Commissioners approve RFP to sell/subdivide Union County Jail after hours of public opposition

The Union County Board of County Commissioners voted to adopt resolutions that will send the former county jail site to a request for proposals process, despite sustained public opposition and calls from residents and advocacy groups to bar use of the property for immigration detention.

More than 80 people spoke during the public‑comment period, focusing on two agenda items identified in the meeting as Reso 2025‑290 and Reso 2025‑291. Bruce Patterson, of Garwood, opened public comments saying, “Reso 2 90 and 2 91 has the county considering selling the jail facility.” ACLU of New Jersey attorney Brian Lozano told the board the organization “stands in staunch opposition to the sale of Union County Jail to any entity that could utilize the facility to detain immigrants.” Several speakers, including representatives of SEIU 32BJ, Make the Road New Jersey, Movimiento Cosecha and local faith leaders, urged the board to prioritize non‑carceral uses such as housing, workforce development, or health and social services.

The meeting record shows the motion to adopt the resolutions was made by Commissioner Baker and seconded by Commissioner Mirabella. The clerk reported roll‑call results for the contested items: the record lists Reso 2025‑291 as receiving six votes in the affirmative and three votes in the negative. Commissioners Granados and Chairwoman Leon stated on the record that they voted no on the two contested resolutions; Commissioner Williams said she voted yes to advance a request for proposals so the county could review a range of possible uses.

Supporters of blocking a sale warned that issuing an RFP without a written prohibition could enable federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or private prison firms to seek the property. The ACLU and other speakers recommended a “non‑carceral” covenant or a community review process before any sale. Several speakers described personal or family experiences with detention and deportation; others asked the board to convert the facility to affordable housing or community services. Faith and labor leaders called for written assurances that any reuse would exclude contracts with ICE or private prison companies such as GEO Group or CoreCivic.

Commissioners who voted to advance the RFP said the step is the first stage of a process to identify potential uses for a county asset and that a wide range of proposals should be explored. Fiscal and legal concerns were raised in remarks from commissioners who supported the RFP, including long‑term stewardship of the county’s real estate and the possibility of proposals from hospitals, universities, or nonprofit partners.

The public‑comment period also included statements about workplace harassment and assault against Black women correction officers and other county employees; speakers urged the board to follow up through proper channels. Those personnel issues were presented as separate concerns from the RFP but were repeatedly raised during remarks.

The clerk read the meeting’s final roll tallies after the vote. The record summarizes that, for most resolutions, the board voted unanimously, while the two items concerning the jail generated dissent and negative votes as noted above. The board did not adopt a covenant during the meeting that would legally bar ICE or private‑prison use; commissioners said the RFP process will reveal the nature of proposals and that additional review and approvals would be required before any sale or lease is finalized.

The board closed the public‑comment portion and proceeded with other agenda items. Commissioners and staff did not announce a timetable for issuing the RFP or for holding additional community review sessions during the meeting.