In a significant community response, Hanover County, Virginia, has united against the proposed sale of a large warehouse property owned by Vancouver’s Jim Pattison Developments to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The intended use of the site as a holding and processing centre has ignited passionate protests and discussions about immigration enforcement on both sides of the border. Local leaders hope their stance will influence the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to reassess its plans.
Local Leadership Takes a Stand
During a public meeting that attracted hundreds of residents, Hanover County Board Chair Sean Davis announced the board’s unanimous opposition to the sale. “This location is clearly not suitable for such a facility,” Davis declared, receiving loud applause from the audience. He argued that establishing an ICE facility would conflict with the area’s residential, commercial, and business landscape.
Although the county lacks the authority to block the sale, the board aims to send a clear message to federal authorities about the community’s values and concerns. “We hope our position will spark a reconsideration,” Davis added.
Concerns Raised Over Community Impact
The controversy surrounding the sale intensified after the DHS notified the county about its intentions in a letter dated January 21. The letter outlined plans for purchasing a 43.49-acre warehouse and making modifications, including the construction of holding spaces and security enhancements. The property, located in Ashland, Virginia, is assessed at over C$65 million, with a substantial 553,000-square-foot warehouse built in 2024.
Initially, Jim Pattison Developments stated it was unaware of the property’s intended use when they agreed to sell it. “We constructed the building for our operations but listed it for lease and sale when our needs changed,” the company explained. They later acknowledged awareness of the prospective buyer and the intended use of the facility, expressing respect for the strong opinions surrounding the issue.
Divided Opinions Fuel Protests
The community’s response has been markedly divided, with many residents assembling to voice their concerns about the potential implications of hosting ICE in their neighbourhood. Demonstrators expressed fears of increased violence and repercussions for immigrant families. One vocal resident, Kimberly Matthews, cautioned, “If we allow this facility here, we risk having the kind of violence seen in Minnesota right in our own backyard.”
Conversely, others have voiced support for the sale, arguing that ICE plays a crucial role in maintaining order by addressing illegal immigration. Supporter Tina Steinberg urged the board to back the facility, stating, “We must stand united with ICE to protect our country from criminal elements.”
A Wider Canadian Response
The proposed sale has also ignited a campaign in Canada, where individuals have begun to boycott businesses associated with Jim Pattison, including popular chains like Save-on-Foods. Corinne Jackson, a long-time patron, expressed her discontent, stating, “I cannot continue to support a company that contributes to a fascist regime.”
The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1518, representing grocery workers, issued an open letter to the Pattison Group, urging the company to consider the broader social and moral implications of the sale. Union president Patrick Johnson noted, “Shifting the impact to workers through boycotts places an unfair burden on those least able to absorb it.”
In contrast, some Canadians, like Kyle Chamberlain from Brandon, Manitoba, voiced concern that boycotting could harm the livelihoods of many Canadians employed by the Pattison Group. He suggested that focusing on local advocacy efforts would yield better results than punishing workers through economic boycotts.
Why it Matters
The situation in Hanover County underscores the complexities surrounding immigration policy and enforcement in the United States and its ripple effects in Canada. As communities grapple with the implications of such developments, the discourse not only reflects local concerns but also raises larger questions about the ethical responsibilities of corporations and the impact of federal policies on everyday lives. The outcome of this proposed sale could set a precedent for future dealings between government agencies and private enterprises, highlighting the vital intersection of community values and corporate decisions in an increasingly interconnected world.
