The Nov. 3 referendum, which went down to defeat, was a direct response to a federal judge’s July ruling that blocked the town’s earlier attempt to seize a parcel slated for an income-restricted apartment complex. The charter amendment would have established a coherent legal framework for eminent domain, but voters turned it down.

Now, councilors are discussing a workaround that would allow the town to acquire the property without the charter change voters rejected. Details of the alternative plan have not been fully disclosed, but the move has already drawn criticism from housing advocates and residents who say the council is circumventing the will of the electorate.

The dispute centers on a proposed apartment complex with income restrictions, a project that supporters say is badly needed in a town where affordable housing options are scarce. Johnston, like many communities across Rhode Island, has struggled to meet state-mandated affordable housing targets. The town’s resistance to this particular development has been fierce, culminating in the eminent domain attempt that a federal judge rejected in July.

“Voters spoke clearly on Nov. 3,” said one local housing advocate who asked not to be named, citing the sensitivity of ongoing negotiations. “For the council to turn around and try another route to take the land feels like a slap in the face to the democratic process.”

The council’s push comes amid heightened scrutiny of eminent domain tactics in Rhode Island. In recent years, several municipalities have faced legal challenges over attempts to seize private property for economic development, and courts have grown increasingly skeptical of such moves when they appear to target specific projects or landowners.

It remains unclear whether the alternative plan would survive a legal challenge, especially given the federal judge’s earlier ruling. The town has not said when it might formally vote on the new approach, but councilors are expected to discuss the matter at an upcoming meeting.

For residents of Johnston, the stakes are both practical and symbolic. The town’s affordable housing shortage has forced some families to leave, while others struggle with rising rents. At the same time, the council’s determination to press ahead despite the referendum result raises questions about how much say voters actually have in local land-use decisions.

“This is about whether the town respects the outcome of an election,” said another resident who opposed the eminent domain measure. “If they can just ignore us and find another way, what’s the point of voting?”

The town has not responded to requests for comment on the alternative plan. A spokesperson for the council said only that “all options are on the table” and that the town remains committed to “responsible development.”

As the council weighs its next move, housing advocates are urging residents to stay engaged. “We need to show up to these meetings,” the advocate said. “The fight isn’t over, but neither is our commitment to making sure Johnston is a place where everyone can afford to live.”