At a Bradford County Board of County Commissioners meeting, residents took the allotted public-comment time to voice sharply divided views on a proposal to repurpose county-owned Douglas property as an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility.

Several speakers urged the board to reject the plan, citing reports of poor conditions and alleged abuses at other ICE detention centers. "Detaining immigrants in secure facilities is dramatically more expensive for taxpayers than community-based alternatives," Monique Constantino of Gainesville said, arguing that case management and supervised release programs produce high court-appearance rates while protecting community trust.

Opponents emphasized harm to community reputation and property values. "I stand in opposition to this," Melissa Prodomastro, a Stark resident, said about Item 4, adding that she feared the county would be seen as hosting a "concentration camp." Fabian Martina told the board, "$600,000,000. We could have housed a whole lot of people with that money," framing the proposed detention model as both costly and racially divisive.

Some residents supported the facility. "If it helps us get them caught and get them out of here, we need to do what we need to do to make our country safe," said Alma Life, a Bradford County resident who also raised allegations about county spending and said she had faced pressure for questioning budgets.

Other commenters raised operational concerns for ICE facilities, including limited transparency and oversight, shortened training for agents, and reports of overcrowding and inadequate medical care. "They hide their faces, their badges, their license plates when they go out," Kate Ellison of Melrose said, arguing that secrecy enables mistreatment and that federal funding for a prior project called "Alligator Alcatraz" remained unresolved.

The meeting record in this excerpt does not show the board taking formal action on the proposal, nor does it record a staff presentation or response to the specific allegations and funding claims raised by speakers. Several claims made during public comment were presented without source documentation in the record.

The public-comment period concluded and other speakers continued; the transcript excerpt ends before a formal board vote or directive on Item 4 is recorded.