The township says it remains opposed to a detention facility and is seeking records to determine whether planned federal work complies with restrictions established in its lawsuit.
ROXBURY, NJ – Roxbury officials said Nov. 11 that they are seeking the contract behind reports of renewed federal plans for an immigration detention facility at 1879 Route 46, a day after protests brought the Township Council meeting to an early end.
In a statement posted by the mayor and council, the township said police ended the Nov. 10 meeting because of “escalating disruptions involving protestors whose conduct created significant concerns for public safety and the orderly conduct of Township business.” Officials said the interruption prevented them from completing township business and delivering a prepared update on the warehouse dispute.
The statement reaffirmed the township’s opposition to converting the property into a detention center. Roxbury and New Jersey are plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit challenging the project.
“Let me be absolutely clear, Roxbury Township remains opposed to the conversion of the property at 1879 Route 46 into a detention facility. Our position has not changed, and we will continue to pursue every appropriate legal and political avenue available to us to prevent this conversion.” – Statement from Roxbury Township Mayor and Council
The dispute now centers partly on what the federal government has agreed to pay for, and whether that work would cross limits established earlier in the case.
In a Nov. 6 status report filed in U.S. District Court, attorneys for the state and township said federal lawyers had told them that the Department of Homeland Security had decided to pursue a detention facility at the site. That account followed months in which DHS had said it had not decided whether to proceed.
The filing says federal lawyers could not confirm a reported construction contract but said money had been committed for maintenance, design work and environmental analysis. The plaintiffs requested the contract to assess the federal government’s description.
The reported $31.8 million contract remains a disputed part of the record. Project Salt Box’s reporting linked the award to Roxbury through a person familiar with it, while acknowledging that the procurement description referred to San Antonio, Texas, and listed Newark as the place of performance. Roxbury’s Nov. 11 statement likewise identified conflicting descriptions and said the underlying document was needed before officials could determine what work was intended.
The May 12 stipulation signed by lawyers for both sides explains the distinction between maintaining the property and converting it. It permits specified security and upkeep measures, including fencing subject to conditions, cameras, locks, utility maintenance and work to keep the building secure.
It restricts activities intended to convert the warehouse into a detention center until an environmental assessment and agency decision are completed and the plaintiffs have an opportunity to renew their challenge. The agreement also provides additional time before conversion activity could proceed if the plaintiffs seek a renewed preliminary injunction.
The Nov. 6 filing raised concerns about compliance with the court’s restrictions; it was a submission by the plaintiffs, not a judicial finding that DHS violated them. Roxbury said further court action would depend on obtaining and reviewing the contract.