Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_iyrcr79 wrote

Reply to comment by headgasketidiot in Advocates sound alarm over end of hotel housing program by DHallFan169

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?

−2

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.

1

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_izbrdw1 wrote

This is so hilariously off base. When was this "corporate welfare" program created, oh wise one?

1