Gilroy enacts detention center moratorium after ICE fears

With a federal immigration enforcement facility planned just beyond city borders, Gilroy officials are following the path taken by other Bay Area cities in attempting to restrict more projects from being built.

The Gilroy City Council on Monday unanimously approved a temporary, 45-day ban on new detention facilities on public- or private-owned property, with the option to extend it for a total of two years. The moratorium is in line with the city’s opposition to the planned U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility on Holsclaw Road. San Jose officials approved a similar moratorium last month.

Gilroy’s moratorium gives city staff time to review, study and propose a more permanent change to the city zoning regarding similar facilities.

The movement against the ICE facility proposed just east of Gilroy has been picking up steam, with Santa Clara County and state officials filing a June lawsuit to stop it. A federal judge in September granted a preliminary injunction blocking construction on the facility as the larger legal battle plays out.

Mayor Greg Bozzo said the proposed facility has raised significant concern in the community for months.

“While the legal outcome remains uncertain, questions from residents about whether a similar facility could be proposed within our city limits made one thing absolutely clear: Gilroy needed decisive action,” Bozzo told San José Spotlight. “This is a bold, proactive step intended to safeguard our community’s values and future, and reflects our commitment to protecting our residents and community.”

Detention space in the planned ICE facility would be large enough to hold more than 100 people, according to county officials who have reviewed the federal government’s plans. Revelations about the facility, first reported by San José Spotlight in May, have stoked fears that President Donald Trump’s administration is laying the groundwork for more expansive immigration enforcement operations in the Bay Area.

As originally written, the moratorium would have carved out detention facilities from other law enforcement agencies. Councilmember Terence Fugazzi amended it to strike that carve out, which the council approved.

“This strengthens the legality by reducing the chance that this could be seen as unfairly discriminatory should ICE choose to legally oppose,” Fugazzi told San José Spotlight.

The council stopped short of prohibiting the use of city-owned and city-controlled property as a staging area, processing location or operations base for immigration enforcement activity, with councilmembers saying it was merely a symbolic move. Police Chief Brandon Sanchez said whether staging areas are prohibited or not, the Gilroy Police Department will seek cooperation with federal agents.

“If someone calls the police, we’re going to go out there and we’re going to assess it,” Sanchez said at the meeting, adding that the department’s goal is to ensure residents feel safe. “If we know it’s related to immigration enforcement, we’re going to send a representative out there, try to assess what they’re doing and try to ask for their cooperation.”

Dozens of residents attended the meeting, with the majority of speakers in public comment urging the council to pass the moratorium.

Among the residents speaking at the meeting was Youth Alliance founder and CEO Diane Ortiz, who said she, along with concerned parents, young people, educators and many others continue to be worried about what an aggressive federal immigration presence could mean to the community.

“We ask you to build on (the June 1 resolution) by taking concrete action and providing these protections for the community,” Ortiz said at the meeting. “Use all legal authority and responsibility to protect the public health, safety and welfare of its people.”

Conversely, Gilroy resident and former Councilmember Cat Tucker said in a letter issued to council that she thought the staff analysis stating the imminent arrival of ICE into the city limits was misleading, claiming there is no tangible evidence to substantiate that.

“I disagree that there is an imminent threat to our city that warrants an urgent moratorium,” she wrote in the letter. “I view this language as fear mongering and it feels like intimidation tactics to force the council to take immediate action.”

Contact Giovanni Albanese Jr. at [email protected].