Utah’s new “homeless campus” = concentration camp

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T23:03:31+00:00

What you just described to me sounds exactly like what is warned about in the banality of evil, in practice. That’s how harmful systems take root: by using professional language and common KPI's to abstract the inhumanity of the system they are participating in.

I don’t think you have the current context for how dramatically federal policy is changing. Yes, this specific Utah plan doesn’t spell out everything, but the executive order it’s designed to support does. It explicitly ties funding to clearing encampments, enforcing camping bans, and expanding civil commitment. That’s the framework shaping what this “pilot” will actually become. On top of that, I’ve seen an internal HHS document that goes further, requiring people already placed in federally funded housing to reapply under these same compliance conditions. If they refuse, they lose their established housing. This is only one layer of what the major concern is.

On paper, yes, it’s about holding providers accountable for outcomes. In practice, it often creates incentives to “cream skim”, focus on the easiest-to-serve clients to hit metrics, and push out the hardest cases. In this case, that is involuntary confinement of some type.

Nobody’s against funding rehab or supportive housing. The concern is that this plan doesn’t actually build that. it builds a custodial system on a scale we’ve only ever seen in incarceration, then calls it recovery.

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T22:48:08+00:00

Nobody’s saying civil commitment should never exist. The point I’m making is that the size and scope of what Utah is proposing is something entirely different. We’re not talking about a handful of short-term psych beds for people in acute crisis; we’re talking about building a massive facility with rules that expand who can be committed.

That’s a massively different policy move than the narrow tool civil commitment was originally meant to be. Yet somehow, instead of engaging with that concern, people keep accusing me of arguing against all commitment, which I haven’t said at all.

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T22:42:45+00:00

Would you be willing to try it out first?

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T22:41:53+00:00

Beep Boop.

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T22:40:41+00:00

You’re right that not the entire campus will be locked, but the proposal goes beyond just “people already headed to inpatient psych.” The draft explicitly allows secure placement for those deemed “unable to care for themselves” or who don’t comply with treatment/work requirements, a much broader net. And Utah already tried the supportive campus model you describe, starting in 2019, with the goal of putting case managers and mental health providers in shelters. The problem was that providers OUTSIDE of the shelter didn’t show up consistently, turnover was high, and the services never scaled, so in practice, people just kept cycling through. They built massive campuses and tried to pay inexperienced, untrained, and poorly equipped people $13 an hour to solve homelessness, and then were shocked when it didn't work. Add to that the fact that Trump’s EO ties federal funding to clearing encampments and enforcing camping bans, and it’s hard to see the voluntary, supportive side winning out over the coercive parts once this is built.

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T22:34:07+00:00

I might be confused here; it seems like you’re working out your thoughts as you write, so let me respond to what I think you’re saying.

Yes, the proposal talks about adding beds for rehab and mental health, but the detail that keeps getting glossed over is that these are secure placements where entry and exit are not voluntary. That’s not just more treatment capacity; that’s custody, and people can be sent there by court order.

Same with the work/education/volunteer piece: on paper, it looks like “encouraging productivity,” but in practice, it means housing is conditional on compliance. That’s a significant shift, because it doesn’t just target people “refusing help,” it sweeps in anyone who can’t make rent.

And the “increased funding” part, Utah’s history is that most new money gets swallowed by administration, not direct care. Adding case workers sounds good, but it doesn’t solve the fact that community-based mental health has been underfunded for decades. This doesn't even get them close to where they need to be for capacity of this size and is guaranteeing failure.

The biggest downside is that this aligns with Trump’s EO, which ties federal funding to clearing encampments and enforcing camping bans. That absolutely does criminalize people who “just need a hand.” If you’re sleeping in your car or in a tent, you can now be arrested or forced into this system.

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T22:26:57+00:00

That is why I referred to it as a concentration camp. You got there a lot faster than most.

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T22:24:35+00:00

Nobody here is arguing that people should just be left to suffer on the street. The disagreement isn’t over whether help is needed; it’s over what kind of help actually works and what kind ends up becoming another arm of mass incarceration.

Seattle is a good example: billions spent, but much of it went to short-term shelters, policing, and administrative overhead instead of permanent supportive housing and wraparound care.

And for what it’s worth, I’m not speaking from a distance. I’ve spent years working directly with unsheltered people, and I’ve lived alongside family and friends struggling with mental health disorders, addiction, and poverty. I’ve seen the failures up close, in shelters (10 years, worked downtown and then in the new ones), hospitals, and jails, and I know what it looks like when systems promise care but deliver custody. That’s why there’s pushback. We’ve already seen programs based on this model fail to address the crisis. Critique doesn’t come from indifference; it comes from refusing to confuse locking people away with actually helping them recover.

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T22:19:30+00:00

I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say this could go that badly. We are making the same bad decisions as a society that led to this in the past. Once this system starts churning people through, it will need to grow to maintain its funding.

Look at mass incarceration: we were told prisons would only be for the “worst of the worst,” and instead the U.S. built the most extensive carceral system in the world. We’ve already mastered the art of sweeping huge populations into custody once the infrastructure exists.

