Submitted by DHallFan169 t3_zawlx4 in vermont
Comments
lindrios t1_iyr6ks7 wrote
Everyone "supports" emergency shelter facilities until it comes time for zoning.
Then they don't want it anywhere near them. It's the same story every time something comes close to being built.
usually_bad_ideas t1_iyp2eqc wrote
Build public housing. Our vacancy rate is too low.
Housing is expensive because we’re all packed in here like sardines. If you build public housing, you are removing land from the town that is part of the regular housing market, which is going to make everything else even more expensive.
Build housing. What’s up with city place these days. Hundreds of apartments won’t fix us, but it’ll help
mr_perry_walker t1_iyotc58 wrote
I am mixed on this. First off, there is no excuse fo' us as a society to allow folks to be unhoused. That said, the hotel housing program as it exists leaves much to be desired. The lack of oversight has turned, at least some of them, into drug dens. I have lived near a hotel in Rutland for over ten years with no issue. In the past year I have had to pick up used syringes from my yard, my car has been broken into, a sweatshirt and knife related to a robbery stashed on my property...
I know that the program is helping a lot of cats down on their luck and just icing it is not the answer, but the way it is playin' out isn't it either. No matter what they do there should be something in place before they just toss the good with the bad back to the streets.
I hope this doesn't come off sounding too "not in my backyard". Fuck poverty.
headgasketidiot t1_iyp06lp wrote
No you're right the hotel program sucks. Hotels aren't a substitute for a house even when they're well maintained, and at this point it's well documented that these guests are not being treated well at these places. Paying hotel owners gobs of money so our fellow Vermonters who need our help can live in inadequate housing, without kitchens, and often without access to transportation is a shitty program. It's LOADS better than not helping them, but it's not the kind of environment that poor woman in the article needs. She's been through a lot and deserves better.
What bothers me so much about it is how expensive it is. I'm for doing the right thing even when it costs money, but in this case, it's not even the financially responsible decision. The state could actually invest money in building houses and let folks stay for free and the paypack period at these hotel rates wouldn't even be that long.
Me_Myself_And_IAM t1_iyut6c5 wrote
I live in Montpelier central.
There’s a small tent community off the bike path near the bus station. I live very close by, and I’m always smelling the fire wood they burn to keep warm.
It reminds me that if my disability status were to be gone, I could end up camping there some day.
The basic human right to receive shelter seems to be under addressed by our Republican governor (who keeps getting voted back in).
I cannot find a a well paying job because of the lack of public transit, and I worry about my future.
I read a portion of these comments, and I live in a rent reduced apartment. I am super grateful. I do not have an arrest record either, nor have I ever been addicted to drugs. I do not consider myself a “degenerate” either. I am college educated too.
My point is: I talk to many of these people every day. Few to none of them are “degenerates”. I am getting frustrated with all the virtue signaling. When the only signaling I see is entitled people giving a finger to the poor.
headgasketidiot t1_iyxqfsa wrote
I'm totally with you, friend. A lot of people seem to forget that most of us are just one accident, crisis, or diagnosis away from being desperate. It's disheartening to read people actively stigmatize our friends and neighbors. I hope they learn to have a bit of humility, though I hope they're never forced to learn it the hard way.
thisoneisnotasbad t1_iyqog9l wrote
Just so you know. It’s not “gobs” but it is consistent money. The state will pay a fraction of market rate but generally agree to keep the hotel a certain percent filled so you get 50% of your normal rate but always have 50% occupancy which in VT is a good deal for these aging and less often used Hotels.
lantonas t1_iyt0hnj wrote
> and at this point it's well documented that these guests are not being treated well at these places.
Free maid service is poor treatment?
[deleted] t1_iyrcr79 wrote
You’re so close to getting the point… pull on that thread a little longer and you’ll realize this program was designed to be corporate welfare. The unhoused people were just a means to an end. The government didn’t give a shit about them. They just wanted to fill hotel rooms with human cattle so the hotel owners would “contribute” to their “campaign” (read: bribery). It got them some brownie points with the more gullible progressives.
If they could’ve gotten away with just giving these hoteliers millions per month without helping the homeless, make no mistake, they would have. Politicians have nothing but hatred and contempt for the poor. It’s a bipartisan consensus!
> The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.
Most of the programs for the homeless are like this. Million dollar per unit SROs in Los Angeles… I’m sorry but this really isn’t hard. We need to build public housing projects again. The private sector’s thieving hands cannot be allowed anywhere near it. They managed to solve this problem in the 1960s when everyone had lead poisoning. What excuse do we have? Is neoliberalism is more neurotoxic than lead? Does it literally smoothen the brain?
headgasketidiot t1_iyrmvza wrote
There's really no need to be so condescending. I know that's what's happening. Enough of my comments are already anti-capitalist rants that sometimes I decide to spice it up and criticize specific policies on their own terms. What frustrates me so much about this program is that it's both excessively neoliberal and objectively a failure even within that bean counting, neoliberal framework that increasingly dominates every aspect of our lives.
Did you know that they don't just means-test it, but the means-tesitng depends on the month and the weather?
>Last year, under pressure to let hundreds of Vermonters experiencing homelessness who had been booted from a pandemic-era assistance program back into motels, the state significantly relaxed the cold-weather rule. Anyone making less than $24,000 a year could seek shelter in motels from Nov. 22, 2021 to March 1, 2022, regardless of the forecast, DCF said at the time.
>This year, the state has made a similar announcement: From Dec. 15 to March 15, 2023, temporary shelter in motels will be available no matter the forecast, and can be authorized in increments of up to 30 days.
>But that rule doesn’t kick in for another month. From now until Dec. 15, and again between March 15, 2023 and April 15, 2023, emergency housing for cold weather will be regionally authorized based on strict criteria:
> * Temperatures (or wind chill) must be forecast to dip below 20 degrees Fahrenheit or, > * Temperatures must be forecast to dip below 32 degrees and there must be a greater than 50% chance of precipitation. > * Either condition must be forecast to be met for at least three hours within the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., based on the town in which DCF’s local district office is located.
Absolute madness. Who even writes this shit? I don't even think I could come up with a better parody of a neoliberal housing program. Are we really asking social workers to refresh the fucking weather forecast over and over to see if their clients can get off the street for the night? Incredible.
Loud_Geologist_7172 t1_iytxk8u wrote
We do need to invest in mixed income multifamily housing projects again, yes.
Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_izbrdw1 wrote
This is so hilariously off base. When was this "corporate welfare" program created, oh wise one?
No-Ganache7168 t1_iyp29oz wrote
Not at all. Think of the homeless low income moms who are stuck in the same hotels as heroin users and criminals. They should not be housed together.
[deleted] t1_iyroh8f wrote
You know what else is full of criminals and drug abusers? Every fucking neighborhood in America. The rich housewives of Greenwich pop enough Xanax bars to kill a horse, while their husbands rob us all on Wall Street. The business criminals are the worst of them all. They drink and drive, they steal, they cheat on their wives openly, they have absolutely no morals whatsoever. They are the worst role models you could ever provide a child.
Want a more quaint, rural, quiet life? Well, if your kids go on Darrell’s land by mistake, he drinks a fifth of vodka a day and might shoot them for “trespassing.” On the bright side, he can’t aim for shit.
Every neighborhood has its share of degenerates, regardless of class. And as Mr Rogers said, everywhere you go, look for the helpers, they’re there too. Everyone has a human right to housing.
Decembergardener t1_iyp7ov0 wrote
Think of all the kids.
sorrycharlie88 t1_iyqotm2 wrote
Same situation if they live in section 8 housing. Low income affordable housing means you live in clos proximity to degenerates, it's pretty unavoidable.
Ambitious_Ask_1569 t1_iyq95df wrote
Ooh....not at all. I wish you were old enough to have known Burlington back in the day where nobody locked their house doors or cars and could streak through city hall park.amd hit Nectar up for a Phish set and some gravy fries... Or maybe see the dead in hardwick. You kids dont have a clue how burlington has fallen..
thisoneisnotasbad t1_iyqolt3 wrote
Gravy fries at midnight from the window after an amazing show at Nectars.....It was a good time to experience Burlington for sure.
Ambitious_Ask_1569 t1_iysd4mh wrote
I remember standing in line and Nectar was rocking the window. Anyway, this hot girl a few people in front of me got her order and being...not so hot...proceeded to put them in her purse. She wanted to 'save them for back at the dorm.'
