State can officially use eminent domain to site a new homeless campus. What now?
A conceptual rendering depicts what state leaders envision for a new "transformative campus" meant to house and rehabilitate people experiencing homelessness. (Courtesy of the Utah Office of Homeless Services)
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox officially signed a bill on Tuesday that not only cemented Salt Lake City's partnership with the state to improve 'public safety' within the capital city, but also one that could carry major implications for what comes next in the effort to dramatically expand the state's emergency shelter bed capacity.
The bill, HB465, started out as a punitive measure — one that would have forced Salt Lake City to formally partner with the state to police camping and drugs or else risk losing state funds. The version ultimately passed by the Utah Legislature and signed by Cox, however, no longer includes those penalties — though it still requires Salt Lake City police to enter into an agreement with the Department of Public Safety by July 1.
To Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall, who faced demands from state leaders ahead of the 2025 legislative session to better police camping, drugs and lawlessness in her city, the final version of HB465 is much more palatable than its original.
State leaders call SLC police 'ineffective,' urge mayor to act — or state will step in
'We went into this session with a goal of preventing a state takeover of our public safety,' Mendenhall told reporters during a media roundtable on Friday. 'We succeeded in maintaining that core municipal function of Salt Lake City.'
But there's another important provision in the bill that grants the state the power to 'use eminent domain to condemn' a very specific type of parcel — 'unincorporated land' owned by Salt Lake City 'for the public use of constructing a new facility on the land for homeless services.'
That's a tool that state leaders could potentially use in their ongoing secret search for a 30-acre property meant to host what's envisioned as a 'transformative campus' to increase Utah's homeless shelter capacity by somewhere in the ballpark of 1,200 to 1,600 beds.
'We're supportive of (the eminent domain provision) because we know the legal landscape surrounding the property options that we're looking at, and this is a tool that we support in this bill,' said Mendenhall, who also serves on the Utah Homeless Services Board, the body that will make the final decision where to site the proposed homeless campus.
Finding that site has proven difficult, State Homeless Coordinator Wayne Niederhauser has said. He told Utah News Dispatch on the final night of the 2025 session that the eminent domain provision of HB465 is an optional tool to help site a 'permanent' facility — though he also said no decisions have been made.
'We're still looking at properties. This is one of the options,' Niederhauser said. 'In order for that to be an option, eminent domain is required.'
Utah lawmakers look to use eminent domain to help SLC site new homeless shelter
The mayor supported that eminent domain provision — which came about through negotiations with lawmakers — as a way to advance an effort that Mendenhall has long been urging state leaders to move on sooner rather than later: increase the number of emergency homeless shelter beds in the state's homeless system.
'Normally we would never agree to eminent domain,' Mendenhall said, but she added Salt Lake's 'highest priority in this conversation' was creating more homeless shelter space 'as soon as possible.'
That could allow the state to potentially use that city-owned property — which has not yet been publicly identified — for not just a temporary facility that Mendenhall offered in her public safety plan that she unveiled in December in response to state demands to improve 'public safety' in Salt Lake City, but it could also eventually be a permanent home for the envisioned 'homeless campus.'
When asked to clarify whether HB465 could be used to site the homeless campus, Mendenhall told reporters, 'or a transitional facility until that point.'
In order to immediately address what her plan described as a 'shortage of 1,000 to 1,600 year-round emergency shelter beds,' Mendenhall previously said in her plan that Salt Lake City would be prepared to use a 'city-owned property for a campus facility for up to 24 months if capital and operational costs can be allocated by the state and philanthropic partners' while state officials work to site a permanent property.
But as HB465 took shape, she indicated that she would be open to that property also hosting a permanent shelter.
'I've long said that the system needs more shelter. This is a humanitarian crisis that will not be resolved quickly,' Mendenhall said in a prepared statement to Utah News Dispatch last month when the new version of HB465 was first adopted. 'As much as I would prefer to have more shelter and housing in all counties across the state, I also recognize the acute needs here. Specifically, we know how difficult it is to open winter beds every year that close and leave people outside all summer. That being said, we are willing to explore permanent shelter if it is fully funded by the state and philanthropic partners.'
