Submitted by DHallFan169 t3_zawlx4 in vermont
[deleted] t1_iyp3zeb wrote
Reply to comment by RoyalIndependence500 in Advocates sound alarm over end of hotel housing program by DHallFan169
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments