Fire Watch Prompts Federal Lawsuit in Massachusetts

A Massachusetts woman has filed suit against the City of Revere, its mayor, city council, fire chief and deputy chief claiming that a requirement that a fire watch be posted at the Seawatch Tower Condominium violates the US Constitution. E. Ivonne Beltran-Silvagnoli filed suit today in US District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Silvagnoli alleges that the 18-story building is grandfathered from the current building and fire codes under state law. She claims the fire department’s imposition of a mandatory fire watch detail 24/7 due to the building’s failure to comply with new codes and regulations is illegal and unconstitutional.

Quoting from the complaint:

• On or around December 17, 2024, Defendants imposed a twenty-four (24) hour, seven (7) day per week, “fire watch” detail at Seawatch, at a cost of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) per twenty-four (24) hour period plus a ten percent (10%) administrative fee, to be paid to the Defendants.
• This “fire watch” detail involves a member of the Revere Fire Department (FD) sitting on the premises of Seawatch.
• This fire watch detail of Revere FD is equipped with a cell phone.
• There is not one Revere Fire Truck parked in front of Seawatch premises.
• The cost of this Defendants “fire watch” detail is sixty-two thousand dollars ($62,000.00) per month, and to date, has cost Seawatch condominium owners two hundred, forty-four thousand, two hundred dollars (“$244, 200.00”).
• While the amount of $62,000.00 per month is continuously extracted from the Plaintiff’s condominium property for a “fire watch” detail, the condominium reserve funds are being quickly and catastrophically depleted.
• Thus, hundreds of thousands of dollars of private property is being siphoned off by the Defendants, leaving the Plaintiff at risk of losing her home.
• On February 24, 2025, in an effort to validate the unlawful actions of charging $62,000.00 per month for a “fire watch” detail since December 17, 2024, plus 10% administrative fees the City Council voted in the City Hall for an after the facto ordinance C.O. 25-005.
• The C.O. 25-005 ordinance describes some tasks for the “fire watch” detail which at face value are vague and even imaginary in the sense of not making a real case for preventing the occurrence of a fire.
• Ordinance C.O. 25-005 is not legally enforceable. It’s vague and ambiguous. It imposes unconstitutional conditions when less burdensome alternatives should have been and should be explored first.

The complaint lists eight counts:

• Unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment (42 USC §1983)
• Deprivation of property without Due Process (42 USC §1983)
• Excessive fines violate the Eight Amendment (42 USC §1983)
• Deprivation of Due Process Rights (42 USC §1983)
• Violation of Equal Protection (42 USC §1983)
• Deprivation of Rights under the Massachusetts Constitution
• Violation of the Massachusetts Condominium Law
• Violation of the Massachusetts Grandfather Clause

Here is a copy of the complaint: