To the editor

Explaining Amador Crossing

The recent opinion piece, “A hand up, not a handout,” reflects a misunderstanding of both the Amador Crossing project and the broader evidence on how to effectively address homelessness.

First, it is simply incorrect to suggest that there are no rules or accountability at Amador Crossing. Residents will sign leases, pay rent, and will be expected to follow program requirements. This is not a free-for-all. It is structured, managed housing designed to create stability.

Second, the framing of housing as a “handout” ignores decades of research and real-world outcomes. Housing is not the end of the journey. It is the beginning. Without stable shelter, it is nearly impossible for individuals to address employment, health, or recovery needs.

Supportive housing provides that foundation. Amador Crossing is strategically located on the Community of Hope campus, where residents can access additional needed services that increase long-term housing stability and success.

It is also misleading to suggest that shelters are the primary or sufficient solution. Las Cruces already has multiple shelter options. Gospel Rescue Mission offers over 100 beds, La Casa operates an approximately 80-bed shelter, and the FYI Plus runs a shelter for youth.

Camp Hope further complements these efforts by providing a structured alternative for individuals who may not access traditional shelters, while still connecting them to case management and resources. Shelters play an important role, but they are temporary, by design. They do not end homelessness. They manage it; and do so at a considerable price tag.

The suggestion that tiny homes or prefabricated units like BOXABL are a simple or cheaper alternative also overlooks critical realities. These units are not plug and play. They still require land, zoning approval, utility connections, roads, and ongoing maintenance.

Once infrastructure, site preparation, and the amount of land needed to scale are factored in, the cost difference narrows significantly. The KEY components missing are the on-site services that make supportive housing effective, which risks turning them into another short-term fix rather than a lasting solution.

By contrast, supportive housing DOES end homelessness for many people. The model being used at Amador Crossing is not experimental or radical. It is similar to The Delores Project referenced in the article, which operates a 35-unit Housing First supportive housing community. These models have been implemented successfully across the country because they work.

Finally, it is important to correct the narrative around cost and investment. Amador Crossing represents a targeted, long-term investment of approximately $15 million in a solution proven to reduce chronic homelessness and associated public costs. Continuing to cycle people through shelters, emergency services, and the streets is far more expensive and far less effective.

If we are serious about addressing homelessness in our community, we must rely on evidence, not assumptions. Supportive housing is not a handout. It is a practical, humane, and fiscally responsible solution.

Carl Brown

Friends of Amador Crossing

Conversion therapy harmful to youth

As a licensed clinical social worker and registered play therapist serving the Las Cruces community, I feel it is my duty to speak out about conversion therapy because it directly impacts the safety and well-being of our youth.

The Supreme Court ruled that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors violates free speech; this could jeopardize similar laws nationwide. New Mexico currently prohibits licensed clinicians from engaging in conversion therapy with minors, but protections like these may now be vulnerable to legal challenge.

Conversion therapy is the practice of attempting to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Despite how it is sometimes portrayed, conversion therapy is not supported by credible research, and it is widely rejected by every major medical and mental health organization in the United States.

What research does show is that attempts to change a young person’s identity are associated with increased rates of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide. At a time when mental health for youth is already in crisis, we should be doing everything we can to offer support.

Conversion therapy is harmful not only because it doesn’t work, but because of the lasting damage it causes. It tells young people who they are is wrong, they must be “fixed,” and they are deeply flawed. These messages can become internalized, leaving lasting scars that shape how a child sees themselves forever.

This is also deeply troubling ethically. The mental health field has long agreed that efforts to change a young person’s identity is not ethical and ends in causing lasting damage.

Mental health care is grounded in one major principle: do no harm. Conversion therapy violates this. It replaces support with shame, and care with coercion. Conversion therapy tells someone who they “should” be instead of holding space for someone to explore who they are.

Children and teenagers deserve to feel safe in their own bodies and supported in their identities. Families deserve access to ethical, safe, evidence-based care. The only way to support children to grow into confident, healthy adults is to help them feel seen, heard, and accepted. We must choose compassion over harm. Conversion therapy only causes harm.

Megan Goepfert, LCSW, RPT, IMH-E (III)