Key Takeaways:

• Utah will open a huge 1,300-bed center in a remote area.
• Advocates warn it acts like an internment camp with forced work.
• Many people may be locked in units and must work for housing.
• Critics say it punishes the poor and could scare people from seeking help.

Last month, Utah’s homeless services agreed to buy nearly 16 acres of land northwest of Salt Lake City. There, they plan to build a first-of-its-kind facility with 1,300 beds. Officials call it a “services-based homeless campus.” Yet critics fear it will feel like an internment camp, where people live under strict rules and forced work.

Inside the Proposed Internment Camp

The project began after a federal order pushed states to criminalize street camping. Utah’s leaders then asked a state board to speed up plans for a big, locked campus. They want to focus on recovery, treatment, and long-term results rather than just emergency sleeping space. However, several parts of the plan worry advocates.

What Is the New Facility?

The camp sits more than seven miles from downtown Salt Lake City. It has no public buses nearby, so getting in or out will prove hard. Inside, units lock from the outside. Entrance may not be voluntary. State figures show more than 300 beds could be for involuntary commitment. Officials say people will detox, get mental health care, and receive substance-use support. They call it an “accountability center.”

Remaining beds will offer “work-conditioned housing.” In other words, people must work to stay housed. Eric Tars from the National Homelessness Law Center warns this approach means forced labor. In his view, it closely matches how an internment camp operates.

Concerns Over Forced Labor

Forced labor raises many questions. Critics ask: What counts as work? How many hours must a person serve? Will people earn any pay? So far, the details remain vague. In other states, lawmakers have floated bills that punish those caught camping outdoors with hard labor or facility upkeep. Under this new proposal, event minor rule breaks could lead to labor assignments.

Moreover, Tars fears officials will ban camping and loitering near the campus. He says people can try to leave, but local law will stop them. If someone steps off campus, officers could arrest them for loitering. In effect, the site becomes a closed internment camp.

No Easy Exit

The campus design makes exit tough. Units lock, and guards monitor movement. Some folks may stay for up to 90 days. During that time, leaving early could mean losing shelter. With no bus routes nearby, people cannot easily wander back into town. Critics say this plan strips away freedom. They worry it traps people in a correctional-style setting rather than serving those in need.

Cost and Location

State leaders estimate construction costs at $75 million. They plan to add $30 million a year for running expenses. Yet watchdogs say true costs could be far higher. A nonprofit director argues that treating 1,300 people well costs more than the state’s basic figures. Also, the remote location will require extra transport services or fees, adding to overall expenses.

The site’s isolation creates risks. Some experts warn that lonely, fenced campuses breed despair. People dealing with mental health or addiction need community ties and easy access to jobs. Removing them far from the city may worsen their problems rather than solve them.

What Critics Say

Many housing advocates feel this center marks a step backward. They believe forced labor and locked units punish people for homelessness. A shelter expert said most visitors need short-term help after financial crises. For instance, an elderly person hit by a rent hike may simply need a safe, affordable place to stay. Such a person will shy away from a quasi-correctional camp.

Opponents argue the state should expand supportive housing, not build internment camps. They point to “Housing First” models that proved effective at cutting homelessness and crime. These programs place people in homes and then connect them to treatment. Yet the federal order driving Utah’s project told HUD to stop funding these policies. As a result, states face less support for proven housing plans.

Where Do We Go From Here?

State officials say the campus will open in phases. They plan to start with emergency shelter beds and expand services over time. Still, homeless advocates call for more transparency. They demand clear rules on work programs and exit options. They also urge funding for scattered-site housing and rent assistance.

In the end, communities must decide what help looks like. Do we build locked, work-based centers far from town? Or do we fund housing programs that let people live freely? Utah’s plan will test how far lawmakers will go in punishing homelessness. Many observers worry it could become a national model for internment camps rather than shelters.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main worry about this facility?

Critics say the locked units and work requirements make it feel like an internment camp. They fear people will lose freedom and dignity.

Will residents have a choice to leave?

Officials claim exit is voluntary, but isolation and strict rules make departure hard. Nearby laws could force return or punish those who leave.

How does this differ from Housing First?

Housing First gives homes without conditions. Utah’s plan demands work and treatment before residents earn housing, reversing that approach.

Can this model spread to other states?

Experts warn it could become a pilot for similar camps nationwide. Some lawmakers have backed forced labor in homeless policy, so the idea could catch on.