A lawyer for the firm representing the Johnston property owners in a highly publicized eminent domain case this week laid out their position on the town's attempt to seize land where they plan to build hundreds of apartments.
In a phone interview from her office in California, Kady Valois, a lawyer with the Pacific Legal Foundation, said eminent domain is an “awesome power” at all levels of government that should be used sparingly to protect property rights.
"I like to tell everyone who asks, ‘Why should they care about eminent domain?’ Well, because whether they know it or not, their properties are for sale right now,” she said. “And it's for sale to the government."
The dispute centers on a property in Johnston that Valois’s clients planned to develop into affordable housing. They say people who work in Johnston should be able to live there.
According to Valois, the town's decision to seize the property through eminent domain is due to opposition to the affordable housing project rather than a legitimate need for municipal development. She also criticized the town for not following the proper legal process.
"Typically, how eminent domain works is that everything comes from the sovereign, and in this case, it's the State of Rhode Island," she said.
She further explained that the state grants the power of eminent domain to certain towns, but Johnston lacks authority to use it for municipal buildings.
"We think that this process is improper," Valois noted. "They just kind of picked and chose different statutes that they liked and mushed them all together to create their own statute that would allow them to take property."
According to Valois, the town's intent to use eminent domain is rooted in Mayor Joseph Polisena Jr.’s opposition to the project rather than any legitimate public need. Before the developers had officially proposed the project, the mayor stated he would stop the project at any cost.
“I think he said specifically that he was going to use all the power of government that he had to prevent this project from going forward," she said.
Valois further argued that the town had not initially identified any municipal need for the property, as there was no discussion of a need for municipal buildings.
"I think he realized that he needed a reason to take the property and decided that it was going to be for these public buildings. But that's not how eminent domain works. You can't take the property and then pick and choose what you want to do with it," she said.
Valois said her legal team at the Pacific Legal Foundation acted swiftly in response to the town’s actions, arguing that pretextual takings are not permitted under Rhode Island law. She explained that two days after their complaint was filed, the town filed a petition to deposit funds in state court. The town put $775,000, the town’s valuation of the property, into the state court register.
“They believed that that was all they needed to do, and so they went ahead and listed themselves as the owners of the property,” she said.
The town also sent a letter to Valois’s clients, demanding they vacate the property or face trespassing charges. In response, the legal team filed a federal restraining order to halt the town’s actions.
As the federal case progressed, Valois noted that the legal team filed a motion in state court to halt to town’s proceedings. The case in state court was later dismissed, and the federal case will move forward.
“The temporary restraining order was granted by the court, basically pressing pause for everything while we prepare for a motion for preliminary injunction. That is scheduled for April,” Valois said.
Valois expressed confidence in the land owners’ legal footing, anticipating that evidence will demonstrate the town’s lack of good faith. She noted that text and social media messages from the mayor will be examined during discovery.
“All of the evidence that we've seen up to this point, the mayor's own statements, everything points to the fact that this is a pretext. It's a sham,” she said. “They don't like the State of Rhode Island's law that was passed to basically increase affordable housing."
Asked whether the property owners have any other plans to develop affordable housing in town, Valois said her clients own several pieces of property.
Valois recounted her visit to the property and her conversations with Sal Compagnone, one of the developers, noting the deep roots the family has in the community. They had built properties and they were hardworking people who had lived in the area, she said.
The Pacific Legal Foundation has posted its own story about the case on its website, identifying the developers as “Ralph, his wife Suzanne, his sister Lucille, and longtime friend Sal Compagnone.”
“They've been putting together this piece of property for years,” Valois said. “Our clients [and] their fathers had worked together to acquire some of this property. So this is a multi-decade project that has been put together.”
Valois countered the mayor's suggestion of single-family homes at the site, arguing it would be financially unrealistic given the proposed estimated $600,000 homes recommended be developed.
According to Valois, Compagnone sees the project as an opportunity to create accessible housing for various demographics seeking affordable living options. Valois further emphasized the Compagnone family’s commitment to maintaining their rental properties. The family has a long-standing reputation as attentive and responsible landlords, with many long-term, satisfied tenants in other properties.
When asked about the broader implications of the case, Valois referenced the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which allowed businesses to acquire property through eminent domain. She noted that the eminent domain process needed revamping to prevent private entities from easily acquiring property.
Valois also emphasized the importance of transparency when the government exercises eminent domain, saying that the government “should be forthright” when it needs to take property. The outcome of the case could set a precedent for how affordable housing projects interact with eminent domain regulations, potentially influencing policy discussions both within Rhode Island and in other states.
“With this weird resolution that was passed where they picked and chose certain statutes that they liked, none of that discussion happened up front,” she said. “That discussion is important because eminent domain should be a very last resort, because it is a forced sale.”
She noted that her clients are not yet focused on what property compensation from the town could be, as they are still aiming to retain and develop the property. Valois also noted that, despite facing opposition, her clients have felt a growing sense of support from the public.
“I think our clients feel supported, I think they finally feel heard because for a long time, unless you have a media platform to stand on, it's really someone else on Twitter sharing their side of the story,” Valois said. “I think they finally feel like someone is at least listening to them when they're shouting into the wind that the government is trying to take something that's so important from them.”
Valois acknowledged that while the court case continues, there is still a long road ahead with potential appeals. She highlighted the future impact of a favorable ruling.
"If we were to win at the First Circuit, for example, that would set up a split between the First and Second Circuits. The Second Circuit heard a case not too long ago called Southfield Development that went against the property owners," she noted.
Valois emphasized that the Pacific Legal Foundation is dedicated to supporting clients throughout the legal process, regardless of the challenges. She said the firm has taken 20 cases to the U.S. Supreme Court and won 18. As long as her clients are willing to fight, she asserted her firm will stand beside them. They are not charging their clients for services rendered.
"I think the biggest thing is just stressing that eminent domain – like I said, it's an awesome power and it can happen to anyone," Valois said. "It raises the question of what type of care would you like to receive from the government if you were in this situation?"
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here