They probably weren't as good as they were hot the night before. Must have done a number on her Razr.
Me_Myself_And_IAM t1_izc7k5j wrote
You just described why people started locking their doors. I would too if I saw some drunken Phish fan, naked and running through the streets.
Ambitious_Ask_1569 t1_ize2rpz wrote
Burlington used to do 2 naked road races and a naked bike ride. Bike ride was a blast. Both were sanctioned by city hall.
In the 25 years I lived in BTown there were no shootings, stabbings or needles on the streets.
Such a beautiful town to go to shit so quickly.
HappilyhiketheHump t1_iyo89fl wrote
Of course they are. The problem is that no one in this state offers a realistic solution other than just demanding more funding for NGO’s and government agencies.
Remember, what you economically subsidize, you will get more of.
Vermont cannot spend its way out of this issue.
RoyalIndependence500 t1_iyojst5 wrote
Do you have some solution? Are you saying funding should not go to housing trusts/state agencies?
[deleted] t1_iyp3zeb wrote
No he is just saying we have created a problem that is getting worse and more expensive.
the_ocean t1_iyp8zgg wrote
I don’t think that’s what they said, because they said:
> Vermont cannot spend its way out of this issue.
If they meant:
> a problem that is getting worse and more expensive
That would be an issue VT could, by definition, spend its way out of.
I too am curious what the commenter actually meant.
[deleted] t1_iypawgo wrote
They are saying that the hotels are a problem separate from Vermont’s homeless problem. These hotels don’t do anything to actually solve homelessness and end up attracting more of the circumstances that generate homelessness in the first place.
the_ocean t1_iypcsc7 wrote
> They are saying that the hotels are a problem separate from Vermont’s homeless problem
Why would that need to be said? It’s irrelevant to the article.
Individuals in the hotel program aren’t homeless. They have housing, it’s just at risk. Their problem would certainly appear to be a money problem, since they clearly will make use of housing if it is within their means.
If you want to argue about root causes of increased long-term homelessness that’s an entirely separate issue. And not one relevant to the people living in hotels.
The people in hotels need money so they can continue to be housed. That’s literally all they need to stay housed. I guarantee you there is a dollar amount large enough to provide every one of them a stable living situation without building a single additional structure. It’s probably just a way bigger number than anyone would support.
[deleted] t1_iypdbi3 wrote
You are missing the point. Nobody cares about a hypothetical dollar amount, they care about what is a viable solution.
The hotel program generates more homelessness and does nothing to advance the people using it towards independence.
lantonas t1_iyt16j1 wrote
And neither would state built apartment buildings.
the_ocean t1_iype8r1 wrote
> Nobody cares about a hypothetical dollar amount
Really? The below quote from the above commenter seems to care:
> Vermont cannot spend its way out of this issue.
As to this:
> The hotel program generates more homelessness and does nothing to advance the people using it towards independence.
[citation needed]
We are literally spending our way to having this population housed currently. Every person in the hotel person is not homeless, so it is ludicrous to suggest it’s somehow increasing homelessness. Making this housing permanent - or even improving it by building higher-quality public housing to replace hotels - is a “viable solution” for this population. It’s just expensive. Maybe it’s more expensive than we are willing to accept. But it’s definitely just a “money problem” in that case.
If you’re suggesting that treating our homeless population well is attracting more homeless people to the state, that’s entirely irrelevant to concerns about what happens to the people currently in hotels.
[deleted] t1_iyqoit8 wrote
You said that the only way we can spend our way out of this issue is through spending an amount that is unacceptable politically. Nobody cares about theoretical solutions. The person you quoted is not backing up your position but agreeing that this is not a viable solution.
Homelessness is a social issue with complete causes but it is often passed down generationally when people grow up without school, regular schedules and around drugs. This program has attracted out of state homeless people and drug dealers to the hotels resulting in a chaotic situation. Simply putting these people into rooms is not a solution to homelessness if they are rooms filled with hard drugs, crime and lack of social services. This lifestyle makes it even more unlikely that these people will develop the skills necessary to live on their own.
