Rhode Island family sues Town of Johnston for abusing eminent domain to block affordable housing

"If we give up, everybody else is going to give up," said builder Ralph Santoro. "That’s not the American way. You fight hard. You’re just supposed to do it the right way."

Ralph Santoro and Salvatore Compagnone

Ralph and Suzanne Santoro, Lucille Santoro, and Salvatore Compagnone filed a lawsuit to expose the Town of Johnston’s “sham land grab and unconstitutional use of government powers to take the family’s property under false pretenses.” In 2023, the State passed a law encouraging privately built affordable housing. In response, the Santoro family introduced its plans for a 100% affordable project, including 252 low-to-moderate-income units on its 31-acre, residentially-zoned land in Johnston that the Town has long identified as a site for affordable housing.

But no sooner had they started the Town’s approval process than Johnston Mayor Joseph Polisena, Jr. publicly denounced the plans and vowed to “use all the power of government that I have to stop it.”

On January 27, 2025, Mayor Polisena announced the Town would use eminent domain to seize the property, claiming it was needed for a new municipal campus. Until the Santoro family proposed an affordable housing project, the town had never mentioned moving its government services from its current central location to the edge of the town.

---

See also:

• Johnston elected officials hide behind fire codes and police to prevent access to a public meeting

• Johnston officials intentionally prevented the public from attending a town council meeting

---

Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF)¹ represents the Santoro family in a federal lawsuit to uphold property rights and advocate for housing solutions in Rhode Island and beyond. The case is SCLS Realty, LLC and Sixty Three Johnston, LLC v. Town of Johnston, RI. Kelley Morris Salvatore, an attorney with Darrow Everett LLP, is working on the state case. Yesterday, the family won temporary restraining orders in both courts.

Here’s the video from their press conference:

Kady Valois of the Pacific Legal Foundation: This is an exciting day. It’s not often that justice occurs so quickly. Yesterday, two separate courts recognized that our clients, the Santoro family, have a right to their property - at least until they have their day in court - and it is that day in court that is so important, and a day that until yesterday, our clients were denied.

Last week, after filing an action in federal court to prevent the Town of Johnston from using eminent domain to take our client’s property, the Town of Johnston named itself the owner of this land. They changed the land record without notice or due process and asked the State court for permission to put money into a court registry. Our clients did not learn of this until after the fact.

They were then told that they would be trespassed from their own land if they did not move all of their belongings from this property. But yesterday, the court set things right, ordering the Town to rename our clients as owners in federal court and granting the extraordinary remedy of a temporary restraining order. This will prevent the Town from taking further action against our client’s property until we can litigate the case’s merits.

The Town has no intention of building a municipal complex. It simply wants to stop affordable housing, which is much needed here and across the United States. Eminent domain is an awesome power, and it must be used carefully. It’s considered a last resort for a reason, but here, 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. I’d ask you to consider if this was your land and recognize that power should always be tempered by the rights and regulations of its people and the Constitution. Yesterday was a win for property rights, and although the fight is not over, our client’s property has been returned, and we will fight for their right to continue to keep it.

Ralph Santoro: I’m here with my wife Suzanne, sister Lucille, and lifelong friend Salvatore Compagnone. We’re the owners of this property. We’re a family of builders. We’ve been building all our lives. It’s our passion. We hope to construct some apartment homes here to better the community. Together, our fathers purchased this property back in the 1980s. We have attempted to utilize the property and construct apartment houses since then. We have under 31 acres here. We want to build five buildings. They’ll be 252 units of apartment homes. These homes are needed for the people who work in Johnston. Everything that’s coming out these days is about the housing shortage and the crisis we have in the State of Rhode Island, which is verbalized by our governor.

We want to provide affordable homes for people. We visualize young professionals starting their lives, living in these homes until they can move on to their American Dream. When we found out that this project was going to be taken from us by eminent domain last Friday, it was like we were physically assaulted. I felt like someone had punched me in my gut, and I’m still traumatized by it. It’s something that I hope never happens to anyone else. Property rights are our most undeniable rights as Americans.

The last several weeks have been stressful. We were fortunate, and we’re hopeful that we can resolve this situation and move forward. The taking of our property has been like a physical assault. We’re glad that we’re represented by such great counsel—Pacific Legal Foundation and Darrow and Everett.

Salvatore Compagnone: I’m a general contractor like my father. We’re third and fourth generation; all we did was build our lives. My father grew up right here on this pond and used to go swimming and ice skating here. This was his playground. He always loved Johnston. We built hundreds of houses in Johnston, and we’ve probably built thousands all over the State. We need homes, and that’s what we’re trying to provide. We own a complex of apartments. That’s what my father’s dream was and what he wanted to put here, you know what I mean? For him, checking the grass, checking the late switches, everything had to be perfect. That’s what he wanted, and our dream is to build a complex here that we can give to the people. 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, and that’s what we’re hoping for.

