Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Alamosa council directs staff to press ICE on zoning, seek limits on 1921 State Avenue hold room
Loading...
Summary
After extensive public comment alleging overnight holds and poor conditions, the Alamosa City Council voted 6–1 to ask staff to contact ICE, seek clarity about operations at 1921 State Avenue and put parameters in writing to prevent expansion of the facility’s use.
The Alamosa City Council voted 6–1 to instruct city staff to begin formal discussions with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about the agency’s use of a holding room at 1921 State Avenue and to put in writing limits that would prevent the facility from expanding beyond its current functions.
The action followed more than an hour of public comment in which residents called for enforcement of local land-use rules and for oversight after news reports that the site had been used as a holding room since about 2005. ‘‘I was surprised to learn that this facility has apparently been operating without local authorization all the way since 2005,’’ said Roxy, a community member who urged the council to pursue the memo’s first option: terminate the unlawful use.
Why it matters: The city attorney told council the site’s continued detention use appears inconsistent with the Unified Development Code (UDC). That code, revised in 2018, treats detention as a conditional use in the industrial zone and requires a minimum five-acre parcel; the 1921 State Avenue lot is about 1.35 acres, the attorney said. If the use is unlawful, the city has options that range from enforcement to negotiating a narrow administrative pass-through arrangement — but legal challenges are possible because of federal preemption issues involving a federal agency.
What the city heard: Multiple speakers cited reporting that detainees — including families and a 7-year-old child — had been held at the site for significant periods. ‘‘Between January and October 2025, a total of 53 individuals, including a young child, were held there in inadequate and illegal conditions,’’ said Martha Shoman, who asked the council to follow the city attorney’s enforcement recommendations. Janine Tinbrot recounted a local case she said was documented in press coverage and described lengthy holds and traumatic transfers.
City attorney’s view: City Attorney Eric said the options are (1) pursue enforcement to terminate the use, (2) try to make the current location meet code (unlikely given acreage), or (3) engage with ICE to define and limit the facility’s administrative/pass-through function. He warned that suing a federal agency would be costly and take years and that preliminary injunctions to stop operations would be difficult to obtain because the use has been longstanding.
Council debate and motion: Council members wrestled with two tensions: citizen calls for immediate enforcement and the practical limits of the city’s authority over federal operations. Several members said a diplomatic, evidence-seeking approach was prudent. Councilor Michael Carson moved to instruct staff to pursue option 3 from the city attorney’s memo — to contact ICE, request a meeting and ask that the agency put the parameters of its local use in writing so it cannot expand — and to report back on the outcome; the motion carried 6–1, with Councilor Jackie Veil casting the only vote against.
Next steps: Staff indicated they will request a meeting with ICE representatives, raise whether local officials can be allowed to view the facility, and prepare a written notice outlining the parameters of the site’s permissible use. City attorneys said the city will monitor for any expansion of operations and that enforcement or litigation remains an option if talks fail.
The council’s action stops short of immediate enforcement and focuses on establishing dialogue and written limits while the city gathers information and evaluates legal options.
