Heads Up – Moore May Be Looking at Making LG Into a Sanctuary Town W/Potential Monetary Consequences

Executive Summary:

Councilmember Moore is floating a motion on his website with no explanation as to why it is there. We’re not sure if Mr. Moore is grandstanding or if he has not read California SB 54, nor the Council’s own resolution passed in May, 2017 that supports an individual’s civil rights. While the intention behind the resolution might be to reaffirm Los Gatos’ commitment to protecting its residents’ rights and freedoms, it is redundant in light of California’s existing SB 54, lacks sufficient clarity to be effective, and risks overreaching into areas beyond local authority. Additionally, it reiterates points already made in the Town’s May 2017 resolution, without adding substantive new protections or actions. To be more effective, the town could focus on concrete, actionable measures that align with its role and authority, rather than making broad political statements that risk creating confusion or conflict with state and federal law. Based on what he states, it appears that Councilmember Moore wants Los Gatos to become a “sanctuary town“.

It is our opinion that this is a high-risk motion if the Council passes it. The potential effect it might have on us would be the cost of legal services for the Town, as well as having to pay the legal service costs incurred by the state. It could unnecessarily divide the Town further. We will send this to Council for the November 19th meeting and ask that Mr. Moore further explain his intent to the citizens.

Argument Against the Resolution

The proposed resolution, while possibly well-intentioned, raises several concerns regarding redundancy, legal implications, and overreach.

1. Redundancy with State Law: The resolution’s provision to withhold town resources from assisting in deportations mirrors California’s SB 54 (California Values Act), which already prohibits local law enforcement from collaborating with ICE unless required by law. This makes the resolution unnecessary and potentially confusing, as it restates existing protections without adding new value.

2. Vague and Unenforceable Language: The resolution includes broad statements such as resisting “disruption of personal reproductive healthcare” and opposing “attacks on individuals of any race.” These vague provisions lack clarity, making them difficult to enforce and potentially conflicting with state or federal law. The town’s actions could be constrained by these broad commitments, limiting its ability to collaborate with state or federal agencies when required.

3. Duplication of Prior Resolution: The resolution essentially restates commitments made in the Town Council’s 2017 resolution, which already affirmed Los Gatos’ support for civil rights and a welcoming environment. The new resolution adds little substance and risks unnecessary duplication.

4. Overreach of Local Government: Local governments should focus on issues within their jurisdiction. Taking positions on national or state policies, like reproductive rights or federal environmental regulations, risks alienating residents and agencies and could lead to confusion about the town’s role.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply