A Rhode Island town secretly seized a family’s land to block affordable housing, leading to a federal lawsuit that challenges the limits of eminent domain powers.
Quick Takes
- The Town of Johnston, Rhode Island used eminent domain to take the Santoro family’s 31 acres where they planned to build 252 affordable housing units
- Johnston Mayor Joseph Polisena Jr. publicly vowed to “use all the power of government that I have to stop” the housing project
- The town allegedly seized the property without proper notice, depositing $775,000 in court without informing the owners
- The Santoro family’s federal lawsuit claims the seizure violates both the Fifth Amendment’s Public Use Clause and 14th Amendment Due Process protections
- The Pacific Legal Foundation is representing the family, arguing that using eminent domain under false pretenses is unconstitutional
Property Rights Under Siege
A Rhode Island family is fighting back after the Town of Johnston allegedly abused its eminent domain powers to block their affordable housing development. The Santoro family, consisting of Ralph and Suzanne Santoro, Lucille Santoro, and Salvatore Compagnone, had planned to build a 252-unit affordable housing complex on their 31-acre property, responding to a 2023 state law encouraging privately built affordable housing. The family’s lawsuit contends that Johnston officials seized their land without proper notice and through legally questionable means.
The controversy emerged after Johnston Mayor Joseph Polisena Jr. publicly opposed the housing project and announced plans to use the property for a new municipal campus instead. According to court documents, the mayor explicitly stated he would “use all the power of government that I have to stop it,” referring to the affordable housing development. This statement has become central to the developers’ claim that the town’s actions represent an abuse of government power rather than legitimate public use.
Secret Seizure and Questionable Procedures
What makes this case particularly troubling to property rights advocates is the manner in which the town allegedly took possession of the land. The developers claim they learned their property had been seized only after seeing a social media post by Mayor Polisena. Court documents reveal that town officials filed paperwork transferring the property’s title and deposited $775,000 in court as compensation without directly notifying the Santoro family or their legal representatives.
“In 40 years, I’ve seen some pretty outrageous exercises of eminent domain powers. Never anything like this,” said attorney Robert Thomas, who is familiar with the case. “They literally [made] up this process.”
Adding to the controversy, the town has reportedly threatened the developers with trespassing citations if they don’t vacate the land, despite questions about whether proper legal procedures were followed. The developers have sought a temporary restraining order to prevent what their attorneys describe as “municipal thuggery” while the case proceeds through the courts.
Constitutional Questions at Stake
The Pacific Legal Foundation, representing the Santoro family, argues that the town’s actions violate multiple constitutional protections. The lawsuit challenges the seizure on both Fifth Amendment grounds, which require property takings to be for genuine public use, and Fourteenth Amendment grounds, which guarantee due process. Their legal team maintains that the town’s stated need for a municipal campus is merely a pretext to block affordable housing.
“The Constitution forbids using eminent domain under false pretenses. The Town’s claim to be seizing the Santoro family’s land for a new government campus is a sham, when the real reason is it a last-ditch effort to stop the Santoros from building affordable housing,” said Kady Valois, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation.
The timing of the eminent domain action appears significant. Johnston currently has only 7.9% of housing units classified as affordable, below the 10% threshold that would allow municipal authority to block such projects under Rhode Island law. Attorney Kelley Morris Salvatore, who represents the developers, has been blunt in her assessment: “[The mayor’s] primary purpose is clearly to block this project. It’s clearly a sham.”
Broader Implications for Property Rights
This case raises important questions about the limits of government power to seize private property, especially when that power might be used to circumvent state housing policies. The Town Council voted unanimously to pursue the land seizure, with Mayor Polisena defending the action by stating, “My number one priority is the 30,000 residents that currently live in Johnston and providing them effective and efficient government services.”
The dispute comes amid a recognized affordable housing crisis in Rhode Island, with the state aiming to create 15,000 new housing units by 2030. If the court rules in favor of the developers, it could strengthen protections against municipalities using eminent domain powers to block housing developments. Conversely, a ruling supporting the town’s actions might give local governments broader authority to determine land use through eminent domain, even when state policy encourages specific types of development.
As the case titled SCLS Realty, LLC and Sixty Three Johnston, LLC v. Town of Johnston, RI proceeds through federal court, property owners and municipal officials across the country will be watching closely to see how the court balances government powers against constitutional protections for private property rights.
