This post is Part 3 of a series. Part 1 can be found here, and Part 2 can be found here.
On July 24, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order to move those living in homeless encampments around the United States into treatment facilities with both mental health and substance use services (1).
This is my third post analyzing the Executive Order and how it is being implemented in Utah. I share news about this new facility, as well as my personal experience, having lived outside for 13 months in 2006–2007 as a homeless person in Los Angeles while suffering from schizophrenia. In this post, I will discuss some of the arguments I am hearing from people who oppose the building of this facility.
Argument: This new homeless center will become a warehouse
One of the strongest opponents of this new facility for the homeless is Jesse Rabinowitz of the National Homelessness Law Center, a Washington advocacy group. Rabinowitz has said of the plan to evaluate and treat the homeless: “It’s what they did in World War II in Japanese detention camps. This reads similar to rounding up Jews or other people the Nazis didn’t like.”(1)
Furthermore, opponents also say, “It’s not a hospital model, it’s a segregation model.”
On the other hand, Devon Kurtz from the Cicero Institute says, “Utah [and its creation of this new facility] is a harbinger of the future.”
When I hear these conflicting opinions, I consider my own experience living outside in Los Angeles near the University of Southern California. (Prior to my homelessness, brought on by schizophrenia, I had been an honors student at USC.)
In October of 2006, I had been homeless for three and a half years (living outside for eight months) and was regularly trespassing on my old university campus, where I had once been a student. I did not realize how far I had fallen as I looked for food in trash cans and slept in libraries. On October 16, 2006, finally, police were called, and I was taken briefly to jail for my trespassing.
I agree with Rabinowitz that we should try to avoid rounding up any group of people and taking them to a facility against their will. But homeless people are booked into jails for petty crimes every day (2 million people with mental illness are booked into American prisons and jails every year). Many are harmless. In my opinion, it is more humane to take them to a treatment facility than to incarcerate them. Personally, I wish I had immediately been taken to a facility where I was required to begin treatment for my schizophrenia rather than being jailed.
As I hear from more opponents of this facility, it seems they predict the facility will serve as a gigantic warehouse, where drug addicts, the psychotic, those struggling with mild mental illness, and those who are not addicted or mentally ill (if there are any who are not addicted or mentally ill) will be housed in crowded conditions. But when I speak with knowledgeable sources who are in charge of this new facility, they are adamant that this will not be the case, and that people will be quickly sorted according to their needs and provided for with high-quality and appropriate care for as long as they need it.
In the New York Times, clinician Jen Plumb commented that “Without enormous new spending, the center could function less as a treatment facility than ‘a prison or a warehouse.’”(1)
But I would say that, at this time, the country is watching. At present, they have paid about $20 million for the land and requested approximately $80-100 million from the government for other expenses.(2,3)
Argument: This model will not improve outcomes, and we believe it will create churn
Opponents of this facility also say that it will become just another destination in a vicious cycle. They fear a “treat to street” approach where individuals with psychosis and drug addiction living in this facility will not be kept long enough to recover and will be quickly discharged to the streets.
Unfortunately, this is a common problem in the United States. Patients are not kept in hospitals long enough to really achieve recovery, and often, there is inadequate discharge planning. Too often, the homeless resume life under bridges and on park benches outside following their discharge.
A reliable source shared with me that they will be prepared to meet the residents’ needs in the long term. They said, “for involuntary drug treatment, we probably need to hold people between 18-24 months. For mental illness, we are hoping that many people will be stabilized in <6 months.” The goal will be to permanently stabilize as many of these people as possible, as quickly as possible, but to have the resources to take care of them for as long as necessary.
Argument: Utah already has the infrastructure
I have also heard opponents say that Utah already has the infrastructure in place and simply needs more money. From my own experience, I do not agree that the only obstacle to good care is money. Currently, because there is no place to take the homeless where they will be medically evaluated and housed, psychotic and drug-addicted homeless people face a “revolving door” where they are incarcerated in jails and prisons, briefly hospitalized, released to the streets, and the cycle begins again. What we are doing now, around the whole country, is not working. We need a new approach with the wrap-around services this Utah facility will offer.
In conclusion, as I have said before, this new facility in Utah could be a huge success or an equally big failure. With individualized attention and compassion given to each homeless person who is picked up, there is a chance this facility will be successful. It must be clean and comfortable, and provide excellent care for the people they serve, for as long as they need it. They must realize that each human being is a special person with a history, goals, and potential.
It is my hope that this will be an ideal alternative to incarceration and will become a model for other states to follow.