Details are scant on exactly where and when that city-owned property is located other than it's on 'unincorporated' land. HB465's sponsor, House Majority Assistant Whip Casey Snider, R-Paradise, also gave another hint in a Senate committee hearing that it has an 'easement against it for conservation.'
However, at least one lawmaker — Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City — said she voted against HB465 out of concern that its eminent domain provision could impact west-side Salt Lake City.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
On the Senate floor, Escamilla worried it will lead state and city leaders to place 'a very large building in the west side of Salt Lake City, and (it's) very problematic because they won't have a process for the community to engage.'
When asked about Escamilla's concerns about the property being near west-side Salt Lake City, a spokesperson for Mendenhall told Utah News Dispatch to contact the Office of Homeless Services about location specifics. A spokesperson for that office declined to comment.
Previously, Mendenhall has advocated for other cities to do more to host homeless facilities since Salt Lake City already hosts many. Pressed on why she's agreed to use city-owned land for the effort, Mendenhall said she would answer that question at a later date.
'When we identify the site of the facility, we can talk about that,' she said.
Asked when that site will be announced, Mendenhall also didn't give an answer.
'If I knew I probably couldn't tell you, but I don't even know just yet,' she said.
The bill has an effective date of May 7, so state leaders could potentially exercise their new eminent domain powers at any point after that date. However, it's not clear exactly when the public will know more about that property, whether state leaders actually move to exercise their eminent domain power, or any other developments around the state's search for a homeless campus.
Utah homeless board OKs search for up to 1,200-bed 'centralized campus.' What now?
In response to questions about HB465's eminent domain provision, state officials referred to a newly created website that lists a loose timeline for the 'transformative campus.'
A 'final site announcement' isn't expected until at least 'summer 2025,' but no hard dates have been set, according to the website. After that announcement, state officials expect 'community engagement to share plans, gather input and answer questions.'
The first phase of the project isn't expected to open until at least November 2025.
But between now and then, many more details need to be hashed out. And lack of funding continues to be a major issue.
Last week, the Utah Homeless Services Board — the body that oversees and funds the state's homeless system — held its first meeting since the conclusion of the 2025 Utah Legislature.
In that meeting, Niederhauser updated board members on what lawmakers did and didn't fund.
'This is a big challenge for our office,' Niederhauser warned. 'The board needs to be aware of it.'
Cox recommended lawmakers spend at least $18.8 million on efforts to alleviate homelessness, including about $5.8 million in ongoing funds for a new family shelter that's already been approved in South Salt Lake and about $13 million in one-time funding to keep temporary emergency shelter beds open through next winter and into spring 2026.
Faith groups, advocates urge Utah Legislature to fund operations for new family shelter
However, the Legislature only funded $3.9 million for the family shelter and $5.5 million in one-time money for emergency shelter, Niederhauser said.
'That does leave us short $1.9 million ongoing' for the family shelter, he said.
The new family shelter is still expected to open within the next month, as it's currently funded to stay open at least until the end of June, Niederhauser said, but it's not yet clear what will happen to it unless state and local leaders scrape together more money for the shelter.
'We met with The Road Home and Shelter the Homeless today, brainstorming how we might get more creative to fill that gap of $1.9 million,' Niederhauser said. 'So we're all going to be participating in that, looking to potentially the private sector and maybe also some more public sector money to fill that gap.'
As for the money for winter and summer overflow beds — which helped house more than 900 people this year — Niederhauser said 'we have a serious worry' that if state leaders don't find more money to keep those beds open beyond April 30, 2026, there could be hundreds of people 'looking for a place to sleep at night in and around probably Salt Lake City, the Jordan River, creeping into other communities nearby.'
'I think we're going to be about $5 million short to get us through next fiscal year,' Niederhauser said.
He added that his office will be searching for solutions. 'But unless we get some money, other public funds maybe through some other public entities and maybe some help from the private sector, it's going to be a big challenge.'
'My guess is we'll be able to get through next winter without having to close beds,' he said. 'But on April 30 (2026), without some additional money, I think we're going to have a lot of beds close.'
Mendenhall, in her public safety plan, urged the 2025 Utah legislature to allocate a 'stable, dedicated funding source' for homeless services. That didn't happen. She told reporters Friday that was the No. 1 thing lacking from this year's legislative session.
Meanwhile, there's an even bigger hurdle that lawmakers haven't yet taken on. There's no ongoing funding yet identified to fully fund operations for the homeless campus, 'which we really, desperately need,' Niederhauser.
Last year, the Utah Legislature appropriated $25 million for a new large homeless shelter, but officials have not yet spent that cash while they continue to look for a site for the homeless campus. But ongoing funding is a much bigger problem.
Lawmakers fund $25 million toward new 600-800 bed homeless shelter
'That's going to have to be a big discussion that we have this summer and into next legislative session,' Niederhauser said.
He noted Haven For Hope in San Antonio — which Utah leaders visited last year as they shaped their vision for Utah's homeless campus — costs an estimated $30 million a year to operate.
'So that's a big nut to crack,' he said. 'That's going to be a big nut for the Legislature to consider. So we are going to have to come together and figure this out as a whole community. That's the state, county, cities, and the private sector, to figure out how that's going to work.'
Despite the challenges, Niederhauser said he's 'bullish' that leaders will find a way to make the campus a reality.
But in the meantime, if homeless service providers have to cut back on case management in order to fill the funding gaps the 2025 Legislature left, that could create more issues that run contrary to the Homeless Service Board's goal to not just warehouse people, but help them get back on their feet.
Jim Behunin, a former legislative auditor who now serves on the Homeless Services Board, said 'we cannot be asking our providers to come up with any more efficiencies.'
'I've seen how short they are in their funding already,' he said. 'We are already underfunding for supportive services.'
However, Behunin also said as he's spoken with legislators, 'there is a lack of confidence' in the state's homeless system to support added investment, especially 'new funds' through a tax that would likely be needed to support operations of the new campus.
'They're not ready to bite on that offer,' he said. 'There's still a lot of concern about whether the funds would be spent effectively. And how we bridge that gap is something that we all need to be grappling with somehow.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Denver Case Highlights the Potentially Deadly Hazards of Police Raids Based on Secondhand Information
On a Friday night in March 2023, Sean Horan called 911 to report that Michael Mendenhall, who runs a staffing agency out of a converted townhouse on Blake Street in Denver, had threatened him with a baseball bat. Based on nothing more than Horan's one-sided account of a confrontation at Mendenhall's townhouse, police officers arrested Mendenhall for felony menacing. To support that charge, Detective Nicholas Rocco-McKeel obtained a search warrant by repeating what another officer told him Horan had said. During the ensuing search of the townhouse, police seized the baseball bat as evidence. Prosecutors dropped the case against Mendenhall less than a week later, and it is not hard to see why: Horan's account of what had happened was inconsistent and improbable. But police never returned the bat, which was a valuable collector's item because it was signed by players at the 2021 Major League Baseball All-Star Game in Denver. That purloined bat is at the center of a case that aims to overturn a controversial 1960 Supreme Court precedent allowing home searches based on hearsay. Mendenhall argues that the warrant authorizing the search of his property was invalid under the Fourth Amendment because it relied on thirdhand information rather than Rocco-McKeel's personal knowledge. "The Fourth Amendment must be enforced in its entirety," says Anya Bidwell, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which represents Mendenhall. Although "the Fourth Amendment bans reliance on second-hand information," she says, "the courts have read that requirement out of the Constitution. We're fighting to bring back the original understanding of this very important protection." Issuing a warrant "is no trivial thing," a brief that Mendenhall recently filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit notes. "Warrants authorize armed government agents to seize persons or comb through their most private spaces. Warrants authorize the government to employ violence to accomplish these goals. There is hardly ever a situation in which the individual is more powerless before the State than when its agents arrive armed with a warrant." Although no one was injured in Mendenhall's case, briefs supporting his appeal note that the consequences of hearsay-based warrants can be lethal, as illustrated by the 2020 death of Breonna Taylor. The circumstances that led to the search of