Norse-Gael-Heathen t1_ix1a4un wrote
Reality Check: Anyone with a nice motel is renting to tourists and has no interest in housing the homeless. There simply are no homeless shelter beds available, especially for families (with a few notable exceptions, which are at capacity.) So the State looks for anywhere they can house people...and this means shoddy motels that would otherwise simply shut down. They're not going to sign up these facilities if it comes with a laundry list of 'code' violations to be corrected at the owners expense. They determined that an available, poorly-maintained housing unit is better than your car. You can make that determination, too.
lindrios OP t1_ix1cacv wrote
Incorrect, there are many successful hotels in the state that are participating in the THP that are still open to the public. Meeting health guidelines is simple.
I agree that there simply is no where better to move these people to, and a bed is a bed. However with these hotels receiving around $4k/month per room... on the low end each hotel having 30+ rooms in the program that's over $120k guaranteed income each month. They can absolutely be maintained at the "owners expense". At over two years into the program any property failing to meet "code" is on the behalf of the owners poor property maintenance and misallocation of funds.
Norse-Gael-Heathen t1_ix1dgua wrote
Clearly we live in different areas of the state. Most near me have 8 to 10 units. All arguments to the contrary, the basic fact is: If the state had the rooms, they wouldn't have signed these places up to begin with, knowing what they were like...and none of these motels would have agreed to the arrangement if it meant engaging in a fix-up project they had already decided against doing.
The larger hotels that participate with mixed homeless/tourist residencies are hotels in trouble. No hotel with a vibrant tourist trade participates. They are even reluctant to house temporary construction workers.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments