, while critical The staunch support from the Democratic administration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for Israel's war against Hamas loomed over the party's White House ticket in 2024, even with the criticism of Israel's handling of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Trump exploited the divisions to make inroads with Arab American voters and Orthodox Jews on his way back to the White House. Today, the Israel-Iran war is the latest test for a party struggling to repair its coalition before next year's midterm elections and the quick-to-follow kickoff to the 2028 presidential race. The party will look to bridge the divide between an activist base that is skeptical of foreign interventions and already critical of U.S. support for Israel and more traditional Democrats and independents who make up a sizable, if not always vocal, voting bloc. In a statement after Israel's first strikes on Iran, Schumer said Israel has a right to defend itself and 'the United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response.' Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., said 'the U.S. must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment.' Other Democrats have condemned Israel's strikes and accused Netanyahu of sabotaging nuclear talks with Iran. They are reminding the public that Trump withdrew in 2018 from a nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions negotiated during the Obama administration. 'Trump created the problem,' Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., posted on X. The progressives' pushback A Pearson Institute/Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from September 2024 found that about half of Democrats said the U.S. was being 'too supportive' of Israel and about 4 in 10 said their level of support was 'about right.' Democrats were more likely than independents and Republicans to say the Israeli government had 'a lot' of responsibility for the continuation of the war between Israel and Hamas. About 6 in 10 Democrats and half of Republicans felt Iran was an adversary with whom the U.S. was in conflict. ___ Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Linley Sanders, Will Weissert and Lisa Mascaro in Washington contributed to this report Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Hamilton Spectator
32 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump ignites debate on presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's bombardment of three sites in Iran quickly sparked debate in Congress over his authority to launch the strikes, with Republicans praising Trump for decisive action even as many Democrats warned he should have sought congressional approval. The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action on his own, without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority. 'Well done, President Trump,' Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina posted on X. Alabama Sen. Katie Britt called the bombings 'strong and surgical.' The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, said Trump 'has made a deliberate — and correct — decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime.' Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who called for an immediate classified briefing for lawmakers, said that Trump 'misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' Some Republicans had similar concerns. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican and a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, posted on X after Trump announced the attacks that, 'This is not Constitutional.' But the quick GOP endorsements of stepped up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump publicly considered the strikes for days. Many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party's schism over Iran could complicate the GOP's efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350 billion national security package in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax breaks bill , which is speeding toward votes next week. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,' Wicker posted on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.' Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America's 'forever wars.' Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that 'while President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' 'This is not our fight,' posted Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch's constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action. Kaine said the bombings were 'horrible judgment.' 'I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,' Kaine said. Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that 'new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.' 'Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly,' Casar said. 'Enough.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Ocasio-Cortez says Iran bombing grounds for Trump impeachment
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Saturday night said President Trump's decision to strike three of Iran's nuclear sites is grounds for impeachment, becoming one of the first elected Democrats to back the constitutional punishment after the attack in the Middle East. Trump announced Sunday night that the U.S. executed a 'spectacular military success' in Iran, striking three nuclear facilities — including Fordow, which is hidden deep in a mountain south of Tehran. He warned that the U.S. would order additional strikes if Iran does not come to the table to negotiate a peace agreement. While several House Democrats slammed Trump's strike as unconstitutional, Ocasio-Cortez was one of a select few to go a step further and categorize the move as impeachable. 'The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers,' Ocasio-Cortez wrote in a post on X. 'He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.' Article 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to 'declare war,' one of the largest powers held by the Legislative Branch. In the past, however, presidents of both parties have struck adversaries militarily without approval from Congress. Ocasio-Cortez argued that by striking the Iranian nuclear facilities without authorization from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, the president breached the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. It remains unclear if Democrats will pursue impeachment against Trump in the wake of the strike on the three Iranian nuclear facilities. If the party were to pursue the punishment, however, it would be doomed to fail since Democrats are in the minority in both chambers. House Democrats impeached Trump twice during his first term — once over allegations that he pressured Ukraine to investigate former President Biden, and a second time following the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. The Senate acquitted him both times. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) on Saturday night said Trump 'failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force,' and said 'Congress must be fully and immediately briefed in a classified setting' — stopping short of mentioning the Constitution or impeachment. House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), meanwhile, said Trump's decision to strike the nuclear facilities 'is unauthorized and unconstitutional.' Republicans are largely defending the strike. A White House official told The Hill that Trump gave congressional leaders 'a courtesy heads up,' and the White House has said Trump has the Constitutional authority to strike Ian as Commander-in-Chief. Additionally, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) appeared to push back on the Democratic criticism, arguing that the president respects the Constitution but needed to act in a swift fashion. Johnson was briefed on the strike beforehand, a source familiar with the matter told The Hill. 'The President made the right call, and did what he needed to do,' Johnson wrote in a post on X. 'Leaders in Congress were aware of the urgency of this situation and the Commander-in-Chief evaluated that the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act. The world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, which chants 'Death to America,' simply could not be allowed the opportunity to obtain and use nuclear weapons.' 'The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties,' he added. At least one other House Democrat backed impeachment in the wake of the attack on Iran: Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) said the strike was 'an unambiguous impeachable offense' — while nodding to the extreme unlikeliness of a Democratic minority impeaching a Republican president. 'This is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program. No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense,' he wrote in a lengthy thread on X. 'I'm not saying we have the votes to impeach. I'm saying that you DO NOT do this without Congressional approval and if Johnson doesn't grow a spine and learn to be a real boy tomorrow we have a BFing problem that puts our very Republic at risk.' 'A final note of clarification. I am open to the idea that the US should attack Iran. But I am not open to the idea that Congress cedes all authority to the executive branch. No matter how many lickspittle sycophants in the GOP argue to the contrary,' he added.
