Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Morris County to back Roxbury in opposing planned ICE facility; commissioners express support but take no formal action
Summary
Two public commenters asked the Morris County commissioners to join Roxbury Township in opposing a planned ICE facility off Route 46 (media reports say it would house about 1,500 people). Commissioners voiced sympathy but did not adopt a county resolution at the meeting.
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MORRISTOWN, N.J. — Two local officials speaking during public comment asked the Morris County Board of Commissioners to join Roxbury Township in opposing a planned ICE detention facility reported to be proposed off Route 46.
Gary Kouichi, who identified himself as council president of Mine Hill Township and a representative of the Morris County Democratic Committee, said Roxbury had unanimously passed a resolution opposed to the plan and asked the county to consider a matching resolution. "It's supposed to house 1,500 people," he said, citing media reports. Kouichi said he believed a detention center in that location would be "detrimental to the property values" of nearby owners and said the county should support its neighboring municipality.
Miles Gilmore, a newly elected Chatham Borough councilperson and retired lieutenant colonel, urged commissioners to "formally protest the current tactics of ICE" or at least consider a resolution backing Roxbury. Framing his remarks in historical terms, Gilmore said he found recent enforcement tactics "excessive" and "a source of great collateral damage to the nation and the county." He said he hoped the commissioners would consider, if not adopt, a resolution.
In commissioner comments later in the meeting the chair said he and other commissioners "support the move that Roxbury took" and suggested the concerns could apply to many towns in Morris County. The board did not adopt a county-level resolution or take formal action at the meeting; the chair said the board would consider the matter at a future meeting if appropriate.
Speakers who raised the issue cited media reports about the proposed facility; county staff did not provide details or a formal briefing during this session.
