Pablo Alvarado delivers a statement on “No ICE in Pasadena” at the Pasadena City Council meeting on Monday, June 23, 2025 (File Photo – Brian Biery)
The Pasadena City Council voted unanimously Monday to restrict the use of city property for federal immigration enforcement operations, responding to mounting resident concerns over recent ICE activity in the city.
By Andrew Sweet
The resolution prohibits the use of city-owned or city-controlled property, including parking lots, garages, and non-public areas of municipal facilities, as staging or processing sites for civil immigration enforcement. The move places Pasadena among a growing number of jurisdictions pushing back against federal enforcement presence in local public spaces.
Rather than following the regular agenda order, the council opened the meeting with a comparative presentation outlining how other cities, including Chicago, Los Angeles, and Santa Clara, have responded to federal immigration activity. Deputy City Manager Alex Soto detailed local policy options as public concern continues to rise over recent operations.
Before the meeting, Councilmember Rick Cole, District 2, and Mayor Victor Gordo drafted a resolution limiting “the use of city-owned or city-controlled property, including parking lots, garages, and non-public portions of City facilities, as staging areas, processing locations, or operations bases for civil immigration enforcement activities.” Mayor Gordo amended the resolution during the meeting. The measure was drafted amid resident upheaval over federal agents operating in Pasadena.
The item drew many residents for public comment, who shared anecdotes about ICE raids and feelings of unsafety. Councilmembers expressed strong criticism of federal immigration enforcement practices, with Steve Madison, District 6, calling the treatment of residents “appalling.”
“We’re not dealing with a law enforcement partner,” Cole concluded in his remarks on the resolution. “We are dealing with the equivalent of a sheriff’s department in Mississippi in 1962, and unlike them, they have $65 Billion behind them.”
The motion to initiate future actions passed unanimously, 8–0. Councilmember Tyron Hampton, District 1, also raised concerns about Flock surveillance cameras potentially leaking confidential and personal data to federally associated third parties. Hampton suggested suspending the use of Flock cameras in city operations, but the council recommended further discussions with the Pasadena Chief of Police.
Essential Services Restoration Act Put on Hold
The Pasadena City Council also analyzed the implications of a proposed tax hike in the wake of federal funding cuts in Los Angeles County. The Essential Services Restoration Act would implement a general sales tax to support healthcare costs, generating around $1 billion over five years and raising Pasadena’s tax rate from 10.5% to 11%.
As the item was introduced, Mayor Gordo expressed support for placing the measure on the ballot and noted his attendance at a press conference where it was discussed. Other councilmembers, including Madison, disagreed, arguing that the cost would leave the city with a $20 million healthcare deficit. Madison also questioned how the revenue would be divided between Pasadena and Long Beach, noting that Long Beach has a larger land area and a health department budget $252 million higher.
The item was accompanied by a letter advocating for the measure’s rejection. The letter argued that Pasadena’s affordability crisis could worsen with increased everyday expenses and that the funding would go into the general fund rather than directly to healthcare.
“Why trust vague assurances now,” the letter asked, “when Pasadena residents are fighting to stay afloat?”
The council ultimately voted to send the measure to a committee for further analysis.
Leave a Reply