Human Rights Violations supported by the Vermont Agency of Human Services

Submitted by lindrios t3_zebjla in vermont

Hello fellow Vermonters,

This is an email I found myself sending after attending a meeting focused on housing in Vermont.

Edit: Leave an upvote if you find the information useful. It's important for people to know what's happening.

Additional Edit: I want to be very clear that I am writing this to bring awareness to an ugly situation. It's the classic "stuck between a rock and a hard place". There is no "magic" solution to this problem... It is worth asking however, where should the line be drawn between the overwhelming need to provide housing, versus funding greedy property owners who are openly abusive towards tenants. Somewhere along the line there was a critical failure and things descended into chaos. I want to identify this failure and bring it to the forefront so it can be addressed and hopefully improved upon.

>>

One of the biggest things that stood out to me from the meeting yesterday, when I mentioned the ongoing abuse at these properties in the Transitional Housing Program, was everyone saying "if we could do something we would, but we can't afford to have the hotels withdraw from the program."  I do believe that those in the Housing Coalitions care...  but they have been beaten down into lower standards of care and oversight out of fear alone.

If I was fearful of every repercussion that comes with the activist work I do I would not accomplish anything.

With the current state of disrepair these properties are in, they simply can not afford to "pull-out" of the THP.  Without massive renovations they would not be able to successfully open for tourists.  From a simple economic standpoint, it's not possible.

These hotels/motels are not only violating the guidelines of the OA set out for the THP, but they are also not meeting many of the expectations and guidelines set out by Vermont's Lodging Statutes.  These statutes also clearly state that renters are not to be harassed or abused.  AHS fear of retaliation means many of these properties have not been inspected for over 24 months, despite VDH having full knowledge of these violations and the abuse taking place.

It's important to note that this is "Federal Emergency Funding" which comes with its own set of rules and guidelines concerning spending, and the oversight of such spending.  The complete lack of oversight from AHS across the board have led to gross violations of these Federal spending guidelines.  Continuing down the line, the hotel/motel owners by breaching the Occupancy Agreement contract, and not meeting public health statutes, are also in gross violation of federal emergency spending guidelines.

This means its not up to Vermont AHS to "decide" to not intervene despite however they feel.

As you can imagine, the Feds (and our legislatures) are irate when they find out MILLIONS of dollars are funding properties with blatant human rights violations.

This is an IRS level misallocation of federal funding.  It's absolutely INSANE that I have meetings with Human Rights Commissions and our Legislatures concerning this topic and it's a "must be stopped" conversation to the point of the Attorney General being involved for prosecution.  It's also much easier to get in touch with Senate and Congress than it is with DCF supervisors...  Pretty sad.

When I get in the room with AHS, the very people tasked with oversight and protecting individuals....  They clearly state that they are unable to perform their state duties out of fear of retaliation from these property owners.

If AHS is fearful of retaliation, you can only imagine how those housed on these properties are being treated.

I will not, and neither should anyone else involved, stand for this level of "hands off" care that Vermont AHS is such a fan of.  It's pathetic that I have to open a federal investigation to get state agencies to do what they are tasked with.

I'm fuckin sick of beating around "the bush" on this issue. It's time we cut that bush down and put it through a chipper.

Vermont is better than this.

110

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Websters_Dick t1_iz5mku1 wrote

Solidarity with the unhoused, because most of us are only a missed paycheck or two from being on the streets

80

Galadrond t1_iz6s987 wrote

The Transitional Housing Program has been an abject failure. It would have been vastly cheaper to have bought out these hotels rather than continuing to pay out the nose for rooms at increasingly abusive locations.

36

No-Ganache7168 t1_iz7cikd wrote

Absolutely. Most are barely scraping by and would have agreed to a sale. We've purchased them 100 times over at this point.

15

BeckyKleitz t1_iz96szr wrote

That was proposed waaaay back in the 90's and the hotel owners scoffed at it. Wanted no part in it.

You can't force folks to participate in a program like that if they don't want to. Of course, they want to sell them now, 25 years later when they're dilapidated and disgusting. Those places should be condemned and taken over by the state then they can raze them or renovate them into compliance.

8

lindrios OP t1_iz9op13 wrote

Also as part of that proposal in the 90's...

AHS lobbied to have "landlord/tenant" rights removed from hospitality zoning so there was no conflict with length of stay being longer than 28 days.

The consequences of this is that it has now removed ALL of the housing rights afforded to individuals in GA housing programs such as the Transitional Housing Program

4

chapek-nine t1_iz5llxr wrote

Why do you think 'Vermont is better than this'?

Vermont state agencies unofficial motto:

'we're not happy until you're not happy'

26

lindrios OP t1_iz5my6m wrote

I would like to think that we can do better.

