Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fci Dublin Ice Opposition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pleasanton residents press council to oppose reopening FCI Dublin as an ICE facility; council directs staff to coordinate regionally
Summary
Dozens of residents urged the Pleasanton City Council to oppose any reopening of FCI Dublin for immigration detention; councilmembers agreed to confer with Livermore and Dublin and asked staff to report back, but did not adopt a resolution at the meeting.
Dozens of Pleasanton residents used the public-comment period at the June 16 City Council meeting to urge the council to publicly oppose the possible reuse of the former Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Dublin as an immigration detention facility.
Speakers from multiple neighborhoods described personal and community harms they associate with ICE operations and detention centers, calling on the council to “speak out” and join neighboring jurisdictions that have taken formal opposition. Anne Medeiros Everton, a longtime resident, thanked councilmembers who asked for continued discussion and said, “Pleasanton does not have any jurisdiction over that facility … yet Dublin City Council and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors have, in solidarity and with humanity, both issued unanimous formal resolutions against ICE in Dublin.”
Other speakers recounted what they described as documented abuses at detention facilities and gave emotional testimony about community impacts. Lori Herbert, who said she protests weekly with her 91-year-old mother, asked directly, “If ICE comes to the Tri-Valley, do you think I should continue to take my mother to our weekly protests?” Another speaker read an account from Minneapolis describing neighborhood disruptions and long-term fear.
Valerie Prior, general manager of the Zone 7 Water Agency, later addressed a separate agenda item and urged the council to pause the city’s planned water-meter replacement action until the city demonstrates compliance with an existing settlement with Zone 7; her remarks focused on water-utility obligations rather than immigration policy, but they formed part of the broader public comment and staff discussion that followed.
Councilmembers acknowledged the speakers’ concerns and debated whether to direct staff immediately or wait for the matters-initiated portion of the agenda. A majority agreed to have staff confer with Livermore, Dublin and Alameda County to determine options for a coordinated regional response and report back to council. Mayor Balch said he had already been in contact with Livermore’s mayor and would share information with staff.
The council did not adopt a formal resolution opposing ICE at this meeting. Several councilmembers said a resolution had been considered previously and that the council had chosen not to take it up at an earlier meeting; members asked staff to include a resolution as one option when they report back. The council’s action was limited to directing staff to coordinate and return with options, timetables and potential next steps.
What’s next: City staff will coordinate with Livermore, Dublin and Alameda County and return to the council with options for potential joint statements or actions; no formal city resolution was adopted June 16.
