The dispute over a proposed 252-unit affordable housing complex has become a test of how far local governments can go when they oppose development. The ruling restores a major property-rights question to the center of Johnston’s housing debate.
Johnston’s Democratic mayor, Joseph Polisena Jr., and the Town of Johnston used eminent domain to seize 31 acres on George Waterman Road in Johnston, Rhode Island, where SCLS Realty planned a 252-unit affordable housing development. On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled the land seizure unlawful and void, finding the town lacked authority to take the property through the process it used.
The ruling does not settle every question surrounding the proposed development. It does put a sharp limit on a local government’s ability to use a claimed municipal purpose to stop a housing project it opposes.
A 31-acre fight over housing
The property dispute centers on land owned through SCLS Realty, LLC, associated with the Santoro family. The developers had proposed a 252-unit affordable housing complex, a project that was positioned under a 2023 Rhode Island law meant to encourage more low-income housing construction.
That made the site part of a larger and familiar conflict: communities facing housing shortages often support affordability in principle but divide sharply over where large projects should be built, how dense they should be, and what they could mean for traffic, schools, infrastructure and neighborhood character.
Johnston officials opposed the development. The town instead sought to take the parcel for a municipal complex, using eminent domain, the government power to acquire private property for public use while providing just compensation.
The owners’ account, described in the litigation and subsequent reporting, is especially striking because they said they were not told in advance that title had been transferred. They learned of the action through a social-media post.
The court focused on legal authority
U.S. District Judge Melissa R. DuBose’s decision was not simply a judgment about whether the town’s actions were politically wise or whether residents had legitimate concerns about the housing proposal. It focused on a more basic legal question: did Johnston actually have the authority under Rhode Island law to condemn this property in this way?
The answer, according to the court, was no. Judge DuBose held that the seizure was void from the outset because the town did not have validly delegated power to carry it out through its chosen procedure.
Johnston argued that its home-rule charter authorized condemnation for broad “town purposes.” But the court concluded that a municipality is not independently sovereign and can exercise eminent domain only when the state legislature has granted that power and set the terms for using it.
That distinction matters. A town may have an ambitious plan for a public facility and still be required to follow the specific state-law safeguards governing how land is taken and compensation is handled.
Why eminent domain has strict rules
Eminent domain is among the government’s strongest powers because it allows officials to compel the transfer of private property. In exchange, the law generally requires a public purpose, just compensation and compliance with the procedures lawmakers established.
In this case, the court found Johnston’s general charter language was not enough. The Rhode Island statutory framework, the decision said, required additional elements, including a pledge of the town’s faith and credit for compensation and procedures for paying and enforcing that compensation.
Those requirements can sound technical, but they protect both sides. They give governments a route to build roads, schools, utilities and other public projects while ensuring that an owner is not left to challenge an improvised process after the property has already changed hands.
The ruling is therefore not a declaration that municipalities can never condemn land. It says they cannot fill gaps in state authority by relying on a broad local claim of power.
Housing opposition meets property rights
The case also exposes a tension that often gets flattened into a simple pro-development versus anti-development argument. Local officials may argue that they are protecting residents from a project they believe is too large or poorly suited to a site. Developers and housing advocates can respond that such objections are often used to block needed homes, including lower-cost units.
Johnston’s proposed municipal use gave the town a stated public rationale for acquiring the property. Yet the timing and the town’s opposition to the affordable housing plan fueled the owners’ claim that eminent domain had been deployed as a way to stop the development.
The federal ruling did not need to decide that broader motive question to invalidate the taking. Its reasoning was narrower: whatever Johnston’s objective, the town had not shown the legal authority needed to complete the seizure as it did.
That may be the decision’s most durable lesson. Courts can police government process without becoming the final referee on every local dispute over density, affordability or land use.
What the ruling changes now
By declaring the condemnation void, the court removed the legal basis for Johnston’s attempted acquisition of the 31-acre parcel. That is a significant win for SCLS Realty and the owners, but it does not automatically mean the 252-unit project will be built exactly as proposed.
Development plans can still face zoning, permitting, financing, infrastructure and potential appeal-related questions. The available account of the ruling does not resolve whether the town will seek further review, whether officials will pursue a different lawful approach, or how quickly the housing proposal could move ahead.
For local governments, the practical warning is clear: opposition to a development does not create new condemnation powers. If a municipality wants to acquire land, it must be able to point to authority the state has actually granted and follow the required compensation procedures.
For housing advocates and property owners, the decision reinforces a different point. A local fight over a controversial project can become a broader legal test when government action moves beyond ordinary planning tools and into the use of eminent domain.
Leave a Reply