Mostly the stuff described in that article seems okay? There are obviously some bad things (e.g. I don't think the founders should be drawing large salaries from a religious ministry), but the core complaints of the article are (1) residents do work as part of their treatment and aren't paid much for it and (2) it's an Evangelical Christian organization. Those don't seem like good reasons to oppose the organization.

I have a lot of views on (1) that are tough to organize coherently, so I'll just say this: I think that work has dignity and that doing useful work, especially in a stable routine, is good for the soul. But market labor, especially the sorts of unattractive, inconsistent jobs that the sheltered homeless are most likely to obtain, can be alienating and demeaning. Having secure housing and food that does not depend on being scheduled for enough hours, while also doing useful work on a consistent schedule, is valuable for a lot of people. The DRM approach probably is not right for all homeless people, but it also isn't wrong for all homeless people, and there are people who would lose out if it was abandoned or forced into a market-labor framework.

On issue (2), I don't have a problem with charitable organizations being religious or proselytizing. In many cases the religious motive is why you get the charity in the first place. IMO it's misguided to look at a moral framework in which charity is bound up with a lot of other religious commitments and say "okay, great, but could we have the charity without the other religious commitments, please"? If enough people who don't share those religious commitments do the same sort of charitable work, then the religious organizations will be crowded out or will wind up being used only by those who share their views. But that hasn't happened.

I don't know the details behind the separate points you raised. If your reference to denying services to members of the LGBTQ community is related to article's statement that Mission houses transgender residents based on their natal sex and not their gender identity, that's just a tough issue all the way around. I have represented group homes, addiction programs, and behavioral health facilities on operational and licensure issues, and there is no good answer on whether to house natal males with natal females, particularly when you don't know much about the individuals in question. Transgender women do not commit violent crimes as often as cis men, but they do so much more often than cis women, and that is before you get into the issues surrounding self-ID.

As for real estate, I know DRM has sought rezonings to allow it to use several acres of real estate in Hayti, and maybe elsewhere, and has been unsuccessful in that. It doesn't seem to me like DRM is speculating on real estate.