Steve Ahlquist: You said the town will not build a police complex on this land. How do you come by that?

Kady Valois: We believe that they have no intention of building it. There’s been no evidence that they are interested in that. The Mayor said he didn’t want this project and would use eminent domain before he said anything about building a municipal complex. To us, it’s a pretext. We think they’re just trying to come up with a reason to take the property. These cases happen all over the country, and the municipal complex is to cover the reason why he doesn’t want the project,

Steve Ahlquist: At the town council that decided to take the property by eminent domain, there was a large police presence inside, indicating this would happen. That’s why I brought up the question. So that seems to you to be just theatrics?

Kelley Morris Salvatore of Darrow Evrette LLP: I’ve been working with the Compagnone/Santoro family since the beginning of last summer. I’ve also been working with the town since last September, meeting with the town planner several times. As you know, we had a meeting in early December. A municipal complex was never mentioned until January 28th.

I got word from [the press] that there would be a resolution on the Town Council’s agenda the next day. We had never been notified. We’ve never communicated [with the Town] other than through these lawsuits. We’ve been completely left out of the process. Now, my clients are getting due process - and we hope that it’ll be in federal court where it belongs.

Boston Globe: I was reading the federal complaint the other day, and the main part of the argument is that State law says that the town has to be upfront with its intentions regarding the property taken by an eminent domain. Can you tell me how that ties into your argument? It seems like you’re arguing that the Town showed its hand by the Mayor saying that he would do everything in his power to fight [the affordable housing project] back in December and January.

Kelley Morris Salvatore: Exactly. In December, he said, “We’re going to block this. We’re going to use all the power of government.” He intended to challenge the very law that we were working under - The Low and Moderate Income Housing Act - and then, suddenly, on January 27th, he tweeted that he would take the property for this municipal complex. It was sudden.

Kady Valois: Eminent domain is powerful, and two things temper it. You have to have public use and pay just compensation, but public use can’t be done after the fact. You can’t take property and decide what to do with it. You have to have a public use first, and that didn’t happen here. We believe that the Mayor’s statements make it clear that he just decided he didn’t like this project and then decided he would take it and figure out what he would do with it.

Channel 12: What are the next steps?

Kady Valois: In federal court, which we believe is the appropriate venue for this, many courts across the country have made clear that this type of eminent domain action should be heard in federal court. The next step is to file a motion for a preliminary injunction that will go ahead and extend the temporary restraining order throughout the pendency of the case. Then, we can finally argue the merits of the case, which is that this [municipal complex] is a pretext, and the Town has no authority to do this because the State of Rhode Island has not authorized it.

Channel 12: And while this is all going on, we will not see any affordable housing projects being built?

Kelley Morris Salvatore: The affordable housing project has to undergo a formal review by the Johnston Planning Board. Once we have the property back, we will go through that process, which is state-mandated.

Channel 10: If you guys win the case, how soon do you think we could see construction on the property?

Kelley Morris Salvatore: Construction on the property will take quite a while; even if we start today, I would say at least a year. However, we must go through both State and federal courts before going through the application process.

Kady Valois: Last week, the town moved quickly and named itself the property owner. That’s why we ended up filing the temporary restraining order and asking for a motion to stay and abate in state court to return to the status quo—basically, to have things stop so that there is something to fight over by the time we actually get to court. If the town’s actions were allowed to continue, there would’ve been nothing left to fight over but money.

Steve Ahlquist: Do you have trouble [building] in other municipalities, or is this just a Johnson issue?

Ralph Santoro: It’s always been a Johnston issue for us.

Channel 10: You’ve mentioned the struggles over the years to get projects started here at Johnston. What keeps you fighting hard to do this here rather than give up and try elsewhere?

Ralph Santoro: It’s our passion. If we give up, everybody else is going to give up. That’s not the American way. You fight hard. You’re just supposed to do it the right way. And if you do the right thing every day, you get ahead. Something comes of that. We bought

Salvatore Compagnone: We bought it for that reason. What do we do with it if we can’t build what we want to build?

1. Pacific Legal Foundation is a national nonprofit law firm that defends Americans who are threatened by government overreach and abuse. Since our founding in 1973, we have challenged the government when it violates individual liberty and constitutional rights. With active cases in 34 states plus Washington, D.C., PLF represents clients in State and federal courts, with 18 wins of 20 cases litigated at the U.S. Supreme Court.