A family of developers learned that the town of Johnston, Rhode Island, had seized 31 acres of their land through a social media post. They now claim the takeover was a sham designed to block much-needed affordable housing, in a case that could test the limits of eminent domain.

The owners had planned to develop the land into a 255-unit affordable housing project under Rhode Island’s Low and Moderate Income Housing Act. But after a contentious town meeting last December, Johnston Mayor Joseph Polisena, Jr., vowed to stop the project, calling it “destructive.” In January, he announced plans to seize the land by eminent domain and build a town hall complex on the site. The next day, the town council unanimously approved the seizure. 

It wasn’t until mid-March that the owners learned Mayor Polisena had followed through with his plan. That’s when the town’s attorney filed a petition in Rhode Island Superior Court to take title to the property—apparently without notifying the owners. Two days later, the attorney sent a letter demanding they vacate and threatening a no-trespass order. But by then, the owners had already heard about the taking, which Polisena announced on social media. They promptly filed suit.

Federal law gives municipalities like Johnston broad powers to seize land, but that power is not unlimited. Eminent domain applies only if property is taken for “public use.” Since the Supreme Court’s highly debated Kelo decision, however, “public use” has been broadly defined to include any seizure that benefits the public welfare. In response, many states passed limits on the meaning of public use and the evidence required to justify a taking. Rhode Island is among them.

Rhode Island law currently limits the scope of “public use” takings for economic development through the Home and Business Protection Act. At least 46 other states have similar laws that restrict municipalities’ power to take property without just cause. And as a matter of practice, eminent domain is often a town’s last resort. But, the owners’ request for relief claims the town is “doing this in reverse” and “even now has not complied” with the Rhode Island statute.

In late March, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued a temporary restraining order against the town, prohibiting it from acting on the land while the owners’ request for a preliminary injunction was pending. In their filings, the owners accused Johnston of constitutional and statutory violations, claiming that the seizure amounts to a “sham taking.”

The owners’ lawsuit comes as part of a larger fight over affordable housing in New England and beyond. According to the complaint, Polisena’s plans for a new municipal complex are merely a pretext to block “desperately needed affordable homes.” In Rhode Island alone, the median home price is nearly $500,000, leading Gov. Dan McKee in 2024 to declare a “housing crisis.”

Currently, only the owners’ federal case is pending, as they voluntarily dismissed their case in Superior Court. In April 2025, the District of Rhode Island granted a preliminary injunction, which will remain until the parties resolve the case or the town decides not to pursue the taking.