Who’s Right in Salt Lake City’s ICE Warehouse Fight?

DHS? Mayor Mendenhall? Governor Cox?

A Little Background

On March 11, the Department of Homeland Security finalized a deal to pay $145.4 million for an 833,000 square foot warehouse at 6020 W. 300 South, a property sized at approximately 24.9 acres about a ten minute drive from Salt Lake City International Airport. County records identify the seller as RREEF CPIF 6020 W 300 S, a Delaware limited liability company managed by DWS Group, the Frankfurt-based asset manager that was once part of Deutsche Bank and whose stock the bank still largely owns.

The price drew immediate attention. Salt Lake County’s assessor had the building and land valued at roughly $97.4 million, meaning the federal government paid tens of millions above that figure. It wasn’t an isolated case. A CoStar market analysis found federal purchases of ICE facilities to be 11 to 13 percent above the individual properties market value as an average across all purchases, with some properties being purchased more than 30 percent above comparable sales.

The Salt Lake City purchase was one piece of a much larger federal push. DHS’s plan called for eight large scale detention hubs around the country, each meant to hold 7,000 to 10,000 people, backed by sixteen smaller regional processing sites, at an estimated cost of $38.3 billion. Congress had separately approved about $45 billion for detention expansion nationwide.

Neither Mayor Erin Mendenhall’s office nor Governor Spencer Cox’s office was aware of the purchase before it closed. Cox himself was not entirely opposed to the concept. He had previously expressed interest in hosting an ICE facility in Utah, arguing it would relieve logistical issues at the detention center in Las Vegas that regularly runs over capacity. Days after the sale closed, Mendenhall sent a letter to a top ICE official requesting an urgent meeting. Salt Lake County Mayor Jenny Wilson said she was “deeply disturbed“ to learn of the purchase.

At the federal level, in late March, Markwayne Mullin took over as DHS secretary from Kristi Noem and inherited the warehouse program she had put into effect. Testifying before Congress in June, Mullin was candid about the results of his review. “There’s some [warehouses] that just, quite frankly, probably won’t work,” were his comments on the situation, adding that some due diligence steps may not have been completed before the purchases went through. Around the same time, the DHS Office of Inspector General opened an audit examining whether the agency had bought the buildings in a cost effective manner.

The legal dispute began on June 8, when Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County filed a federal lawsuit against DHS and ICE, naming Mullin along with ICE and its acting director as defendants. The complaint accuses the agencies of going around the environmental review processes required before converting a warehouse of that size. Among the specifics, ICE reportedly wrote “TBD” on a city utility application asking how much water and sewer capacity the site would need. Mendenhall’s take on this was that the facility “has no place in Salt Lake City,” citing the city’s limited water supply and the strain a facility of that size would put on public infrastructure.

By early summer, NBC News reported that officials were pausing further warehouse purchases while deciding what to do with the ones already acquired, and later reporting indicated the department was weighing selling or transferring at least seven of the eleven properties to other federal agencies, with Salt Lake City’s warehouse reportedly among them. DHS has not confirmed a final decision publicly. A department spokesperson told reporters the agency is focused on removing dangerous criminals quickly rather than housing people in detention for long periods “at the taxpayer’s expense,” and as of the most recent reporting, city officials said they had received no formal notice of a sale or transfer.

What critics of the detention center are saying

• The process may have violated federal law by not completing environmental review or consulting local government.

• The proposed scale could overwhelm local systems. City officials cite water, sewer, public-safety, traffic, health and air-quality concerns.

• The inflated purchase price and fuzzy paperwork raise questions about due diligence.

Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall, whose administration would be responsible for many local services affected by the project, said:

“This kind of facility has no place in Salt Lake City, not only due to its inhumane nature but also because of our limited water supply, the increased strain on public utilities systems, and the potentially drastic public health and safety impacts it would have on our residents. Salt Lakers are legally entitled to public review and reasoned decision making on major actions by the federal government, and it is my responsibility as Mayor to defend these rights.”

Salt Lake County Mayor Jenny Wilson joined the lawsuit on behalf of the county.

“The proposed facility is a dire threat to the very essence of our community values. It would overwhelm the infrastructure in the region, harm area businesses, and strain public safety and public health resources. The Federal Government did not notify nor consult with local officials, including myself.”

Sen. John Curtis, a Utah Republican and former Provo mayor, criticized the process even though his party supports stronger immigration enforcement.

“The decision to move forward with this facility via back-door negotiations – bypassing input from local leaders – is shortsighted and likely counterproductive to supporting the strategic growth and long-term infrastructure plans of Salt Lake City's west side.”

Brent Ward, an attorney for Uproar Utah, argues that the objection is broader than neighborhood resistance.

“We're not claiming that we just don't want this in our backyard. This is insane. Period. No matter what.” His group's position is that warehouse-scale detention is an inappropriate way to hold people, regardless of where the building is located.”

