
In case you thought the unhousing of Vermonters from a motel shelter program was a new thing, VTDigger comes along with a history lesson that manages to deepen my anger at and understanding of our current situation. It seems that we went through the exact same thing only 10 years ago.
And apparently we didn’t learn a damn thing, because we’re doing it again.
The circumstances were different, but the outcome was the same. Funding for an emergency motel voucher program was cut, and a large cohort was suddenly tossed out on the street. Some were given tents and sleeping bags in lieu of actual shelter.
One big difference between now and then: The Democrats ran the roost. They held the governorship as well as the Legislature, and they still managed to screw our most vulnerable. That sheds some light on the capacity of today’s Democratic leaders to defund the program and accept the consequences. They’ve done it before, so why not now?
I have to confess I was more than a bit embarrassed to read the Digger piece because I was around in 2013, writing frequently if not obsessively about Vermont politics at Green Mountain Daily, and I don’t remember this stuff at all.
But hey, a search on the dormant but still extant GMD reveals a post by Yours Truly from July 2013 about this very issue. At the time, many a Democratic lawmaker — most notably Tim Ashe, then chair of the Senate Finance Committee — explained the cut by bemoaning the high cost of the motel program at then-current rates.
I think everybody agrees that $50-per-night motel rooms are a poor substitute for a decent shelter program, good transitional support, and an adequate supply of affordable housing. But lawmakers haven’t exactly rushed forward to fund those better alternatives; they simply whacked the motel budget.
This paragraph holds true today with the exception of two characters: 5 and 0. The nightly rate is higher today, but the rest is same song, new verse: The attempt to divert the conversation from “how do we help the unhoused?” to “how do we stop filling the pockets of motel operators?”, the willingness to cut without regard to consequences, the lack of foresight and planning.
We haven’t learned a thing. As a result, we’re just spinning on the Santayana wheel, forgetting the past and being condemned to repeat it.
Except we’re not paying the price. Nope, as usual it’s the unhoused who are taking it in the shorts. But maybe, just maybe, this year’s Legislature can cut short this Karmic cycle and continue the voucher program while also funding an offramp to more sustainable solutions. Let’s do it right this time.

Honestly I doubt the Democratic leadership gives a shit except when it impacts them. Also feel like a significant percentage of the Scott administration and the Democratic leadership want the homeless gone as in leaving the state but they won’t say it out loud.
Housing issues and serious lack of infrastructure (rural transit etc) is why I spent a couple decades elsewhere. The raw edge of insanity brought on by Trump and COVID drove me back. Setting aside COVID issues, Vermont really hasn’t gotten better, just older and more exclusive. Lots of fish that wouldn’t survive a bigger pond.
“Let’s do it right this time.”
I doubt that’ll happen.
Wow, John, did you understand what you were doing when you put that Mary and Joseph on their journey picture on your liberal website? Mary was pregnant. She was traveling and would soon give birth to Jesus, the Savior of mankind. There was no room at the inn. There are two references here. One reference is to homelessness. Got it. But the other reference is to the gift of new life that happens at the birth of a baby. And I know you are totally pro-choice and I think a supporter of Amendment 22, which allows the abortion of a baby up to the moment of birth. Please understand that the picture of Mary and Joseph and the donkey on the road has more than one meaning. You cannot use them as a symbol of the homeless without also letting everyone know that you are putting a totally prolife symbol on your site as well. Mary was betrothed, but also pregnant and not yet married. Where would the world be if she had chosen to avoid cultural shame as a Jewish woman and hide her pregnancy by aborting Jesus?