Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Mci Framingham topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents urge Framingham City Council to hold public hearing on $360 million MCI Framingham plan

Framingham City Council · January 6, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A public commenter asked the council to pause and hold a public hearing on Governor Healy's $360 million MCI Framingham project, citing lack of released details, concerns about DOC–ICE partnerships and calls for exploration of alternatives and a potential construction moratorium for prisons.

Christopher Leonard of Sewell Street pressed the Framingham City Council on Tuesday to hold a public hearing and announce when it will discuss Governor Healy’s proposed $360,000,000 MCI Framingham development.

“Advocates for carceral reform are demanding a pause to more fully examine alternatives and to give the public time to review details of the plan, which have not been released,” Leonard said during the public participation period, urging the council to seek more information from the governor’s office and Senate President Spilka.

Leonard said the campaign is led by Families for Justice as Healing and the National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls and noted community concerns about the care of incarcerated women, project costs, and transparency. He also raised the Massachusetts Department of Corrections’ 287(g) partnership with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as a reason the city should explicitly represent immigrant residents, regardless of legal status.

Leonard suggested that, if the council finds using local land for incarceration is “not in the interest of Framingham residents,” it could consider enacting a local construction moratorium for prisons to signal opposition to the state plan. He asked the council to call a public hearing so residents and stakeholders can speak and examine alternatives.

The mayor and council did not take immediate action on the request during the meeting; Leonard’s remarks were part of the public comment record. The council’s agenda for the meeting included scheduling and referrals related to zoning and finance matters but did not list a council hearing date on the MCI proposal. The next procedural step would be for a councilor to place such an item on a future agenda or to request a referral or hearing, which the council would then vote to schedule.