|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
I was struck by some of the statements while reading through the article from the May 31 edition of the Pleasanton Weekly about the City Council rejecting pleas from the community for a resolution opposing the reopening or repurposing of FCI Dublin as an ICE detention center.
The article notes that, “FCI Dublin was a low-security prison that closed in 2024 due to prison guards sexually abusing incarcerated women, infrastructure issues, and other documented issues.”
The sexual abuse was not isolated or just a few cases. In December 2024, the Department of Justice agreed to a $115.8 million settlement on behalf of 103 women at the prison – the largest award ever to center on sexual abuse claims by incarcerated people.
Guards referred to the facility as “The Rape Club” and anyone speaking out faced retaliation including solitary confinement, loss of medical treatment and extensions of sentences.
And it wasn’t just the guards abusing women. The prison’s warden and chaplain also participated in the assaults. This was a culture of abuse.
And those “infrastructure and other documented issues” aren’t chipped paint and some leaky faucets. They are issues that make the prison uninhabitable and include asbestos, mold, lead paint, cracked sewer lines and contamination from diesel fuel.
Unfortunately, only two of the five council members – Julie Testa and Jeff Nibert – supported moving forward with a discussion of the resolution.
The response from the other three members, including Mayor Jack Balch, that would demonstrate their support for the community’s opposition to having this hellhole in our backyard reopen as an ICE detention center was tone deaf, to put it mildly: “Determining which issues are most important for formal council action can be challenging, particularly when they fall outside the city’s jurisdiction.”
Yes, the prison is in Dublin. But Dublin is also part of the greater Tri-Valley, as is Pleasanton. And the Tri-Valley is interconnected.
Dublin knows this and their City Council unanimously passed a resolution last December opposing the prison’s reopening. And the Alameda County Board of Supervisors also knows this and followed through last March when they passed a resolution opposing the prison’s reopening or repurposing.
That resolution notes that nearly one in three county residents are immigrants, that “credible reports” suggest that the federal government may be considering reactivating the site as an ICE detention facility, that the presence of ICE creates “an environment of fear and anxiety in communities”, that “ICE activities are targeted based on an individual’s race or appearance”, that an ICE presence leads to “an erosion of trust in local government” which can also lead to absenteeism in schools and reduced participation in the economy, and that ongoing protests “demonstrate the deep resistance felt by the public” to having ICE in our community.
And Mayor Balch also knows that we are interconnected. He has served on multiple regional committees, boards and commissions including the Alameda County Mayors’ Conference, Alameda County Liaison Committee, Alameda County Transportation Commission, Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department Joint Powers Authority and the Dublin Liaison Committee.
At the June 16 meeting of the Pleasanton City Council, a majority voted to ask staff to take action similar to what Livermore is doing, which is to investigate options by speaking with Dublin and Alameda County, as well as Livermore. I guess this is progress, but it is slow and it is not a resolution.
So, I ask ALL of the Pleasanton City Council to do the right thing: talk about the resolution, pass the resolution and take a stand showing that issues of jurisdiction are outweighed by an interconnectedness that binds us all together as a community.
Editor’s note: Ward Kanowsky is a 32-year Pleasanton resident, and he and his wife, LeAnn, have raised three children locally. He is a longtime, active volunteer in the community.
