Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ice Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Protesters press council over ICE conditional‑use permit; city says notice of violation to be issued and future land‑use process possible
Summary
Public commenters demanded revocation of an ICE conditional‑use permit; council presiding officer and staff said Portland Permitting and Development has investigated complaints, will issue a notice of violation and that any final land‑use decision would follow procedures that preclude ex parte council comment.
People who identified themselves as protesters at the start of Wednesday’s Portland City Council meeting demanded the council revoke a conditional‑use permit for a facility operated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). City officials said staff had been investigating complaints and told the public a notice of violation would be issued the next day, but cautioned that a land‑use process may follow and that councilors must avoid ex parte communication while a matter is pending.
Bagged chants and interruptions delayed the meeting’s start; council recessed for 20 minutes to clear the chambers. During public communication, speakers repeatedly called for revocation of ICE’s permit and said the facility “terrorizes our community.” A speaker said, “Grateful that you have finally issued a notice of violation for ICE's conditional use facility.” When the meeting resumed, the presiding officer addressed the crowd and said staff would take appropriate procedural steps.
Later in the agenda the presiding officer stated that Portland Permitting and Development had investigated complaints made about the facility and that “a notice of violation will be sent tomorrow.” The official added that any subsequent land‑use process could come before council, and reminded attendees that “under Portland City code, prior to rendering a decision, this council must refrain from ex parte communication or any communication that shows bias.” The presiding officer said that to preserve council members’ ability to participate in any future land‑use proceeding, councilors could not review evidence or express opinions about the matter at the meeting.
There was no council vote recorded on the ICE matter during Wednesday’s session. Staff announced administrative enforcement steps (a notice of violation) but did not present a formal ordinance or land‑use item for council action that evening. The presiding officer asked those present to remain calm, warned that continued disruption could result in ejection, and apologized to attendees who would have to wait for later agenda items to be heard.
