Palo Alto approves moratorium on ICE detention centers

Originally published in Palo Alto Online

By Gennady Sheyner

Calling it a necessary move to protect vulnerable community members from dangerous overreach by the Immigration and Custom Enforcement, Palo Alto adopted on Monday a temporary ban on detention and custodial facilities within city limits.

In unanimously adopting the one-year ban, the City Council is joining cities such a San Jose, Mountain View, Los Altos and Gilroy, which have recently adopted similar restrictions. The moratorium applies to all detention and custodial facilities, operated by any entity, that are used to “detain, confine, process or house persons in custody under process of law.”

The moratorium is just the latest in a series of actions that the council has taken in response to increased immigration enforcement by the Trump administration. These include filing briefs in support of numerous lawsuits that challenge the federal administration, including a recent amicus brief in a Santa Clara County lawsuit contesting a recent plan to build a detention center near Gilroy. In September, a federal court granted a preliminary injunction pausing the development.

Cara Silver, an attorney who serves on rapid response teams in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, noted at the Oct. 26 meeting that ICE has $38.3 billion to spend by the end of 2026 to increase its immigration capacity. It’s plausible that it could look for locations in areas like East Bayshore and Embarcadero roads.

“One of the primary reasons we have not had mass immigration raids in the Bay Area is simple: There is no detention center in our region,” Silver said. “However, the federal government has made it clear that they are actively seeking to add more capacity in the Bay Area and this plan is not theoretical.”

The ordinance quotes a statement from ICE claiming that California detention centers are “crucial to ICE’s detention network on the West Coast” and cites the Department of Homeland Security’s recent acquisition of two private prison facilities in Otay Mesa and California City, California from CoreCivic, a private corporation that operates correctional facilities. The ordinance claims that locating a detention and custodial facility in Palo Alto  “may result in land use and environmental impacts that are detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.”

Mayor Vicki Veenker said the ordinance was inspired by the efforts of U.S. Rep. Sam Liccardo, who in August presented local jurisdictions with a toolkit that they can use to protect their communities. She cited reports from the state Office of Attorney General that found detention facilities to be often overcrowded and failing to provide detainees with adequate medical care.

The federal government has not been picky about the facilities they choose, she said, buying up grocery stores, big box stores and manufacturing facilities and turning them into detention centers, she said.

“While Palo Alto may not be the first place they look, let’s remove any ambiguity and make sure we are no on their shopping list,” Veenker said.

Liccardo said in a statement that ICE detention centers “have no place in our neighborhoods, and local leaders don’t need to wait until one opens to take action.”

“By acting now, Palo Alto joins a growing coalition of Bay Area communities using local land-use authority to protect their communities by restricting DHS from converting commercial or industrial properties into detention centers,” Liccardo said,.

The council broadly concurred. Councilmember Ed Lauing, who last year joined Veenker in authoring a colleagues memo that pledged to protect immigrants from inhumane deportation efforts, strongly supported the new ordinance. He called it “the easiest vote ‘Yes” that I’ve taken in my four years on the council.”

“ICE is an American tragedy and an embarrassment, and we just have to do everything we possibly can at the local level to fight back against this, so I’m strongly in favor of this,” Lauing said.

Because the ordinance is temporary, the council was able to adopt it without going through its usual channel of having the Planning and Transportation Commission sign off on zoning changes before they get to the council. With the temporary law adopted, the city plans to move ahead with its regular process and have the planning commission weigh in before it adopts a permanent ordinance.