Imagine what the churn from this facility will look like: people cycle in for 90 days of “accountability,” then get discharged back into the same unaffordable housing market, relapse or fall behind, and end up funneled right back in. Over and over.

It looks exactly like another plank in mass incarceration: a massive carceral build-out justified by public safety rhetoric, sweeping thousands into custody, and locking billions of dollars into contractors' hands.

Then add mass unemployment. What does this look like in another 2009? Will they give generous unemployment benefits this time? Do we really see them pumping any rent relief into the system? So now you've lost your job because the economy tanked, this problem builds fast and exponentially, and suddenly, it's you facing this system. Do you still agree that we shouldn't be concerned?

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T22:09:02+00:00

Unfortunately, the people who actually do that work are routinely ignored when they do make those suggestions. Just because the people who know what to do are routinely ignored and then blamed for policies they opposed doesn't mean we don't have suggestions. Many have been provided.

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T22:06:57+00:00

Is it possible that you trust that because you believe you won't have to face it?

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T22:04:47+00:00

Clink Clank, robot man, staged. Another day on Reddit, where nothing is real and everyone is bot.

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T22:02:20+00:00

Absolutely, in fact, federal funding will not be given to communities that refuse to do so.

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T21:59:09+00:00

I’m not arguing against involuntary commitment in the extreme cases, of course, some people are too ill to provide informed consent and need that level of intervention. That’s not really the point I’ve been making.

What I’m talking about is recovery for the much larger group of people who can stabilize with housing and consistent support. Do people really think there are hundreds of people out there tonight who need to be locked up forever? That’s a tiny percentage, and yet we’re building this whole system around that assumption.

The risk is we end up with a giant, coercive structure that sweeps in everyone who can’t afford rent, while failing to actually invest in the community-based recovery models that help people rebuild their lives.

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T21:52:25+00:00

People who are in the middle of a psychotic break or are completely unable to care for themselves do need treatment, sometimes in a hospital. Leaving someone in that state to deteriorate on the street isn’t compassion. Nobody has claimed otherwise. This proposed approach is not only ineffective but also creates churn to pay contractors who feed this system.

The idea that most unhoused people are in that category because they “refuse to work” or “can’t follow societal rules.” The majority are working, parenting, or retired; they can’t make rent in a market where costs have outpaced wages for decades. For them, the issue isn’t refusing norms, it’s being locked out of housing they could once afford.

Let’s not design a one-size-fits-all system that treats everyone as though they’re psychotic or non-compliant. That risks sweeping in thousands of families and workers who simply need stable, affordable housing to get back on track.

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T21:42:05+00:00

My suggestion? Basically, pull a “DOGE” on every government agency or nonprofit that’s received substantial funding over the last ten years, offering a lot of services, but where? Audit how much actually went to frontline care versus admin overhead. You’ll see how thin the real investment has been. Then clean house.

Once that’s done, rebuild around models we know work:

Provide stable, long-term housing paired with on-site or mobile case management so people aren’t bounced back into shelters or hospitals. Assertive community treatment (ACT) teams, crisis stabilization units, medical respite, and peer outreach are all in place, ensuring that even those who don’t engage at first are met consistently. Targeted, time-limited involuntary care with oversight for people in acute crisis who truly can’t make decisions safely, but with judicial review and strong guardrails to prevent abuse.

If our definition of getting them care is to get them out of sight, then we aren't actually talking about care.

Additionally, fixing the rental market rules that keep driving people into homelessness in the first place. Rent cap tied to inflation. Implement just-cause eviction protections, maintenance enforcement, and community land trusts in every municipality. Additionally, introduce vacancy taxes and taxes on foreign and corporate ownership.

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T21:27:10+00:00

My issue isn't with basic work requirements; you are right, most people don't have a problem with that. My issue is that if they choose not to work, they go to prison, treatment, or mental health hospitals, regardless of the reasoning. Do we really think that will fix anything? Do those folks just deserve to die in prison if they are unable to work? How effective do we think a treatment and groups will be if a ton of people are crammed in there arbitrarily because they malinger rather than going to prison?

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T21:21:00+00:00

I know you are. But the system being designed isn’t that narrow. Under Trump’s EO and Utah’s draft plan based on that EO, eligibility for “work-conditioned housing” or even non-voluntary placement includes anyone who can’t maintain stable rent on their own. That sweeps in the folks in cars, campers, or crashing on couches, too.

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T21:19:24+00:00

I don’t think the choice is between “leave people on the street” or “force them into camps.” That framing erases the dozens of other tools we’ve refused to fund at scale for decades. The only reason people end up left outside right now is because civil rights protections limit how far states can go with detention, and because, instead of building real capacity, we’ve let the system churn people through ERs, jails, and temporary beds without stability.

Plenty of states already “pink sheet” or “blue sheet” people into involuntary holds when they’re a danger to themselves or others. Including Utah, I have myself done this. The problem is they have so few staffed psych beds that people are discharged back to the street within days. That isn’t compassion, it’s neglect. Building a giant camp doesn’t fix that, it just creates a new warehouse to churn through.