You seem to believe that putting these people in rotten filthy hotel rooms with no kitchens and packed with drugs is a viable long term solution but it is not. A solution is something sustainable economically that also helps these people gain independence.
Attracting more homeless to coke take advantage of the program absolutely is very relevant to the homeless people who are temporarily living in the hotels. An influx of dangerous drug addicts and dealers is absolutely a massive negative to the children and families living with them in the hotel but also a massive problem to the non homeless people living in surrounding houses. Pumping drugs into rutland hurts the homeless as well as the non homeless people near by.
It’s honestly shocking that you believe the state paying for someone to live forever in a broken down drug hotel with no help to get them independent is a viable solution. It’s dehumanizing and completely misunderstands what causes homelessness.
the_ocean t1_iyqp74x wrote
That’s a lot of straw men you just totally destroyed with your wisdom.
I’m gonna continue caring about what happens to the real humans who have (suboptimal) shelter today and will not when the hotel program ends.
You’re the one making idealistic arguments about what the optimal way to deal with homelessness in a vacuum is. The problem we actually have in front of us is the real people in hotels who are going to be facing homelessness. Not your imagined influx of still more homeless people if we gasp help the people in the hotels.
[deleted] t1_iyqpfm3 wrote
I think it’s actually you who is making the idealistic argument looking at homelessness in a vacuum.
You seem to think that the only issue with homelessness is getting people out of the elements and now the problem is solved. You have to at least attempt to understand what causes homelessness.
It’s pretty obvious that the hotel program will never achieve the goal of making these people independent.
the_ocean t1_iyqqg37 wrote
I’m not trying to look at homelessness at all - I’m asking if anyone has serious ideas for how to help these people in hotels when the program the state already created comes to an end.
I’m not particularly interested in debating our respective views on what does or doesn’t create or increase homelessness writ large. I don’t think you know the answer to that any more than I do. And I don’t think either of us will convince the other of our personal politics. For what it’s worth I don’t think you’re crazy or necessarily wrong, I just don’t think this forum is particularly conducive to a nuanced discussion.
[deleted] t1_iyqwyco wrote
No but nobody has any plans for what happens with these people is the program contributes indefinitely. As it is structured it is maintaining their inability to function independently and maintaining the status quo is no longer acceptable for residents. That is the main issue that decision makers and community members are worried about.
the_ocean t1_iyqxrw7 wrote
> As it is structured it is maintaining their inability to function independently
I’m not convinced this is meaningful. Are you saying that the existence of the hotel program is specifically inhibiting people from becoming independently self-sustaining? That it is somehow worse for their path to stability than being on the street?
It seems to me the problems the people in the program face that prevent them being self-sustaining in independent living situations are independent of the hotel program itself, and that having shelter - bad as it is - is better than being on the street.
If they need more support to transition then let’s focus on that, rather than sending them to the street because local people who have housing are uncomfortable.
As to this:
> maintaining the status quo is no longer acceptable for residents.
Which residents? I would bet the residents in the hotel program find the status quo not only acceptable but vital to their continued survival. Perhaps you are discounting their opinion for some reason.
[deleted] t1_iyrb4nn wrote
I am substantially discounting their opinion on the situation as they are more and more comprised of folks who who travelled here to use the program. There are also substantial drug and crime issues with tons of arrests for crack dealing and multiple shootings, just as one Rutland hotel. It is ridiculous to put the needs of a few dozen people in a single hotel over the needs of 18,000 residents in rutland who deserve to feel safe and don’t want a crack den behind their house.
When people are spending over a year living unemployed with no kitchen, no job training, inside of a motel that is rotting with their children, we are laying the groundwork for those children and the children of the surrounding community to get pulled into drug use and homelessness.
People don’t want to endlessly fund the housing of people who aren’t getting closer to affording their own place and who have introduced drugs and crime to the community. It is very silly to value the lives of a few dozen people who often traveled here from out of state over almost 20,000 local residents. It seems like you are completely discounting their concerns.
We are happy to fund people temporarily while they figure their shit out but not indefinitely. It is also inappropriate for someone who only recently moved to vermont to feel that they should be able to tell us locals what sacrifices we must make for their pet projects.
the_ocean t1_iyrdtai wrote
> 18,000 residents in rutland who deserve to feel safe and don’t want a crack den behind their house.
