Demonstrators gather in front of the ICE building in Portland, Ore., on Sept. 27, 2025.
Kristyna Wentz-Graff / OPB
Portland City Council will consider new sanctions against a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building, which has been the focus of monthslong demonstrations, recent land use debates and several court decisions.
Next week, City Councilor Angelita Morillo will propose a policy that would introduce a new fee for private property owners whose building is leased to be used as a detention facility. This would exempt all government-owned property, like the Multnomah County Detention Center or a federally owned ICE detention facility, which Portland doesn’t currently have (but federal officials have expressed interest in).
Only one Portland building currently meets this description: The South Portland ICE facility, which is owned by a private developer who has leased the building to ICE since 2011.
Morillo said this isn’t about that one property owner.
“This isn’t about a specific landlord’s actions,” she told OPB in an interview. “This is about a type of facility that creates costs for the city and for our taxpayers, and this is simply a policy to mitigate those costs to us.”
The fee, which would be determined by the city administrator’s office, would pay for any costs tied to the detention center’s impact in the neighborhood. According to the draft legislation, those are largely protest-related expenses, like police overtime, environmental cleanup of chemical munitions, and financial support to homes and businesses impacted by “detention facility operations.”
The policy also introduces civil penalties for “the release or deposition of chemical residues or other substances beyond the detention facility premises” into the street or neighboring properties.
The city helped temporarily relocate an elementary school located a block east of the ICE building after school administrators raised concerns about ICE officers dousing their outdoor spaces with tear gas and other chemicals.
Federal officers deploy tear gas, flash-bangs and pepper balls on nonviolent protesters outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Portland, Ore., Oct. 18, 2025, in order to clear the driveway.
Eli Imadali / OPB
“This is not about political actions,” said Morillo, who has been outspoken against the Trump administration’s immigration policies. “It applies to all detention centers. This is specifically about the cost to the community.”
The ICE property’s owner disagrees.
Last month, the city issued a land use violation against ICE building owner Stuart Lindquist, claiming he broke a land use agreement that limits how long people can be detained at the facility. Lindquist’s lawyers have challenged that ruling. In a lengthy response to the city’s violation notice, his lawyers argued that the ruling was purely politically driven and not based in fact.
The Oct. 14 letter specifically included screenshots of photos that Morillo posted on social media, which criticized ICE, and mentioned the detention fee proposal.
“A city‑authored landlord fee keyed to leasing to a particular federal tenant (ICE) is a content‑ and viewpoint‑targeted burden on those who choose to do business with ICE—an obvious ‘stick’ meant to make leasing to ICE economically painful,” Lindquist’s attorneys wrote.
The letter adds that the policy is “clearly directed” at Lindquist because he is the only property owner leasing to ICE, “as the city is well aware.”
Representatives with Portland’s planning department are expected to meet with Lindquist next month to consider his land use violation appeal.
City Council members will discuss Morillo’s policy next Wednesday. No councilors have spoken out publicly against the proposal, but the conversation is expected to spark debate.
Morillo said that, if adopted, her policy is likely to face a legal challenge. But she’s confident it will hold up in court.
This proposal is just the latest in a string of City Council proposals meant to oppose federal intervention in Portland. Earlier this month, councilors passed a resolution to limit access of federal officers to city buildings, among other administrative tweaks. They also voted to codify the city’s sanctuary city policy, ensuring that employees across the city — not just in law enforcement — aren’t coordinating with federal immigration agents.
