It is nativism to complain that the program puts the needs of people who “often traveled here from out of state” over “local residents”, and to argue from the position that those people are not “local residents”.

If you’re upset that someone who doesn’t live in Rutland has an opinion about Rutland policy, that’s fine. But you can make that argument based on whether you think I or any of the state-level government workers who created the program are from Rutland or understand local issues well enough to have an opinion. You’re bringing in irrelevant and, frankly, made-up information about where you believe the hotel residents are “really from”—and that’s nativism.

I don’t live in Rutland. I’m a flatlander who moved to VT a few years ago and who previously lived primarily in big cities with pervasive issues around housing availability, affordability and security, drug use, and crime. I’m not naive about any of these issues and I don’t think they’re simple problems to solve. I just haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that ending a program that’s currently providing shelter to actual at-risk people without a transition plan for those actual people is going to be good for those actual people. It sucks the state created this problem.

To address this edit you made:

> I would bet my paycheck you’ve lived here less than five years, don’t live within five miles of one of these and don’t get a local paper where there is news about local crime.

I do in fact subscribe to a local paper with news about local crime. It costs $43 a year (if I remember correctly) and it’s some of the best money I spend. Local journalism is essential and, unfortunately, hugely undervalued in the US. VT is lucky to still have a lot of independent local papers.

Since you lost the bet, in lieu of sending me your paycheck please donate it to a shelter or food bank in your hometown, whether that’s Rutland or somewhere else.