However your motto is quite fitting of their actions...

Perhaps they should adopt it as their new mission statement

16

mercurialmalachi t1_iz65ilp wrote

I’ve known many state employees over the years who have been retaliated against for attempting to follow the law and their statutory obligations. The retaliation comes from upper management or political appointees who don’t want to look bad, admit there’s a problem, or be subject to legislative scrutiny. I could easily believe the people you’re dealing with are legitimately concerned about retaliation of this nature. On the inside, Vermont state government is an ugly, ugly system.

21

Revolutionary_Map924 t1_iz77ewz wrote

Having been on the inside, agree 100% with this statement.

7

MargaerySchrute t1_iz8q1w3 wrote

Second this. Chaos.

5

chapek-nine t1_izp13p9 wrote

Yup. Corrupt and opaque.

Employees have three choices: you go along to get along, join the club of crooks and liars, or leave.

I chose the third because I have to live with myself.

1

5teerPike t1_iz63kxu wrote

I always thought it was "change nothing and wonder why nothing changes"

12

inthepines3000 t1_iz6bvuk wrote

> Vermont is better than this.

Is it though? In numerous ways all empirical evidence suggests that it is not.

25

iuravi t1_iz8b2aa wrote

“There was once a dream that was Rome.”

6

Critical_Contest716 t1_iz6w06t wrote

This attitude (that something is wrong, "but we can't afford to...") is very Vermont. This is exactly how abuse, neglect, and discrimination against the disabled is handled. I call it the "social services good old boys network", where those who should be insuring the rights and safety of the vulnerable instead sacrifice them to a go-along-to-get-along culture.

22

No-Tomorrow1576 t1_iz7905j wrote

Can y’all imagine how it feels to live in housing where the housing is not kept up? Where the place is in such disrepair that we have to call code enforcement on the LL and fear retaliation? Or when the ppl in the offices change hands and ABSOLUTELY NO ONE communicates with one another and the tenant moving out gets royally fucked on their deposits and sued for damages that were there when they moved in or resulted from them not keeping up on the place? Talk about that some more!! We’re out here, we’ve dealt with it.. Most of us have section 8 and some of us lose it. I was close to losing it until I went through the board of review and still had to lose some of my deposit.. It sucks and it’s bad.. Thank you for bringing awareness of this current situation

20

tossaway78701 t1_iz6jvut wrote

Other cities and states are outright buying hotels for transitional housing. Is that not happening in Vermont?

10

thisoneisnotasbad t1_iz6n7n5 wrote

There have been a couple. The conditions were reported as being pretty rough. Not sure if they have changed since the purchase.

https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2021/12/02/champlain-housing-trust-buys-williston-hotel-to-convert-into-apartments

https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2021/12/20/champlain-housing-trust-buys-a-second-shelburne-road-motel

7

tossaway78701 t1_iz6obf1 wrote

Taking the profiteering out of housing tends to improve conditions. Here's hoping it helped!

5

vanillaseltzer t1_iz6xuux wrote

TownePlace suites in Williston was built in '99 and wasn't in bad shape when I worked there 5ish years ago. It's shocking how much money they are saying it'll cost to change it into housing.

2

lindrios OP t1_iz6nse8 wrote

It is happening here! There is a great example of this in Barre, I can't remember the name of the program right now. They purchased a hotel that went out of business and revamped it into a community center/shelter.

5

tossaway78701 t1_iz6ol70 wrote

The structure of most hotels lends itself to housing AND community. Great use of an existing space.

6

lindrios OP t1_iz6qhfc wrote

I wholeheartedly agree, hopefully this trend can continue

1

tossaway78701 t1_iz6u6s1 wrote

Maybe some of the schools closing can be repurposed for community use as well. I like this trend so far.

5

vtmosaic t1_iz7u9ma wrote

Like Green Mountain College in Poultney.

5

somedudevt t1_iz70p0d wrote

Some of these properties are and were in disrepair prior, but let’s not pretend that a lot of these “unhoused” people are destroying them. There isn’t a day that passes where the police are not at the one in Berlin, breaking up a fight, arresting someone to disorderly conduct, the program has a value and serves a purpose when the people in it are invested in improving their situation. But when half are shooting heroin and causing mayhem, how can we expect these owners to be motivated to make the living situation better.

9

Loosh_03062 t1_iz9blq2 wrote

Rutland Town saw similar issues with the old Cortina Inn. The hotel ended up having to pay the town for the extra police work involved with having the place be a shelter. One has to wonder how many places will forever be "that blasted shelter" to locals, even after the program ends.

3

lindrios OP t1_iz9zlln wrote

Some useful information here concerning excessive police calls at these properties. It's a two part equation.

