Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheTowerBard t1_j7piszd wrote

There are a number of things wrong with using this sort of data to try to paint any realistic picture.

  1. The count was done in January when it is freezing outside. Homeless people are mostly migratory. Those that couldn't find shelter somewhere, probably got on a bus and headed south or west for the winter. They may be back when the weather warms up, so using this as a benchmark for how good we are doing sheltering folks isn't really giving us a proper picture.
  2. The housing crisis isn't a Vermont issue or a California issues, it's a national issue. Again, homeless people are migratory. They move around. The homeless folks living on the cliff in Santa Monica are mostly from other places. I even met a fellow Vermonter there while doing outreach in the 2010s.

The idea of dumping money into landlord's hands "in exchange for temporarily keeping rents affordable and prioritizing people exiting homelessness" is completely insane. We need permanent affordable housing. This program would pay for repairs for the people who are partially responsible for the problem in the first place. It's completely bonkers.

Gov Scott isn't wrong to point out this is an issue bigger than VT, but I don't see any mention of what his administration is doing to build bridges with neighboring states and/or bringing this issue to the federal level (which is what we need to do if we want to find actual solutions). Again, this is a national crisis, not just a Vermont crisis.

3

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7pqcry wrote

The point in time count is always done in January. It's a federal requirement. Why they picked January is unclear.

We need affordable housing, certainly, but for people with literally zero income not much will ever be affordable.

5

TheTowerBard t1_j7pqu4x wrote

Which is why we should have a UBI and make housing and healthcare human rights. Especially as we continue to put more robots into the workforce taking human jobs.

Edit: I’d be curious to know who made the decision to do the count in January only. Again, homeless folks are mostly migratory. They move around with the weather and with any opportunities or hope that springs up for something better than where they are. Folks that move for the winter to avoid the cold, often head back in the summers. We know this. So why do the count when the most people are not in their original “home” networks. It’s silly.

0

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7pv8ux wrote

Someone at HUD made that decision, not at the state level.

2

TheTowerBard t1_j7pz20s wrote

Again, I'd be curious to know WHY. Winter isn't exclusive in VT. Though, if I wanted to paint a picture of this being an issue in California and a few other states and not a national issue, I'd probably choose to only count in winter too.

2

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7q04g6 wrote

It could be that, could be tied to funding, could be as simple as someone chose January to do an annual count.

1

headgasketidiot t1_j7pqanx wrote

> The idea of dumping money into landlord's hands "in exchange for temporarily keeping rents affordable and prioritizing people exiting homelessness" is completely insane. We need permanent affordable housing. This program would pay for repairs for the people who are partially responsible for the problem in the first place. It's completely bonkers.

Could not agree more! Landlords are raising prices so we're going to give them money so that they stop raising prices? This is your brain on neoliberalism, and exactly the kind of color-inside-the-lines thinking I have come to expect from the Scott administration. If you keep going in that paragraph in the article, it's even more frustrating:

>The high number of Vermonters who are unhoused but sheltered is also an indicator of a likely crisis to come. For now, the state is relying on motels and hotels to temporarily house the vast majority of people who are unhoused. But to do this, it has been using the large — but temporary — infusions of federal cash that flowed into the state during the pandemic, and state officials now estimate that these pots of money will run dry March 31.

Vermont had a one-time opportunity with a temporary infusion of federal cash, and we gave it to landlords. Awesome. It's almost like half the legislature are landlords or something.

3

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7pvlps wrote

A lot of the cash was through the Emergency Rental Assistance Program. It had to go to landlords, it was a condition of the funding.

3

headgasketidiot t1_j7q2l8d wrote

You're right. The hotel voucher is our own homegrown landlord giveaway, whereas this is a federally mandated landlord giveaway. So many wonderful landlord welfare programs.

1

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7q3210 wrote

The hotel voucher program is not a landlord welfare program, it's what the legislature prefers to do rather than build housing.

1

headgasketidiot t1_j7q3klb wrote

Landlord welfare program with more steps.

0

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7qf1he wrote

How are payments to motel 6, quality inn, etc a landlord welfare program? These are hotels, not landlords. The payments go to hotels because they're aren't apartments to put people in.

2

headgasketidiot t1_j7qhwj0 wrote

Many of these hotels are not viable as businesses otherwise. Sometimes they go to places like motel 6 and quality inn, but usually it's places like the Shady Lawn in WRJ, which at this point is functionally a substandard apartment complex for people with state temporary housing vouchers.

1

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7qig4x wrote

Absolutely. I was just debating that the people being paid are landlords. They are not, they're hotel owners.

1

headgasketidiot t1_j7qiwrn wrote

Ah I see. Yeah, I was being a little cheeky, but you really only need to squint a little to see it that way.

1

TheTowerBard t1_j7pqnfa wrote

VT is grotesquely corrupt. Ugh.

−2

NoMidnight5366 t1_j7pu938 wrote

Vermont is not corrupt—it’s one of the most transparent states when it comes to governing. And I’m very proud of our state despite its shortcomings.

Government programs while often necessary are always inefficient and partially effective. And legislations is often poorly written to prevent these problems.

4

TheTowerBard t1_j7pyv1e wrote

VT towns are EXTREMELY corrupt. State level might be slightly less so, but oh boy are you being incredibly naïve if you believe what you typed here. That, or you're a landlord. You're a landlord aren't you?

2