Mendenhall's townhouse suggest the hazards of allowing police invasions of private property based on secondhand information. Around 10 p.m. on March 10, 2023, according to Mendenhall's brief, he was "relaxing after work at the townhouse with a friend when he heard women screaming and a man yelling just outside his front door." Concerned for the women's safety, Mendenhall grabbed his commemorative bat and "opened the door to investigate." He saw "a strange and shabbily dressed man," later identified as Horan, sitting on the stoop of the townhouse with two dogs and "yelling at a group of women." When Mendenhall asked Horan to leave, the brief says, Horan "refused and threatened to call the police." He followed through on that threat after Mendenhall went back inside. When four police officers arrived at the townhouse around 11 p.m., Horan, who lived about 50 miles away, told them he was taking a walk when he stopped to rest on Mendenhall's stoop. Although Horan was carrying a gun, he said he had felt threatened by Mendenhall and wanted to press charges. "Rather than asking follow-up or clarifying questions," Mendenhall's brief says, "the officers went to Mr. Mendenhall's townhouse and arrested him as soon as he opened the door, securing him in handcuffs and taking him to a squad car across the street." The officers called Rocco-McKeel, telling him what Horan had said. Without talking to Mendenhall, the detective regurgitated that account in an affidavit that he submitted to Denver County Court Judge Renee A. Goble, who issued a search warrant at 12:34 a.m. on March 11. Horan never testified before Goble, submitted an affidavit, or otherwise swore to the facts underlying the allegations against Mendenhall. And Rocco-McKeel, who wrote the affidavit, "neither observed any of the relevant facts nor personally spoke to Mr. Horan," the 10th Circuit brief notes. He "merely repeated what another officer said Mr. Horan had said." All of that was fine under the Denver Police Department's operations manual, which says officers may "rely upon information received through an informant, rather than upon direct observation, to show probable cause" for a search warrant. It was also fine under Jones v. United States, a 1960 case in which the Supreme Court approved the search of an apartment based on an unnamed informant's report that the tenant was involved in drug dealing. That decision, the Institute for Justice argues, is inconsistent with the text and history of the Fourth Amendment, which says "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation." Until Jones, that requirement generally was understood to mean that warrants could be issued only based on the affiant's firsthand knowledge of the relevant facts, as opposed to the unsworn claims of another person who was never subjected to judicial scrutiny. That understanding, Mendenhall's brief argues, jibes with British and American common law, was reflected in a long series of court decisions, and "continued virtually without question for over 160 years." In Jones, however, the Supreme Court disregarded the Fourth Amendment's Oath or Affirmation Clause, focusing instead on what was required to show probable cause. That decision "addressed neither the constitutional text nor the overwhelming weight of authority," Mendenhall's brief says. "Under a proper interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, Denver's express policy of permitting warrants to be issued without oath or affirmation supporting probable cause is unconstitutional. But for Jones, Denver would be liable to Mr. Mendenhall for its unreasonable search and seizure of his property." In February, U.S. District Judge Philip Brimmer predictably concluded that Jones barred Mendenhall's civil rights lawsuit against the city and county of Denver. Mendenhall's lawyers acknowledge that the 10th Circuit likewise is bound by that precedent. Mendenhall "brought this case to overturn Jones and reestablish the vital role that the Oath or Affirmation Clause was intended to play in protecting the rights enshrined in our Constitution," the Institute for Justice says. "He concedes that this Court is bound by Jones and must affirm the district court's decision granting Denver's motion to dismiss. Mr. Mendenhall files this brief, however, both to preserve this issue for further review by the U.S. Supreme Court and in the hopes of persuading the members of this panel that they, too, should call on the Supreme Court to restore the constitutional protection that Jones improperly erased." In a brief supporting Mendenhall's appeal, five law professors argue that "the text and Founding-era understanding of the Fourth Amendment require that a warrant be supported by admissible witness testimony." They add that "cases decided shortly after ratification confirm that hearsay is not a proper basis for issuing a warrant." Two other briefs underline the hazards of hearsay-based warrants. The National Police Accountability Project and the Law Enforcement Action Partnership note that warrants based on secondhand information, typically from confidential sources