  1. there are drug/violence situations that require law enforcement, this will happen anywhere

  2. the property owners of the shitty hotels/motels regularly call the police on tenants as a form of intimidation. They also routinely call police to perform "evictions" on tenants that make them unhappy or file complaints about their treatment. This happened so frequently at the Econo Lodge in Saint Albans that the SAPD will no longer show up for these "evictions" as they are now aware the tenants have Occupancy Agreements and can't be ripped out of their housing because a hotel owner is having a bad day. IE if a tenant calls a property owner an unsavory name, the owner will call the PD because they are butthurt.

  3. with property owners basically abusing the PD functions and using them as "intimidation" by calling them multiple times a day it's stretched the already small PDs to their limits.

  4. Cortina Inn was one of the places that was calling PD whenever the owner was having a bad day. We will call these "Petty Calls". This led to the PD being misused as "security" for the property and eventually they got fed up with the drain of their resources and personal and demanded compensation for calling them so frequently.

2

bobsizzle t1_izgos0c wrote

That place is a dump. But at some point, there is a reason why the people that live there, do. Bad choices. It's putting a bunch of criminals and addicts in one location. People who don't always want to actually be productive citizens. Some would rather live off the state and use and or sell drugs. There might be a few good people staying there, but sometimes a few ruin it for the rest. They need to help people who actually contribute to society with housing. There are plenty of Jobs around. 15 isn't a lot, but you can get by with it for a while as long as you're not spending half of what you make on rent. They should have work requirements for a lot of these programs. If you can work and refuse, you can live under a bridge in a tent. There's no personal accountability anymore. I've seen so many 'disabled' people doing things that are just as physically hard as something they'd do at work

1

henry_hayes t1_iz768yx wrote

Is there a State that is handling this situation well? If so, why don’t they become the model? Unfortunately, I don’t think anyone has figured out how to solve this problem and so the “least bad” consensus becomes the norm.

8

lindrios OP t1_iz9ro8s wrote

I see no reason why a small state like Vermont isn't capable of being that model for others.

Unfortunately our state agencies lack any ability of oversight, and it makes it very difficult to accomplish.

2

henry_hayes t1_iz9srkk wrote

Yes, I hear you that it "could" be the model. As you say, the small population makes Vermont an ideal test case. But today, what state is doing the best at this? There may not be the need to reinvent the wheel (also, maybe there is), but if a precedent is being set elsewhere that's even marginally better we should look to them as a model for success to build upon.

1

lindrios OP t1_iz9v534 wrote

I'll start looking into this, it would have to be another northern state that also heavily relies of tourism.

I do know that Portland, ME has had huge successes with their public housing projects. That may only work in a large urban area though. It's the rural areas that are quite difficult to get resources to.

1

henry_hayes t1_izakbdk wrote

Yes, the rural nature adds a severe complication factor. Stand-alone housing projects, whether they be State-subsidized in a hotel/motel or built from scratch have always been, and always will be, an abject failure.

IMO, the way forward is that all proposed housing developments (i.e. condos, etc) be required to set aside a number of units for affordable housing thereby preventing the stigmatizing nature of the "housing projects".

Another idea would be for the leases of public lands by ski resorts to be codified to require employee housing for X% of the employees below a certain wage threshold.

Or, tax incentives for homeowners to build ADU's on their property.

2

lindrios OP t1_izan1ns wrote

These are some excellent ideas!

They are currently working on legislation that requires new developments to have a certain number of affordable housing units with "homeless preference" for tenancy. This would mean that the landlord can pull from a number of people currently GA in housing/shelters. Existing landlords are pushing back on registering existing units as they fear it will turn into "rent control".

I love the idea of employee housing. The few THP hotels that have been able to meet guidelines, I found are currently employing residents. It appears to be a win-win situation for the most part.

There are currently some funding options for Accessory Dwellings, I don't believe there is a tax break though. An accessory dwelling can increase property taxes, and running utilities to the buildings can be in the tens of thousands of dollars. There is not much incentive for people to actually take advantage of doing this.

2

5teerPike t1_iz63ihe wrote

"if we could do something we would" is code for "I don't care to work hard to do so"

Lazy. Lazy at the expense of human rights. Ugh.

5

sillycece312 t1_iz7t52u wrote

And it sounds like fear, too, which is unnecessarily standing in the way of people having a decent place to live. Worried more about retaliation than people living on the street? What kind of moral reasoning is that?

3

lindrios OP t1_iz9tt8n wrote

Right?? I was dumbfounded for a few seconds the first time they said it to me.

There is no moral, or logical reasoning, behind their actions.

