A fourth-generation family of builders is fighting back after Johnston Mayor Joseph Polisena Jr. seized their land in what attorneys call a blatant abuse of eminent domain powers to prevent affordable housing development in the town.

The mayor is accused of orchestrating a land grab to block a much-needed housing project amid Rhode Island’s severe housing crisis.

The 31-acre property, owned by SCLS Realty, LLC and Sixty Three Johnston, LLC, became the target of the town’s eminent domain action just weeks after the owners submitted plans for a 252-unit affordable housing complex.

Federal courts issued a temporary restraining order against the town last month, temporarily returning ownership to the Santoro and Compagnone families while the case proceeds.

“When we found out this project was going to be taken from us by eminent domain, it was like we were physically assaulted,” said Ralph Santoro, one of the property owners. “I felt like someone had punched me in my gut.”

A Sudden Need for Municipal Buildings

The families’ plans aligned with Rhode Island’s 2023 law incentivizing private development of affordable housing. Their design called for five buildings containing one and two-bedroom apartments with projected rents ranging from $1,850 to $2,100 – significantly below market rates in the current housing crisis.

But in January, just weeks after a December planning board hearing, Mayor Polisena, Jr. abruptly announced the town would seize the property to build a municipal complex. The Town Council unanimously approved the taking the next day.

Attorneys for the property owners argue the mayor’s actions reveal his true motives. In December, following the initial planning hearing, Polisena posted on social media: “If you insist on moving forward with the currently proposed project, I will use all the power of government that I have to stop it.”

Katie Valois, an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation representing the families, told reporters, “The town has weaponized that power not to help the public but to prevent a use it doesn’t like. That’s not justice – it’s dangerous, and it begs the question: whether or not you know it, your property is for sale.”

“We Need Homes”

The Santoro and Compagnone families have deep roots in Johnston. Salvatore Compagnone Sr., who passed away last year at 95, grew up near the property and built homes for himself and family members just up the road.

“We’re a family of builders. We’ve been building all our lives – it’s our passion,” Santoro explained. “We’re hoping to construct apartment homes here that will better the community.”

His business partner, Salvatore Compagnone Jr., added: “We need homes, and that’s what we’re trying to provide. My grandson just became a teacher this year, and he can’t afford a $600,000 house, but he can move into one of these apartments.”

The families attempted to develop the land previously in 2002 but were denied without explanation. Now they see an opportunity to help address Rhode Island’s housing crisis while continuing their family building tradition.

“Young professionals today can’t afford homes up to $600,000. You can’t purchase something in the state of Rhode Island. It’s even hard trying to afford rent in Rhode Island right now,” Santoro said.

History of Controversial Decisions

This isn’t Mayor Polisena’s first contentious action. In 2023, he drew criticism for erecting a statue of Christopher Columbus in Johnston, despite the growing recognition of Columbus’s role in the genocide of indigenous peoples.

The statue had previously been removed from Providence due to Columbus’s controversial legacy, but Polisena championed its installation in Johnston as a matter of Italian-American pride.

The mayor has publicly dismissed concerns about his eminent domain action, reportedly stating about the property owners and their attorneys: “I don’t think about them. I don’t care about them. I care about the 30,000 people in Johnston.”

However, Kelly Moris-Salvatore, a local attorney working with the families, notes the sudden municipal complex plan appeared without warning or public process: “Never was a municipal complex mentioned until January 28th. We have literally never been notified. We’ve never communicated other than through these lawsuits.”

Constitutional Challenge

The Constitution requires eminent domain be used only for genuine public uses and cannot be weaponized to stop legal property uses.

The federal lawsuit claims the town’s actions violate both the Fifth Amendment’s protection against government takings without just compensation and the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process guarantees.

“You can’t take property and then decide what you’re going to do with it. You actually have to have a public use first, and that didn’t happen here,” Valois explained.

Last week, the town moved forward by naming itself the owner of the land in property records and depositing $775,000 in a court registry as supposed “just compensation” – a value the owners dispute.

In an inexplicable escalation, the property owners were then informed they would be considered trespassers on their own land if they didn’t remove their belongings.

Following the families’ emergency legal action, both federal and state courts issued orders temporarily blocking the town’s takeover while the case proceeds.

“Our client’s property has been returned, and we will fight for their right to continue to keep it,” Valois said.

The case highlights tensions between property rights and government power at a time when Rhode Island faces one of the nation’s most severe housing shortages, with only 7% of Johnston’s housing currently serving low and moderate-income residents.

Last week, the Johnston Town Council’s January vote to seize the property was found to violate state transparency laws. The Rhode Island Attorney General’s office ruled that the council violated the Open Meetings Act when it approved Resolution 2025-10 without providing sufficient public notice.

The complaint was filed by professor Gerry Willis and journalist Steve Ahlquist, who argued the public’s right to participate was compromised by the council’s actions. The AG’s office has instructed the council to correct the violation by re-noticing and re-voting on the eminent domain resolution within 10 business days. The ruling raises questions about whether proper procedures were followed throughout the town’s hasty effort to take the land.

That vote is scheduled for tomorrow, April 3rd, adding another layer of complexity to the unfolding legal battle over the property.