A dispute between an East Providence native who won a local lottery back in 2019 to rent a rehabilitated, city-owned property has been thrust into the public eye after she recently told her story to a local broadcast news team and alleged Mayor Bob DaSilva was retaliating against her for making statements critical of the city.

The mayor has denied those allegations, saying that the city is simply trying to utilize the rental property for its original purpose — providing short-term housing for veterans at risk of becoming homeless. He insisted in a recent interview that the city has also done its part to bring the issue to a reasonable conclusion.

We will present all objective facts known and all the subjective assertions in between in order to let you come to your own conclusion.

What we know
Julia Dempsey was awarded the right to rent the home at 47 Payette St. (located just southwest of East Providence High School) in 2019 after having her name drawn from a lottery. The lottery pool included local veterans of the armed services, and people of low income. The deal was the renter would pay $600 a month or 30% of their monthly income.

The house had been rehabilitated using a grant from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which were then distributed via the city’s Office of Community Development, and its then-director, David Bachrach (who retired in March of 2025, more on that later).

While Mayor Bob DaSilva said back in 2019 that the city would be giving veterans preferential selection in the lottery, HUD rules dictated that it could not be specifically mandated to go to a veteran. So, when the veteran whose name was first pulled from the lottery decided not to go forward with renting the home, Dempsey had the keys handed to her just before New Years Day in 2019.

She signed a one-year lease, which ran from January 2020 through January 2021 and was signed by DaSilva, Dempsey, and Bachrach. She was later offered a one-year extension, through January of 2022.

Then things get more complicated.

Emails obtained by The Post indicate that Dempsey was in communication with Bachrach often about various issues concerning the property. Emails from December of 2021 and January of 2022 highlight her frustration with local students — who utilize a nearby parking lot built to supplement the high school — driving through her yard and causing destruction to her property.

An email shows she offered to pay an extra $100 a month for a fence to be erected to keep that from happening, to secure a safe outdoor space for her dog, and provide her a better sense of privacy. She made the offer on the condition that she receive a five-year lease extension to be assured she would be able to enjoy the fence once it was built.

Bachrach appeared amenable to the request for the fence, but for various reasons it was never actually erected — not in that year or in the years since. Dempsey was, however, sent a five-year lease agreement from Bachrach, running from Feb. 1, 2022 to Jan. 31, 2026. Within that, new terms indicated her monthly rent would increase from $600 to $900; which according to Dempsey was a compromise to allow her to keep a coveted housing voucher that she was able to secure.

It should also be stated that prior to receiving the five-year lease, emails showed Dempsey going back and forth with Bachrach about being unable to make a rent payment in late 2021, to which he indicated a willingness to overlook a late fee because it was not a regular occurrence.

Besides that one missed payment, which was ultimately paid, and the continuing issues with students driving through the yard, all seemed to be stable.

Until March 4, 2024, when City Solicitor Michael Marcello sent a letter to Dempsey indicating that the 5-year lease she signed (at this point more than two years ago) had seemingly not been “fully executed”. Marcello requested her to send the city a copy of the lease agreement to confirm its legitimacy.

When Bachrach sent the city an electronic copy of the lease on April 1, 2024, it was revealed that the lessor — Mayor Bob DaSilva — had not signed it. The only signatures on the document were from Dempsey and Bachrach, as her witness. This, in the city’s view, invalidated the 5-year lease.

The city then negotiated a new, one-year lease agreement running from June 1, 2024 to May 31, 2025. That was signed by DaSilva, Dempsey, and Bachrach. Finally, in early March of 2025, Dempsey received a notice that the city would not be renewing her lease any further, and she would be expected to find a new place to live as of the end of the contracted term.

Dempsey’s argument
Dempsey, in both an interview conducted this past Friday and in testimony before the East Providence City Council on Tuesday evening, argued that the only logical explanation for the abrupt change of course from the city was that it was retaliating against her due to negative comments she made regarding the city’s unwillingness to get her the fence she requested back in 2022.

She said she requested meetings with the mayor on multiple occasions about the issues she was experiencing, and never heard back.

“I never got a response from the mayor. So I took it to social media,” she said. “I didn’t even blast him. I said, ‘This is what’s going on and nobody is doing anything’. I contacted the school committee. I contacted the police. I contacted the mayor. And nobody is doing anything to help me with these people driving recklessly through my yard.”

Dempsey said she received the request from Marcello to produce a copy of the five-year lease shortly after she made the online remarks. She said that Marcello also indicated if she didn’t sign the new, one-year lease they offered, the city would be within their rights to put her on a month-to-month lease where they would be able to evict her with only a 30-day notice. She said to the council that she was “strong-armed” into signing it.

“Right there, in my opinion, it was calculated,” Dempsey said. “Get the five-year lease. See if she has a signed copy. Oh, she doesn’t have a signed copy by the mayor. So we’re going to make her a new lease and give her an ultimatum — you sign it or we can give you 30 days notice and you can get out. So now, they look good by giving me a lease, but they also get me out.”