2

Practical-Intern-347 t1_iz68oa6 wrote

I'm not sure I understand a piece of this -- what leverage do the slum motels have over the AHS staff, if it is true that the motels are, in fact, in dire need of remodels and would go under of the AHS packed up and moved somewhere else?

I'm not very educated on this, but it seems like one of those must not be true.

4

lindrios OP t1_iz6raio wrote

Mainly, the fact that is no "somewhere else" to move these people to. They are desperate for hotels to participate in the program.

6

burke_no_sleeps t1_iz5xj58 wrote

>When I get in the room with AHS, the very people tasked with oversight and protecting individuals....  They clearly state that they are unable to perform their state duties out of fear of retaliation from these property owners.

Do you have this on record? I'm not surprised but jeez. Somebody needs to step up and put an end to it, regardless of retaliation. What would this retaliation look like, anyhow?

3

Loosh_03062 t1_iz62f87 wrote

"Retaliation" probably means the hotels saying "we're leaving the program, get these people out of here by close of business (or whatever the required notice is)." Sort of like the property owners in the Burlington area which have made the news for having substandard rental units, but AHS won't yank the funding because they don't want to lose access to dozens of the cheapest units around.

12

sillycece312 t1_iz7tels wrote

How about responding to that with like, “no, idiots, get your shit together or we’ll sue you for violating living standards” or something? There’s got to be something stronger than fear. This sounds stupid.

2

Practical-Intern-347 t1_iz6anzo wrote

Doesn't the Agency of Human Services have a citizen board that oversees its actions and hears complaints from citizens? Many other state agencies do.

3

lindrios OP t1_iz7mejv wrote

I haven't heard of it before if it does exist. From my experience with them however they lack transparency and are definitely not open to criticism.

1

Practical-Intern-347 t1_iz7o2ug wrote

Looks like there is. From the AHS website:

"The Human Services Board is a citizen's panel consisting of seven members created by the legislature pursuant to 3 V.S.A. §3090. Its duties are to act as a fair hearing board for appeals brought by individuals who are aggrieved by decisions or policies of the various departments and programs throughout the Agency of Human Services."

4

lindrios OP t1_iz7qtfx wrote

Ah yes, this I am familiar with. DCF/ESD calls this your "right to a fair hearing".

I was not offered a "Fair Hearing" until 63 days AFTER I had left the property. The hearing was subsequently thrown out for "no longer being relevant" before anything was done.

AHS is also under the impression that they can't "force" these hotel/motel owners to do anything because it is "private property". While correct that it is privately owned, since it is in hospitality zoning and accepting members of the public... they are subject to all of the regulations under the Vermont Lodging Statutes, which would be enforced by VDH a division of AHS.

Therefore any decision made in the "Fair Hearing" doesn't mean anything because none of the AHS departments will act on it.

EDIT: It's also important to note that this is a "citizen's" panel and has no judiciary power, IE enforcing/overturning decisions made by the Agency is not legally possible. It's more of an advisory panel.

5

lindrios OP t1_iz7tkno wrote

If you look through the records any that say

Dept--DCF: General Assistance"

Issue-- 9. Other

Case Decision-- 4. Dismissed

These are the cases in which someone has complained about hotel/motel conditions and was kicked out for it. You'll notice that the way the cases are written its the "Petitioner vs DCF" instead of the actual property owner. The board 100% of the time finds DCF not at fault, which results in conditions remaining the same and the "Petitioner" still loses their housing.

https://outside.vermont.gov/agency/AHSHSB/Orders/Documents/2022/FH-T-04-22-220%20&%20FH-T-04-22-241%20Order.pdf

Here's a a random case that picked and skimmed over.

2

Loosh_03062 t1_iz5ozkd wrote

If the program and its oversight are that messed up, perhaps it's time for some Heinleinian house cleaning: terminate the program, the department head, and everyone under him in the org chart.

2

MargaerySchrute t1_iz8prh2 wrote

ELI5 can you explain how you opened a case with the feds? Might get others to report and bring the situation to light. Thanks.

2

lindrios OP t1_iz9tiwp wrote

I've spent well over 250 hours doing research at this point to find some of the information that I have. It's my hope that this will make it much easier for others to follow through with reports and the like.

I would definitely recommend Vermont's Human Rights Commission. They genuinely care about these issues. You have to file online if its a "personal" case but they also host public meetings once a month that I am greatly encouraging people to attend if possible. I was the first member of the public to attend a meeting in almost 3 months they told me.

Vermont Legal Aid doesn't have enough resources to take on the issues in the THP as a class action lawsuit and have encouraged people to pursue the hotel/motel owners in county courts for breach of contract.

1

LiveFreeOrSpaz t1_iz72o3j wrote

Maybe having all of our decisions made by psychotic, evil politicians was not such a good idea after all.

​

Just a thought.

1