|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A contingency of Tri-Valley residents and activist groups from across the Bay Area scored a victory last week when the Dublin City Council passed a resolution formally opposing the reopening of the troubled federal prison site that was shuttered last year.
The resolution, requested by Vice Mayor Jean Josey following a lengthy public comment session in the wake of a vigil outside City Hall in November, was ultimately passed unanimously by the council after hours of discussion and debate Dec. 16.
“I’m very pleased that the Dublin City Council listened to its residents and did the honorable and responsible action by passing the resolution formally opposing the placement of a detention center in this city,” said Dublin resident Liz Schmit in a press release from the ICE out of Dublin Coalition.
“I do not like to see people deprived of their safety. I do not like to see people deprived of their constitutional rights. I do not like to see people deprived of their mental health. And with ICE, that’s all we get,” Schmit added.
Deprivation of safety, constitutional rights and mental health support have already become part of the legacy of the former federal women’s prison across Arnold Road from the county’s Santa Rita Jail. The Federal Correctional Institution, Dublin formally shuttered late 2024 amid widespread allegations – and criminal charges – of sexual abuse and assault, as well as medical malpractice and health hazards such as mold and asbestos in the aging facility that was built in 1974.
“The beautiful City of Dublin should shine a beacon of light and loudly proclaim that they will no longer tolerate being the home of the ‘Dublin Rape Club’,” wrote Darlene Baker, who was incarcerated at the facility from April 2022 to February 2023 and assaulted by its medical officer, in a letter to the City Council. “I respectfully urge the Council to use every means available to ensure this facility is never opened again, including and especially use as an ICE facility housing vulnerable immigrants.”
The closure of the prison, and the associated criminal convictions of multiple former staffers, was set to put an end to that legacy in December 2024.
But months later, news began to circulate – with limited publicly available information – that the site was being eyed for resurrection as an immigration detention facility as Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity escalated in the early days of the second Trump administration in February.
In the months since, the ICE out of Dublin Coalition has taken shape, made up by a wide-ranging group of Tri-Valley residents and regional activist groups, with multiple public events garnering hundreds of attendees and aimed at increasing awareness of the site’s potential reopening while sending a message to the federal government that an ICE detention facility is not welcome in the Bay Area.
The group brought that message and turned its attention toward local government at Dublin City Hall, where hundreds gathered outside for a vigil ahead of the Nov. 18 council meeting and dozens spoke in the non-agendized public comment portion to call on the council to pass a formal resolution opposing the reopening of the former prison.
While the city lacks authority over the federally owned site, advocates asked for the resolution to be passed as a way of sending a message to Dublin residents – approximately 40% of whom are immigrants, according to Josey – and to the federal government.
The resolution formalizes the city’s existing stance, according to a staff report from City Manager Colleen Tribby, which is that “no form of detention operation is appropriate at the former FCI Dublin location, given its history of abuse, infrastructure deterioration, and associated impacts on the community”.
City officials have taken their own steps in the months since the possibility of the prison’s resurrection emerged, expressing concerns and seeking more information and clarification.
“Federal representatives have acknowledged these concerns, and the City continues to track federal actions related to the site,” Tribby said.
The city sent an initial letter to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Bureau of Prisons in April, following up with a second letter on Nov. 17 reiterating previous concerns and emphasizing its opposition to the reopening of FCI Dublin.
The BOP ultimately responded this month, first on Dec. 5, stating that the bureau “has no plans to reopen” the facility and “no indication that the facility will be repurposed by ICE”. On Dec. 10, BOP officials added that the bureau intends to “permanently deactivate, close, and dispose of FCI Dublin, and to divest itself of the facility”, with the property being transferred to the U.S. General Services Administration.
However, that doesn’t necessarily eliminate the potential for the site to be used by ICE or another government agency. Property that is transferred to the GSA is first offered to other federal agencies. Only if no agency identifies a need for the property is it then declared surplus, opening a path for its sale or use for other purposes.
That possibility led to an amendment that was included in the resolution ahead of the final vote Dec. 16, adding GSA to the list of federal agencies called on for “open and transparent communication with the City regarding any decisions affecting the site”.
Numerous other amendments were proposed and concerns raised in the discussion ahead of the council vote, particularly about walking the line of supporting all residents regardless of immigration and documentation status without venturing into sanctuary city policies and language – something that has put other Bay Area cities with that sanctuary designations on the federal government’s “naughty list” over the past year.
“You use language that is inviting, perhaps, and that you would think might lead to assumptions about where we’re heading,” District 1 Councilmember Mike McCorriston said.
“We’re not heading in the direction of a sanctuary city. We’re not heading anywhere near that,” McCorriston added. “We’re not harboring illegal aliens. That is not our intent. But what we are saying simply in this document is that regardless of who you are, if you’re a resident of this city, we want you to feel safe.”
With multiple motions and amendments on the table, Josey said it was important for the council to send a unified message.
“I would love for us to reach consensus on this item and not end up in a 3-2 vote personally,” Josey said. “I think it is important to our community that we stand united on this particular thing. If we cannot agree on language, and this ends up in a divided vote, I think it does not send the message to the federal government that we want to send. I also think it does not send the message to the citizens of Dublin that we want to send.”
That sentiment was ultimately taken to heart by the council, who voted 5-0 to pass the resolution with an additional amendment eliminating specific language about immigration and legal status, but expressing support for all residents’ health and safety.
Walnut Creek man identified as victim of November shooting death in OaklandDecember 19, 2025 9:39 am