who have incentives to lie or exaggerate, "routinely result in wrong house raids," which "present significant danger to residents of the home and officers executing the warrant," often resulting in "civilians and police being seriously injured or killed." That danger is starkly illustrated by the March 2020 raid that killed Breonna Taylor. Louisville, Kentucky, police broke into Taylor's apartment late at night based on a search warrant obtained by Detective Joshua Jaynes, who claimed a U.S. postal inspector had informed him that her ex-boyfriend, a suspected drug dealer named Jamarcus Glover, had been receiving packages at her address, which Jaynes suggested might contain drugs or drug money. It turned out that Jaynes never spoke directly with the postal inspector, who said there was nothing suspicious about the packages. But that revelation came too late for Taylor, who died in a hail of bullets after her new boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, fired at the invading officers, whom he mistook for violent criminals. Walker was initially charged with attempted murder of a police officer, but prosecutors dropped that case two months later, implicitly conceding that he had a strong self-defense claim. "No drugs, money, or contraband were found in Ms. Taylor's apartment during or after the raid," notes a brief that Walker submitted in support of Mendenhall's appeal. "Mr. Glover himself later confirmed that Ms. Taylor had no involvement in his drug trade, explaining that the only packages he ever had sent to her address contained clothes and shoes that we was afraid would be stolen if sent to the house where he stayed." Taylor's senseless death "reflects not only a catastrophic failure of the warrant process, but also a foreseeable consequence of Jones," Walker's brief argues. "By allowing magistrates to issue warrants based on hearsay, Jones removed the requirement that a declarant appear in court, swear to the truth of their statement, and be subjected to questioning, and replaced it with a framework that lends itself to fabrication." Thanks to Jones, "officers seeking a warrant but lacking probable cause—like Detective Jaynes—may now be motivated to enhance their own affidavits by inventing conversations with third-party declarants," the brief notes. "And, because Jones requires no oath or appearance from those declarants, the reviewing judge must rely entirely on the affiant's secondhand account of what a declarant allegedly said and why he/she should be believed. Not only does the magistrate have no opportunity to evaluate the declarant's demeanor, consistency, or basis of knowledge, but also, more fundamentally, the magistrate effectively has no way to verify whether the declarant even exists or ever even made the statements attributed to him/her. The result is a system in which wholly fabricated claims can serve as the basis for intrusions into our most private spaces." That brief was joined by Anjanette Young, another victim of a raid based on secondhand information. On a Thursday evening in February 2019, a dozen Chicago police officers, acting on a tip from a confidential informant, burst into Young's apartment. Young, who was changing out of her work clothes, was caught "completely naked and exposed." She was handcuffed in that state, feeling utterly humiliated, for 10 minutes while the officers vainly searched her apartment for an armed felon. "It quickly became apparent that the information they had received from the informant was bad," the brief says. "They were at the wrong apartment." Young "should never have had to endure the invasive and degrading raid that was conducted on her home," the brief adds. "When presented with a warrant application that relied entirely on an unverified tip from an informant, the magistrate judge who issued the warrant had a constitutional obligation to probe the basis for the officer affiant's assertions—e.g., by asking whether the informant's claims were corroborated and what, if anything, law enforcement had done to verify them. While it is unclear whether the magistrate ever spoke with the informant, the fact that he issued the warrant at all—given the apparent lack of any attempt by officers to verify the informant's tip—is highly suggestive of a lack of any meaningful consideration." Jones encourages such lax oversight, the brief argues: "The magistrate judge is no longer able to meaningfully perform [his] constitutional role. Denied access to the declarant, the judge cannot assess his/her credibility firsthand. Instead, the affiant alone decides which facts to include and which to withhold, effectively filtering the evidence and shielding the judge from any information that might undermine the affiant's narrative….The Fourth Amendment demands more than this system of magisterial rubber-stamping that Jones has engendered." The post Denver Case Highlights the Potentially Deadly Hazards of Police Raids Based on Secondhand Information appeared first on
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Energy tax credits help Utah's economy thrive