Im not sure a literal NIMBY argument is as strong as you think it is.
> It is also inappropriate for someone who only recently moved to vermont to feel that they should be able to tell us locals what sacrifices we must make for their pet projects.
Not sure a nativist argument is that strong either.
> When people are spending over a year living unemployed with no kitchen, no job training,
Sounds like we need more programs to address these clear failings. Rather than just booting people to the street.
> It is very silly to value the lives of a few dozen people who often traveled here from out of state over almost 20,000 local residents. It seems like you are completely discounting their concerns.
Again, nativism is far sillier than anything you’re criticizing.
I am not discounting anyone’s concerns. But I am 100% discounting - and will 100% always discount - any argument about how to address those concerns that is based on “we were here first”. That’s just childish.
Beyond which, I have only your assertion that all “20,000 local residents” agree with you. I suspect you are exaggerating.
Anyway I’m not telling you that it’s all roses and we are doing the best possible job here. If you and the “20,000 local residents” are all agreed on the best path forward I’m confident you will develop and execute a plan to address the problems you face. I hope you do a great job.
[deleted] t1_iyrekzv wrote
It isn’t nativism to recognize that when a person says “yeah this program will be expensive, it will bring in crime and generate an open air crack market but think of the hundred people it houses,” is not from here and doesn’t have an understanding of the community.
People who don’t subscribe to a local paper aren’t going to recognize what it’s done to our towns.
I agree we need extensive job training and transitional housing.
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.
the_ocean t1_iyrg8fd wrote
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.
the_ocean t1_iyrl0z1 wrote
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.
No-Ganache7168 t1_iyp1ysl wrote
They could have built a 100-unit apartment complex with all the money they spend on temporary housing.
An article stated that about 50 percent of the homeless have mental illness or drug addictions. Why not create some type of drug rehab dorm where those on drugs could get help while being housed. Bring back inpatient mental health facilities but make them humane and holistic. If the test of the homeless are working poor create permanent income-based apartments.
thisoneisnotasbad t1_iyqouk4 wrote
Public housing like what you are proposing has a long history of failing in the US. It is such a great idea on paper but when actual people get involved it falls apart. A person is reasonable, people are unpredictable.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/public-housing-fundamentally-flawed/602515/
headgasketidiot t1_iyr7zxc wrote
We should learn from our mistakes and look to other countries' successes. There are good examples of government owned housing being very desirable. More than 40% of French renters live in publicly owned housing, and French cities and towns are pretty universally beloved by residents and tourists alike.
edit: The writer of that Atlantic "article" is associated with several conservative think tanks. He's the VP for research at the Manhattan Institute. They're for privatization of public services and have published many books about supply side economics. They're also for increased incarceration and "broken windows" theory, and they were against the ACA and oppose basically any health reform. This is not an article; it's an op-ed from a hack.
lantonas t1_iyt0vzo wrote
If you need an example of why this wouldn't work, see the hotel housing.
thisoneisnotasbad t1_iyt2o7r wrote
This was exactly my point. The same people who are extra vocal about the state building public housing don’t realize that the hotel housing program is basically already exactly this. This is what happens when you congregate this population.
[deleted] t1_iyt452a wrote
[deleted]
Me_Myself_And_IAM t1_iz58rc8 wrote
There is something people don’t know about some homeless individuals. They actually work regular day jobs. Many just do not have the resources, family or opportunity to find proper housing.
Please let that sink in.
Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_izbrk70 wrote
Yeah that's not accurate. A small percentage certainly do, but they tend not to stay homeless long. Your long term homeless are crazy or addicted or both. Usually both.
[deleted] t1_izc59yk wrote
[deleted]
Outrageous-Outside61 t1_iyp9uak wrote
It’s almost like shutting down the Waterbury hospital/asylum was a bad idea..
No-Ganache7168 t1_iypozcr wrote
Shutting it down without offering another way to care for the acutely mentally ill certainly was a bad idea
thisoneisnotasbad t1_iyqzru2 wrote
There is another way. It was built in Berlin. The issue is that the accepted population was changed from mentally ill to mentally ill and dangerous.