What supporters of the detention facility are saying

• This helps solve Utah’s regional detention-capacity problem.

• Dedicated space could reduce transfers and relieve pressure on local jails.

• Federal ownership could create jobs and long-term capacity.

Gov. Spencer Cox has supported the idea of federal detention capacity in Utah, though he’s expressed concern with the way this situation has been handled.

“When this sale went through, we were not given any notice. No members of our congressional delegation were given any notice. No locals were given any notice. That’s, I think, a little frustrating for everyone. We have millions of people here that should not be here. And that means we have to figure out a way to get them back, which means there has to be a detention facility. Now, there’s a right way to do that and a wrong way to do that.”

Rep. Matt MacPherson, a Republican whose West Valley City district borders the site, has argued that additional federal space could ease pressure on county jails.

"I see it as a jail issue. Our jails are overcrowded, and if we have a facility where people who are being held on immigration violations can be housed instead of taking up county jail beds, that helps local law enforcement and public safety."

ICE argues that a network of government-controlled regional hubs could move people through immigration proceedings and removal more efficiently than a patchwork of contracts and long-distance transfers.

“The facility would fully comply with regular detention standards… its construction and operation would create nearly 10,000 jobs, contribute $1.1 billion to the gross domestic product and generate over $238.7 million in tax revenue.”

Utah Sheriffs Association President Tracy Glover shows why the disagreement is not simply pro-enforcement versus anti-enforcement.

“The goal of the sheriffs is just to achieve an efficiency with law enforcement in general – public safety, community safety in general, and so, to the extent we can be partners with ICE, I think we're willing to do that on a limited basis.”

My take

• The need for this facility appears legitimate. But the way this purchase was handled raises serious concerns.

• Concerns about local infrastructure and water use are fair, particularly during an ongoing regional drought.

• The federal government could have made meaningful progress on detention capacity had it worked collaboratively and in good faith with local leaders.

• Even if DHS ultimately sells the property, taxpayers could still be left absorbing millions of dollars in losses.

When I first started looking into this, it felt like a circus. But the more I dug into the story, the more I came to the conclusion that this facility is not necessarily a bad idea. In fact, I’d argue that additional detention capacity is absolutely necessary if the federal government intends to enforce immigration law and deport people humanely. Right now, detention facilities across the West are overcrowded, forcing detainees to be transported long distances to find available bed space. That’s not good for law enforcement, local communities, or the people being detained.

A detention facility in Utah may solve a lot of these problems. Which is exactly why it’s so frustrating to see how DHS handled this entire project.

The Department of Homeland Security wanted to increase a warehouse’s water use from 5,600 gallons per day to potentially 1 to 2 million gallons per day, without meaningfully involving local leaders before purchasing the property. Instead of bringing state and local officials into the planning process from the beginning, DHS appears to have assumed it could sort those details out afterward. That approach has left everyone further away from solving the detention capacity problem while potentially costing taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

Of those local leaders, Gov. Cox was portrayed as a supporter of the detention center. I initially thought he’d embraced this specific, badly executed plan out of party loyalty. Reading his actual statements, I think that’s not quite right. He’s consistently argued that forcing Utah, Idaho, and Montana to funnel detainees to an already overwhelmed facility in Las Vegas is a logistical nightmare. His frustration about being left completely in the dark reads less like political posturing and more like someone blindsided by a federal agency that failed to coordinate with the people who know their communities best.

And it wasn’t just local officials raising concerns. DHS itself now appears to be reaching many of the same conclusions. There are widespread reports that the agency is looking to sell or transfer least seven of these warehouse purchases, including ours.

That may sound comforting to detention center critics, but it’s important to note that nothing has actually been confirmed. The city and county’s lawsuit remains completely active, the federal government still holds the deed to the full 47-acre property, and local advocates like Uproar Utah are rightly celebrating “with caution” until something is put in writing.

DHS refuses to comment publicly on the site, speaking only in bureaucratic riddles about “moving swiftly to utilize existing detention space” with local partners. Even if the agency ultimately pulls the plug, walking this decision back won’t be simple. Before the property can ever reach the open market, it must work its way through mandatory federal disposal procedures, including required screening under the McKinney-Vento homeless assistance process. Real estate analysts also expect the eventual sale to come at a significant loss after DHS paid an estimated 49% above the property’s assessed value. If DHS ultimately walks away from this project, taxpayers will likely absorb the multi-million-dollar loss.

The frustrating part is that this outcome was completely avoidable. Building additional detention capacity is a worthwhile goal. But when the federal government works around, instead of with, the local leaders who know and understand their districts best, expensive mistakes are made.

And this was one of them.

Think we got this one wrong? We want to hear about it.
The sharpest reader responses may end up in a future article.