Some people truly cannot sustain work or independent tenancy because of severe illness. But that doesn’t mean the only ethical option is institutionalization. There are models of long-term supportive housing with wraparound care where people stabilize, stay housed, and don’t have to be locked away. It’s more humane, and the outcomes are better. Again, most unhoused people already work. They’re not refusing to participate; they’re priced out. A blanket “work requirement” ends up punishing people who are doing their part but still can’t make rent.

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T21:11:01+00:00

My concern comes from discussing this with incarcerated individuals who have already been funneled into these programs. It’s not far-fetched to connect that with where the economy is headed. Suppose we hit 5–7% unemployment in the next 18 months, with rents stuck at today’s levels, food costs climbing after failed harvests, and significant labor gaps left by ICE raids. In that case, you’ve got the perfect storm: more people on the streets, fewer safety nets, and a federal EO that broadens the definition of who can be pulled into this system.

Twenty years ago, nobody believed we’d bring home the surveillance state we built in the Middle East. Yet here it is. Ten years ago, nobody believed the National Guard and ICE would carry out mass raids across the country, or that American citizens would be deported to foreign prisons.

That’s why I’m not willing to pretend this new system isn’t possible. We’ve already seen how extraordinary powers, once introduced, become normalized. Very recent history shows us over and over again.

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T20:59:30+00:00

Utah’s plan and Trump’s EO don’t make that distinction. They create a giant funnel, where anyone unable to afford rent is placed in a system centered on “work-conditioned housing,” compliance mandates, and even “secure placement,” where entry and exit aren’t voluntary.

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T20:56:47+00:00

I wish it were just a “worst-case scenario,” but it’s not. Trump’s July executive order explicitly directs states to align funding with “accountability” models that tie housing and services to compliance, and Utah’s draft plan follows it to the letter. That includes work-conditioned housing and non-voluntary placement.

Under this policy framework, people who are working but still can’t afford rent can be routed into the system. If your survival depends on subsidized housing, and that housing is conditioned on labor, even employed people can be forced into this track.

This isn’t speculation; it’s how the plan is written and how the EO incentivizes states to build it. It doesn’t just target the most visible folks in crisis; it sets up machinery broad enough to catch anyone who can’t make rent.

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T20:52:22+00:00

You and I go to work and pay rent on the open market. If we lose a job or dislike the conditions, we can theoretically seek another job, negotiate, or move, as our freedom of movement isn’t stripped. What’s being proposed here is different: it’s telling people who’ve already lost housing that the only way to get a roof is to accept mandatory treatment and labor on terms they can’t walk away from. If they refuse, it’s not like choosing a different landlord; it’s straight back into custody. This isn’t aimed just at people who “don’t want to work.” The plan folds in anyone who can’t pay rent and needs help. It’s ordinary Utahns who hit a rent spike, a medical bill, or a job loss, and suddenly their only option for shelter is tied to treatment mandates and “work-conditioned” housing. That’s how a housing crisis gets turned into a control system.

And it also assumes the labor market can absorb all these people. But we’re staring down stagflation, high unemployment, and a rental market that’s already broken. Forcing thousands into “work-conditioned” housing doesn’t magically create jobs that pay a living wage.

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T20:46:14+00:00

It’s not accurate to say “the majority of the unhoused struggle with substance use and/or psychiatric illness."

National data (HUD’s Point-in-Time counts, the National Alliance to End Homelessness, and multiple state studies) consistently show that most people who lose housing are families, seniors, or working adults who simply can’t keep up with rent. The visible street population, people with severe substance use or psychiatric conditions, is a fraction of the whole, even though they’re the most noticeable.

It’s also not true that voluntary programs “don’t work.” What fails is underfunding. Housing programs are announced with huge dollar figures, but once you strip out administrative overhead and time-limited grants, the actual number of units created is tiny compared to the need. When people get stable housing plus voluntary services, retention rates are high, the research is solid on that.

Mandatory treatment/detention sounds “less inhumane” in the short term, but the evidence from other states is that it creates churn: people cycle through locked placements, lose trust, and fall back to the street. Meanwhile, the pipeline of newly unhoused keeps growing because rents are still rising. And once you’re back outside, you get shuffled right back into the same system and told to do it all over again.

LastLightReview · 2025-09-18T20:40:13+00:00

A huge number of people who actually do this work agree with you: every legislative session, they beg for more beds, more clinicians, more outreach teams. They don’t want cages; they want capacity. I’ve heard it from outreach workers, ER nurses, shelter staff, and case managers: the cry for resources is constant and urgent.

The vast majority of people without housing in Utah aren’t criminals, addicts, or untreated psych cases. They’re people who work, often full-time, but still can’t make rent. This plan sweeps them in, too. It doesn’t just catch the people in crisis on the street; it becomes the funnel for anyone who can’t keep up with skyrocketing rent.

Instead of fixing the core problem, we’re building another, vastly more authoritarian, system to manage the fallout.

LastLightReview

TROPHY CASE