For generations, Utah has been known as 'the Crossroads of the West,' and, in recent years, our state has undergone an exciting amount of growth. According to Pew, between 2009 and 2023, Utah experienced the fastest median population growth rate in the United States, at 1.68% a year. By 2065, Utah County alone will add 1 million people to its population. People from across the country and the world are moving to Utah, not only for its natural beauty, but for the state's pro-business economy. With all the positives that come from a growing population, Utah must address one of the greatest challenges facing our state: producing reliable energy. In recent years, federal lawmakers have sought to incentivize domestic clean energy production. Tax provisions that were included in federal legislation have unleashed a new era of energy production in Utah. Last fall, Gov. Spencer Cox launched 'Operation Gigawatt,' an ambitious initiative to double Utah's power production over the next decade. Reflecting his commitment to an all-of-the-above energy strategy, the plan leverages a diverse mix of traditional and renewable resources — including natural gas, nuclear, geothermal, solar and wind — to meet growing demand. By combining access to abundant natural assets with world-class research and innovation, Utah is positioning itself as a national leader in clean, reliable and forward-looking energy solutions. Despite the positive impact that these tax credits have on Utah's energy independence and economy, some lawmakers in Washington, D.C., have proposed eliminating them in the reconciliation package now under consideration in Congress. What may seem like an easy way to generate revenue will cost Americans more in the long run. Not only will states like Utah push the limits of their current energy infrastructure, but consumers will also experience an immediate increase in the cost of utilities. Utah is not the only state that would be negatively impacted by eliminating energy tax credits. Last month, Sen. John Curtis sent a letter with some of his Republican colleagues from Alaska, Kansas and North Carolina to Senate Leader John Thune about this issue. The letter highlights the ways that these tax credits have empowered the growth of the clean energy sector, and how getting rid of these credits would 'weaken our position as a global energy leader.' SunRun, a major employer in Utah, exemplifies how clean energy tax credits can drive economic growth and energy innovation. The company's investments in solar technology and distribution not only create local jobs but also help increase America's energy independence. If Congress moves forward with cutting these vital tax credits, it would impact companies like SunRun that are at the forefront of building a more sustainable and secure energy future for Utah and the nation. Utah is fortunate to have leaders in Washington, D.C., like Sen. John Curtis, who understand the need for investments to drive a clean energy future. Our state's continued growth is reliant on our ability to provide reliable, affordable energy to everyone who wants to call Utah home. Let's not squander this opportunity; we must protect clean energy tax credits.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
Rep. Casey Snider to serve as new Utah House majority leader
After Jefferson Moss resigned from the Utah Legislature, the Utah House Majority Caucus held a special leadership election to replace him. In the special closed-caucus election late Tuesday, Rep. Casey Snider, R-Paradise, was elected to be the House majority leader. He previously served as the majority assistant whip. 'I am honored to take on this role and grateful for the opportunity to serve,' Snider said, according to a release from the caucus. 'Our leadership team is committed to serving the members of our caucus and the people of Utah with integrity and foresight as we continue to advance meaningful policy for the benefit of every Utahn.' Rep. Candice Pierucci, R-Herriman, will be the new House majority whip, and the new House majority assistant whip is Rep. Bridger Bolinder, R-Grantsville. 'I am thankful for the trust our Majority Caucus has placed in me,' Pierucci said. 'Our leadership team is energized and ready to represent our caucus as we work to make a lasting impact for families and communities across our state.' The three representatives will serve in these leadership positions for the rest of the 2025-2026 term. 'It's an honor to earn the trust of my colleagues,' Bolinder said. 'I'm eager to get to work, to listen, and to help ensure every voice in our caucus, and every Utahn, is represented.' Moss, who was the majority leader, resigned from the Legislature after he was appointed to serve as executive director of the Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity. 'I am excited to work alongside this new leadership team as we represent our caucus and work on behalf of all Utahns,' said Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper. 'Congratulations to Rep. Snider, Rep. Pierucci, and Rep. Bolinder. This leadership team stands ready to work on behalf of all Utahns.'