The normalization or “neuro divergence” has made it so society allows people without the ability to successfully care for themselves to be “independent”. Meaning exactly what others have said. Inserted back into an unprepared society with minimal support services delivered by what is in effect (due to funding sources) a quasi government agency.
The people who live in NYC hate to admit it but the reason that city is habitual again is Giuliani basically made being homeless and mentally ill a crime and institutionalized that population.
No-Ganache7168 t1_iyr1nia wrote
My brother lived and works in NYC. The mentally ill are everywhere, mostly just trying to survive but a large number are making it unsafe to take the subway or walk down the street. So Adams has decided to forcibly institutionalize those that are dangerous. Meanwhile, it’s not certain where they will be sent or if there will be new services for those who aren’t dangerous but are living on the streets
thisoneisnotasbad t1_iyr2e8i wrote
It has slid backwards for sure.
I was referring to NYC in the late 70s and 80s when between homeless and gangs it was basically a war zone.
Me_Myself_And_IAM t1_iyuvhrg wrote
Another Way is in Montpelier. If I even imply I am on disability. Despite the fact that I have a learning issue, the residents direct me there all the time. It has become a bit insulting.
The folks that go there aren’t terrible, but it isn’t for everyone. The place is packed with drug addicts and homeless of all stripes. It’s more of an overflow shelter for the homeless now.
There was a time that it had a sort of family vibe to it too.
To my thinking: the ignorant professionals and clueless do gooders that keep directing people there may wish to volunteer their services to Another Way. They certainly seem to love the place so much!
thisoneisnotasbad t1_iyv9i1h wrote
I did not mean the organization, Lower case another way. Different way. Alternate way.... (the iPad liked to capitalize shit when I make typos). I meant the new state hospital built near CVMC at the top of the hill.
Combined, all the mid level housing for those with mental illness there are about 50 beds in all of Washington county.
Outrageous-Outside61 t1_iyqw3iy wrote
I mean, honestly the “other ways” they offered are supporting horrible agencies like Washington county mental health, where you get places like my neighbor, one violent patient, with four care takers with him 24/7. I’m sorry, but spending a million a year for one person as opposed to housing them in a state hospital is absurd, and exactly what they wanted to do with shutting down the hospital.
Me_Myself_And_IAM t1_iyvw5g3 wrote
“Care for”? People with mental health issues do just fine by themselves. It was more of an activity center for those that are mentally different because people tend to be horribly ablelist towards those labeled as such.
Notmystationbro t1_iyq3z5x wrote
The hotel program definitely is being taken advantage of. I work with one guy who lives at a hotel in the Portland area and has told me he’s saved up thousands and thousands of dollars while working 40 hours a week. He has no bills other than a cell phone. No car nada. He complains that rent is too high in the Portland area and declared homeless hence free housing. Said person is sane and no mental issues. Just another freeloader taken advantage of the program. Mind you these hotels don’t take in felons so he has no excuse on finding an apartment. Meanwhile I work, have bills, kids and a car and pay my own way. This program has too many leaks and holes for people to take advantage of and the taxpayers foot the bill.
SVTer t1_iyppovc wrote
The hotel housing around rutland and leading up to killington on route 4 is astounding. Most budget hotels across the state have ended up like this. Honestly I can’t blame the property owners for going this route, as tourists don’t seem to rent these type of places anymore. The only way to make them financially viable is to accept state subsidy and maintain them to the lowest acceptable living standards.
Corey307 t1_iyw89s7 wrote
So a while back I was trying to find a reasonably priced hotel for next year. The idea was I could get multiple home improvement projects done and not have to live there with the house torn apart and stove, fridge, washer, dryer etc in the garage. I found nothing livable through 2023 at least nothing under $250/night. That was eye opening.
gaygypsy420 t1_iys18e1 wrote
They should allow and encourage people to live in abandoned buildings at their own risk. At least they'll have shelter and be out of sight. It will save us a lot of money too.
Corey307 t1_iyw7owv wrote
So you’re saying homeless people should freeze to death in abandoned buildings? I don’t get how that helps the homeless. But at least you don’t have to see them so I guess you feel better.
YOurAreWr0ng t1_iyossqh wrote
Ban ABNB and create affordable public housing
headgasketidiot t1_iyogll9 wrote
Build public housing.
edit: and ban Airbnb.