MARANA, AZ (AZFamily) — Proposals for data centers and ICE detention facilities in Marana are dividing neighbors and turning some against their local leaders.

These are two issues that some Republicans and Democrats are finding themselves agreeing on, as people try to take charge of who and what ends up in their communities.

“Well, first I think everyone on our city council needs to be replaced. What they are doing to Marana and surrounding areas is destroying our future and our kids’ futures,” a Marana resident said.

A recent proposal by the Department of Homeland Security would create an ICE detention center about 3 miles from the community center.

The property proposed for the ICE facility was a minimum-security prison with a capacity of about 500 people. The release said that renovations will increase capacity to 775, but could expand to over 1,300.

DHS officials say the facility would include more exam rooms, a dental area, and other features.

Arizona’s Family asked DHS for some clarification on those numbers and details. DHS released a statement saying, “ICE does not discuss individual pre-decisional conversations, but when a new facility contract is finalized, information will be available on ICE.gov.”

Data center concerns

Meanwhile, a rezoning application for a data center surfaced on the Town of Marana’s website last week.

It’s the second potential data center in the area and has people itching to get to public comment to voice their concerns.

“The detention center- we don’t need that here; no one wants that here. The data center- I mean, we already don’t have water and it’s awful; we don’t need another data center. Look at the ones across the country and what they’re doing,” the Marana resident we spoke with said.

Marana Town Manager Terry Rozema said nothing is set in stone.

“There’s so many factors that could come into considering whether or not something is beneficial to a community,” Rozema said.

Supporters of these projects said they will create jobs.

See a spelling or grammatical error in our story? Please click here to report it.

Do you have a photo or video of a breaking news story? Send it to us here with a brief description.

FRESNO, Calif. (KFSN) — California bill aimed at preventing registered sex offenders from holding local elected office was halted Tuesday after a Senate committee declined to advance the measure without changes opposed by its author.

Assembly Bill 2753, introduced by Assemblywoman Esmeralda Soria in February, would have prohibited anyone who is or has been required to register as a sex offender from running for local elective office.

“This issue is critical. We have heard loud and clear from the community that we must do something,” Soria said.

The proposal came to a stop in the Senate Elections Committee, where lawmakers argued the bill’s restrictions were too broad.

California’s sex offender registration system is divided into three tiers. Tier 1 offenders are generally required to register for 10 years, Tier 2 offenders for 20 years and Tier 3 offenders for life.

According to Soria, committee members proposed limiting the bill to Tier 3 offenders. She rejected those amendments, arguing that the legislation should apply more broadly.

“For this not to be the law today, where we’re banning people that have committed some of the most horrific crimes against children, against other people, you know, and we have survivors out there, I think it’s a disservice,” Soria said.

The bill had attracted significant support before reaching the Senate. It was backed by the Fresno City Council and passed the Assembly floor in April.

Fresno City Council President Nelson Esparza traveled to Sacramento to testify in favor of the measure and said he was disappointed by the outcome.

“I call it really a gut punch for our community, and what we had experienced here, and sort of the upheaval… I don’t think we want that to happen again here at Fresno,” Esparza said.

Esparza referenced controversy earlier this year involving registered sex offender Rene Campos, who sought a seat on the Fresno City Council but ultimately did not qualify for the ballot.

Opponents of the bill argued that candidacies should be decided by voters rather than restricted by law.

“It should be a decision made by the voters, so a person should not be barred from running for office and let the voters make the decision that makes the most sense for them,” said civil rights attorney Janice Bellucci.

With the committee declining to move the bill forward under its current language, efforts to enact the proposed restrictions have stalled for now.