Victorville residents urge council to reinstate city sponsorship of Pride events; council discussion about reconsideration follows

Dozens of Victorville residents told the Victorville City Council on March 18 that the city should sponsor its first Pride festival and an intergenerational LGBTQ+ prom, after council members voted against city sponsorship at a prior meeting.

At the start of the public‑comment period, a speaker who identified themself as Mar criticized council members who opposed sponsorship and said, “You had the opportunity to show your residents that you are not ignorant and you failed.” Several other residents expanded on that theme, urging the council to restore support and to create safe, affirming public spaces.

“Money can be moved and allocated to fund the community when it is in need,” Alexis de Jesus, a 13‑year resident, told the council. Will Smith, who identified himself as the organizer of the High Desert Pride Center, said the intergenerational prom and the High Desert Pride Festival would provide “a safe and affirming space” and argued sponsorship would send a “clear message that they are valued.” Priscilla Munoz said the council’s refusal to fund the events was a failure to represent LGBTQ+ constituents.

Speakers repeatedly addressed concerns previously raised by council members about taxpayer cost and the city’s strategic plan. Several commenters said outreach and the city’s 2020 survey did not adequately capture current community priorities and urged the council to reconsider that approach.

Council Member Irving responded during the meeting’s discussion time by acknowledging the public comments and saying she could not, by herself, request reconsideration but would “invite” colleagues on the prevailing side to do so if they wished. No formal motion to reinstate city sponsorship of the Pride events was made during the March 18 meeting.

The public‑comment portion of the meeting referenced the council’s speaker rules and state open‑meeting law citations read by the city clerk (government code sections 54957.9 and 54957.95). Those codes were read at the start of the meeting to frame public‑comment procedures.

The council did not take formal action on Pride sponsorship at this meeting. Council members discussed the possibility of reconsideration but did not vote to reverse the prior decision. Later in the evening the council did approve a separate procedural item — placing a reimbursement policy proposal on a future agenda (see separate votes roundup) — but that action did not reinstate the Pride sponsorship.

Members of the public and organizers who spoke said they will continue advocacy for city sponsorship and emphasized mental‑health and safety arguments for LGBTQ+ residents.