In a growing number of U.S. cities and counties, local officials and property owners are pushing back against what federal immigration officials have described as efforts to expand detention capacity by scouting and buying commercial warehouses for use as detention and processing facilities. The pushback spans multiple states, with officials in some places saying they were not told in advance and others saying warehouse deals have been pulled back after public outcry.
ICE has said it is working to expand detention space. In a statement, the agency said it would not be using the sites as warehouses, but as “well structured detention facilities,” and that it should come as no surprise that ICE is seeking to increase detention space. Even so, ICE has offered few specifics about the intended use of particular properties, including to the localities that say federal officials are proceeding with limited notice.
In Arizona, ICE paid $70 million last month for a warehouse facility on the northwestern outskirts of Phoenix, according to a deed filed with Maricopa County, as local officials described not being informed about the transaction or the intended purpose. The city of Surprise said it was not aware of efforts underway to purchase the building, not notified of the transaction by any parties, and not contacted by the Department of Homeland Security or any federal agency about intended use. Surprise said in its statement that federal projects are not subject to local regulations such as zoning.
In Florida, Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer said the city had been advised it had “no legal options to halt a possible ICE facility from opening” after being told about potential plans. Dyer said the city had not been informed by the federal government about potential plans, but a TV reporter spotted contractors and federal officials touring a 439,945-square-foot industrial warehouse last month. ICE senior advisor David Venturella told WFTV at the time that the tour was “exploratory” and that “nothing had been decided yet,” while city attorney Mayanne Downs said in a letter that “ICE is immune from any local regulation that interferes in any way with its federal mandate.”
In Indiana, Merrillville’s town council passed a resolution opposing ICE converting a warehouse into a processing or detention facility. The city said it was aware of a tour of a newly constructed 275,000-square-foot warehouse but said it received no notice or communication from ICE, the Department of Homeland Security, or any federal agency about plans, even as an earlier statement said the town was reviewing zoning, land use and occupancy requirements.
In Maryland, ICE purchased a warehouse in Washington County about 60 miles (96 kilometers) northwest of Baltimore for $102.4 million, according to a deed signed last month. A Maryland watchdog called Project Salt Box unearthed the deed, and county officials said in a Facebook post that the Department of Homeland Security sent a letter beforehand. The post said the letter indicated the department was considering purchasing the warehouse for use as a “new ICE Baltimore Processing Facility,” adding that elements such as cafeterias, bathrooms, health care spaces, tents, and guard shacks could be part of the project. The county said it was constrained by federal authority and said it was “not able to legally restrict the federal government’s ability to proceed.”
Local resistance has also taken the form of moratoriums and efforts to block acquisitions. In Kansas City, the city council passed a five-year moratorium on non-city-run detention facilities on the same day ICE officials were spotted touring a nearly 1-million-square-foot warehouse. Manny Abarca, a Jackson County lawmaker, said he faced an initial threat of trespassing when he showed up Jan. 15 at the building on the outskirts of the city, but that ICE personnel eventually allowed him inside. Abarca said Shawn Byers, deputy field office director for ICE in Chicago, told him they were scouting for a 7,500-bed site, and Abarca later announced he was introducing a similar detention moratorium at the county level, saying in a statement that “When federal power is putting communities on edge, local government has a responsibility to act where we have authority.”
Elsewhere, other local governments described pulling back through property owner decisions or by passing resolutions and letters. In Minnesota’s suburbs of Minneapolis, owners of two warehouses pulled out of possible ICE deals after public outcry, according to local leaders. In Woodbury, Mayor Anne Burt said city staff confirmed the warehouse in the city was not being sold or leased to the federal government, and that ICE had been interested in the property, while in Shakopee, a state representative announced owners had decided not to move forward. In New Hampshire, the town council in Merrimack, with a population of about 30,000, expressed opposition in a January letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, saying in its letter that fears included potential harm to the town’s property tax base by more than $500,000 a year.
In New Jersey, Roxbury council members passed a resolution opposing an ICE facility after township manager J.J. Murphy spotted ICE officials touring a warehouse. The township also pointed to zoning regulations that prohibit using the warehouse as a detention facility. ICE’s plans for the site were unclear to Murphy, who said the township received no information from federal officials despite repeated emails, even as the township shared an internal memo from the city engineer about water and sewer issues with the warehouse owner and noted that U.S. Sen. Cory Booker also toured the site.
In New York, elected officials pushed back after the Department of Homeland Security posted a notice about a proposal to purchase a vacant warehouse in Chester for “ICE operations,” with the notice saying improvements could include a small guard building and outdoor recreation area. The notice cited flood concerns for the building, which had been a distribution center for the aftermarket automotive chain PepBoys and sits in a 100-year flood plain.
In Oklahoma, Oklahoma City Mayor David Holt said the Department of Homeland Security told the city it was no longer in talks to acquire a warehouse after the city council urged federal officials to take part in permitting processes. Holt said the property owners then informed him they were no longer engaged with Homeland Security about a potential acquisition or lease, and he thanked them for the decision in a statement.
Across Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Virginia, local officials described both continued interest in potential warehouse sites and ongoing disputes about federal authority and the amount of notice provided. In Pennsylvania, ICE paid $87.4 million for a nearly 520,000-square-foot warehouse, according to a deed recorded in Berks County, while local officials said they had no prior knowledge of the sale and no information on future plans. In Utah, Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall said owners of a warehouse ICE was “eying” announced they would not sell or lease the property to the federal government, and she said in a speech that such a facility “has no place in our city.” In Virginia, Hanover County officials said they were seeking legal advice after a DHS letter confirmed intent to purchase and operate an ICE processing facility in an area that includes retail, hotels and restaurants, with board chair Sean Davis acknowledging that the facility would cut into tax revenue but saying there was only so much the county could do because “The federal government is generally exempt from our zoning regulations,” as dozens of people spoke at a packed meeting.
In New Mexico? None. In Texas, El Paso County commissioners said they opposed construction of detention facilities amid reports ICE was looking at a warehouse, and that other cities in the state had been named in unconfirmed reports, while Texas officials said they had not heard information from federal officials. In El Paso County, commissioners said they were working with other officials to try to get more details. In the weeks covered by the report, local officials repeatedly described frustration at limited information from federal agencies, even as federal statements emphasized expansion plans and claims of broad authority over local regulation.
The overall pattern across the states was the same: while ICE has described its work as aimed at creating “well structured detention facilities,” local leaders said they either learned of possible transactions after the fact or faced public inquiries and legal constraints linked to federal exemptions from local zoning or permitting rules—prompting resolutions, moratoriums and, in some cases, property-owner decisions to avoid dealing with ICE.