Salt Lake County urgently needs additional shelter capacity so that individuals sleeping outdoors can come inside, stabilize, and more easily connect with services. However, the proposed 1,300-bed “campus” risks doing more harm than good. Evidence strongly suggests that mega shelters do not reduce homelessness; instead, they prolong it by isolating people from the very opportunities that help them exit crisis.

​

Proponents argue that a centralized campus offering comprehensive services eliminates the need for public transportation access. Yet designing a facility in which no one leaves inevitably increases lengths of stay—and therefore increases the number of beds required. In Salt Lake County, approximately 400 people become homeless for the first time each month. Without rapid exits, a campus of this scale would quickly become full, bottlenecking the entire system.

Data also show that over 26% of individuals who enter shelter in Salt Lake County exit homelessness within seven days. Many are employed or have family or social connections they can rely on. Placing a shelter at a remote site far from job centers and transit routes jeopardizes those stabilizing factors. Lengthy commutes put jobs at risk, which in turn extends homelessness rather than helping people move through it quickly and with dignity.

​

Investing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into a mega shelter also comes at a substantial opportunity cost. Utah’s own outcomes demonstrate that Housing First strategies work. According to the Utah Office of Homeless Services, 93% of individuals placed into permanent supportive housing remain housed or transition to other stable housing. Smaller, dispersed microshelters and strategically located overflow facilities—paired with true housing-first investments—provide faster turnover, greater flexibility, and more effective pathways to stability.

​

Rather than concentrating resources in a single, remote location, Utah should prioritize:

• Microshelter communities that provide privacy, safety, and dignity while maintaining connection to transportation, employment, and services.

• Deeply affordable housing for seniors on fixed incomes and for young families who cannot enter the housing market due to rising rents and wages below $40,000 annually.

• Recovery housing and community-based mental health housing that allow Utahns to maintain their stability following treatment or during ongoing care.

• Strategically located overflow shelters equivalent in service level to existing facilities, but smaller in scale, more accessible, and more financially responsible.

If Utah intends to meaningfully reduce homelessness ahead of the 2034 Olympic Games—and, more importantly, for the long-term well-being of its residents—it must move away from a mega-shelter model. Such a facility would be extraordinarily expensive, operationally fragile, and structurally counterproductive. Smaller, connected, housing-focused solutions are not only more humane, but also demonstrably more effective.