Residents urge Bradford County to halt Douglas Warehouse conversion to ICE detention center, citing contamination and community impact
Loading...
Summary
Dozens of Bradford County residents told commissioners they oppose converting the Douglas Warehouse into a 3,000‑bed ICE facility, citing historical groundwater contamination (TCE and 1,4‑dioxane), potential traffic and service strain, and calls for independent environmental and legal review.
Dozens of residents spoke during public comment on Feb. 19 to urge Bradford County commissioners to pause consideration of converting the Douglas Warehouse into a large immigration‑detention facility. Commenters — many who live in nearby Deerwood subdivision and Stark — raised long‑running concerns about groundwater contamination, traffic and the social effects of siting a detention facility near the town’s main shopping corridor.
Anya Griffiths, who identified herself as running Protect Rural Florida, summarized public records indicating that trichloroethylene (TCE) was first detected in nearby wells in 2001, that remediation began with substrate injections in 2011–2012, and that semiannual monitoring through 2012–2025 continues to show TCE and 1,4‑dioxane in monitoring wells. "Approving this use without updated environmental assessment, transparent public reporting, and full consideration of resident safety could put people at risk and create liabilities," Griffiths told the commission.
Multiple residents said their wells have tested positive for TCE; Brad Green said his household is on municipal water because groundwater near his home is contaminated. "This isn't hypothetical — our groundwater is contaminated," Green said, calling for additional ground testing and long‑term study before any construction or occupancy.
Others pressed legal and procedural questions. Paul Steele asked the commission to direct the county attorney to review minutes and prior motions tied to the Douglas Warehouse proposal and to clarify whether the county has authorized Sabo (a consultant referenced by commenters) to negotiate with federal agencies without a formal county contract. "How can Sabo negotiate with ICE if it has no contract with Bradford County?" Steele asked.
Concerns extended beyond contamination: residents warned that a large detention facility at the town gateway would draw protests and media, strain local infrastructure and public services, and depress property values. Amelia Rodriguez, a homeowner who said her family lives less than one mile from the proposed site, said the facility’s presence could change the daily character of the town and create stress for families who feel scrutinized by an increased enforcement presence.
County response and next steps: Commissioners publicly acknowledged the concerns and said they will review materials. Commissioner Andrews said the board is "taking this very seriously" and emphasized that "nothing's been decided"; staff and commissioners repeated that required reviews, permits and legal checks remain to be completed. Several speakers explicitly requested independent environmental studies, traffic analyses and a legal review of prior actions and any agreements with private consultants.
Why it matters: Residents say the site’s proximity to businesses, medical facilities and housing raises health, safety and economic concerns. The comments place pressure on the county to document contamination status, potential exposure pathways (including vapor intrusion), and the legal authority under which any consultant or private party may negotiate on behalf of the county.
What remains unresolved: Public commenters asked for an updated environmental assessment that evaluates long‑term occupancy and vapor intrusion risk, a county‑led legal review of any prior motions or consultant authority, and transparent disclosure of any negotiations or contracts. The commission did not take a vote on the Douglas Warehouse matter at the Feb. 19 meeting.