Dempsey pled before the city council that winning the lottery for the rental home had greatly contributed to her ability to turn her life around in a positive way, and that losing it would jeopardize all the gains she had worked towards.

“I am not a veteran, however my battlefield was between four walls…I suffered 67 charges of domestic violence resulting in a traumatic brain injury. I also suffer from chronic, severe depression, significant anxiety, PTSD, and panic attacks daily. This is not just a lease dispute, but a battle for my wellbeing,” she said. “I have never lived alone a day in my life until I was 50. It took much work these past seven years to become the better me that I feel I am today. Living in this home has been a part of my recovery. Don’t let Mayor Bob DaSilva, and his power, take it from me.”

DaSilva’s argument
DaSilva, reached on Monday, said that he was never aware that a five-year lease had even been offered to Dempsey, and that not only did he never sign it, but he would have never signed such an agreement.

“I was not even aware that there was discussions to do a five-year lease and I would never have entered into a five-year lease,” he said. “I never authorized that five-year lease. I said you have to sit down with her and agree to a one-year lease. And we did. We put a one-year lease in place. That lease is now expiring and we're going to move in a different direction with the property.”

DaSilva said that the original intent of the property was never to be a permanent home for anybody.

“This was a temporary situation. This was not a home she won in a lottery that she gets to keep. It was not a home giveaway. It was a rental opportunity,” he said. “We enjoyed being her landlord, and now we’re moving in a different direction with the use of the property. That’s what it comes down to.”

Asked why the city was suddenly adamant on moving on from renting the property to Dempsey, DaSilva said that they wanted to be able to offer the property to veterans who are at risk of becoming homeless — which he argued was more in line with the original purpose of the property back when the lottery occurred in 2019.

He mentioned having conversations with veteran Matt Vianna of the East Providence Elks about the need to provide transitional housing for veterans so they have a place to get back on their feet.

“He was talking about veterans he had to put up at the Extended Stay because there wasn’t a place for them,” DaSilva said. “This property here was intended for that. So let's get that back for its intended purpose. We can work out a deal with the Elks and if they have people going through transitions, they can set them up there for a little while…until they can find another more permanent solution for them.”

DaSilva said that he empathized with Dempsey’s situation, but that the city had also been working with her to find housing, and was not going about the situation as callously as she was alleging.

“We told her that we would work with her and that we would keep her on the month-to-month until we can find her a place to go,” he said. “We’re not going to put her on the street, but at the same time she has to know that it’s time to move on.”

DaSilva again denied that there was any truth to her allegations that he was personally retaliating against her for any comments made online.

“I was not even aware of this fence situation until she started bringing it up. She mentioned some other stuff too. She’s just throwing things out there right now, I think. I don’t know if it’s trying to get more empathy or to politicize this,” he said. “People comment on my social media posts all the time…and there's no way I have time to even read or respond to all of these things. So that has no impact on anything going on here.”

Council members, neighbors weigh in
While the city council had no strict authority to put forth any kind of vote on the issue Tuesday night, Council President Bob Rodericks did provide extensive leeway to hear arguments from Dempsey, City Solicitor Marcello, and some of the dozen neighbors who had gathered in support of Dempsey to advocate for her to be allowed to stay in the home.

Kimberly Ascenio, of Pawtucket Avenue, reasoned that waitlists for people to find public housing in Rhode Island can be many years long, and that displacing a woman who clearly has a need for the housing just to provide one unit for a veteran didn’t seem to make sense.

“Yes, we need group homes or something for transitional housing to help these people. They deserve it. My son is a veteran. Absolutely. But to put someone who is disabled out, to put a veteran there and only help one veteran, isn’t logical,” she said. “You’re saying you’re going to help her. How? It takes years. The waiting list is exorbitant.”

Rodericks agreed that the issue itself was a microcosm of a much larger elephant in the room.

“There is a housing crisis. It’s right here. It’s in Rhode Island. It’s in the country,” he said. “It’s illuminating a bigger problem.”

Ward 4 Councilman Rick Lawson, a veteran who helps run the city council’s veteran advisory committee, asked why the city was suddenly so insistent on using the house to assist veterans when the property had not come up before in those kinds of discussions.

“My concern is that [veterans] are being used as an excuse here,” Lawson said. “We have a veterans advisory council. Not once was this house mentioned. And we have been talking about the need for transitional housing for veterans for a long time.”

Dempsey reiterated to the council her belief that the treatment she was receiving was unfair and based in retaliation. Marcello countered by saying the city was working with her, and had offered to provide her with her security deposit back ahead of schedule to help her with a down payment on a new place.

“There is no intention to put Ms. Dempsey on the street on May 31,” Marcello said. “From the very beginning, in March, I told her we would give her additional time to find replacement housing. We offered resources from the city to help her. We’re hopefully in that process, but again, leases do end. And they don’t go on forever.”

Ultimately, Rodericks indicated that representatives from the mayor’s office, the city solicitor, representatives from the city council, and Dempsey should all meet in the coming weeks prior to the end of the current lease to figure out a concrete path forward.