A 252-unit affordable housing plan in Johnston, Rhode Island, is back on firmer legal ground after a federal judge rejected the town's attempt to take the development site, marking a major win for the builders and their supporters.
It may also curb the tactics local governments can use to stop developments protected by state housing law.
What happened?
In a July 28, 2025, decision, U.S. District Judge Melissa R. DuBose said Johnston's condemnation of the 31-acre parcel on George Waterman Road was invalid from the moment it was made, Uprise RI reported.
That land is owned by the Santoro and Compagnone families, who had proposed a five-building project with 252 apartments reserved under income restrictions.
They submitted the plan in October 2024 under Rhode Island's 2023 density law, which allows up to 12 units per acre on sewer-served land when all units carry legal affordability restrictions. The law also narrows local grounds for denial in communities where less than 10% of housing is affordable; Johnston is at about 7.9%.
DuBose did not say the town can never use eminent domain. Her ruling was that Johnston did not satisfy the procedural requirements that have to be met before exercising that authority.
TCD Picks » Quince Spotlight
💡These best-sellers from Quince deliver affordable, sustainable luxury for all
As DuBose wrote, "When a municipality elects to invoke the power of eminent domain, it must proceed in the manner prescribed by law, and the Town did not do so here."
Johnston first approved the taking in January 2025, saying the parcel was needed for a municipal campus, after Mayor Joseph Polisena Jr. had publicly come out against the apartment proposal. The town council voted again on March 10, 2025, once the Attorney General's office concluded the earlier action broke the Open Meetings Act.
Why does it matter?
The decision lands amid Rhode Island's broader affordability crunch. Nowhere in the state is considered affordable for a typical household, with costs rising faster than any other state in New England.
At issue was whether a municipality could sideline a development favored by state housing policy by condemning the site for a different purpose.
TCD Picks » Quince Spotlight
💡These best-sellers from Quince deliver affordable, sustainable luxury for all
When affordable homes are delayed or blocked, renters and first-time buyers are left with fewer options, more competition, and higher costs.
It also underscores a core rule of property law: even when governments wield unusual powers over private land, they still have to use the procedures the law lays out.
What's being done?
A temporary restraining order had already restored the site to the owners because Johnston recorded documents putting title in the town's name without giving notice to the family or its lawyers.
The ruling resolved only one of six claims in the federal lawsuit filed in March 2025, meaning more litigation, discovery, and depositions could still shape what happens next.
Town officials have signaled they may pursue the property again through another process. Polisena said the judge recognized Johnston's eminent domain powers and indicated the town would try to use them through the proper channels.
Even after the court described the taking as "void from its inception," Polisena indicated the dispute is not over: "The Town will follow the Court's guidance regarding the proper procedure moving forward."
Get TCD's free newsletters for easy tips, smart advice, and a chance to earn $5,000 toward home upgrades. To see more stories like this one, change your Google preferences here.
