On the eve of the Legislature’s veto override session, we now have the text of the bill extending the motel voucher program. It’s more or less what we thought it would be; its biggest shortcoming is the exclusion of the hundreds of Vermonters unsheltered this month. Ain’t a damn thing in it for them. And as we saw earlier, these may not be the neediest of our neediest, but they’ve got some pretty extreme needs and they’re going to suffer greatly as long as they’re unhoused.

The real sin of it all is that it wouldn’t cost much to include them, and we’ve got the money. Our fiscal experts continue to forecast revenue declines in the future, but for now we’re still collecting more than predicted every month. And the FY2024 budget puts $14 million in cold storage against future federal match opportunities. That seems like prudence except that we always find money for federal matches! Wait, let me put a little stank on that:

We. Always. Find. Money. For. Federal. Matches!

Missing out on federal largesse because we couldn’t come up with the scratch? It’s just not a thing that happens.

Banking funds against that highly unlikely occurrence while we’re sentencing hundreds to indefinite unsheltering? That’s a goddamn crime.

But this deal is almost certain to go through. It gives the House dissidents most of what they asked for, and they’re likely to give in and support the override of Gov. Phil Scott’s budget veto. Well, most of them will. The rest, in the world of legislative dealmaking, don’t matter. Nor do the unhoused who aren’t being helped.

So let’s take a closer look at the bill, including a few unexpected and unwelcome twists.

H.171 applies to the “approximately 1,200 households [that] are transitioning out of the [voucher] program” after June 30. Nothing for the June 1 or June 16 cohorts. Those 1,200 households “should continue to be housed” in state-funded motel rooms while alternative housing placements are developed. In a decided (and well-deserved) slap to the Scott administration, it will be required to report monthly to lawmakers on money spent and progress made toward rehousing voucher clients. The administration is also ordered to renegotiate room rates with motel operators with an eye toward a 50% or better reduction in cost — something highly achievable that the administration has never tried to do.

The bill mandates that no later than April 1, 2024, the state “shall assist in finding or offer to each household housed as of June 30, 2023 in a hotel or motel… an alternate housing placement unless a household secures its own housing placement.” Vouchers will be provided until alternative housing is found or offered.

Aside from the exclusion of the June cohorts, there are some other worms in this apple. The program will not be open to anyone who becomes unhoused from now on, which is a problem when our shelter space is full and our severe housing crunch continues. Voucher clients with jobs will be expected to kick in 30% of their gross income toward the cost of their motel rooms. Clients will have to accept the first alternative arrangement offered within 48 hours, even if it’s unsuitable to their specific situation. If they refuse, they’re out on the streets.

And there is no specific appropriation in the bill. No money. Instead, the Agency of Human Services is directed to hold onto any unspent FY2023 funds to help pay for the voucher extensions. Plus, any extra funds in something called the “Other Infrastructure, Essential Investments, and Reserves subaccount in the Cash Fund for Capital and Essential Investments” will be provided for the effort “as needed to implement” H.171.

What happens if the surplus in the OIEIRsCFCEI isn’t enough? Uh, don’t know.

There’s a sour kernel of fiscal conservatism at the heart of this bill. There’s a need to validate earlier decisions to restrict eligibility on June 1. There’s the mandate to make voucher recipients pay — which is awfully shortsighted if your goal is to help these folks transition to self-sufficiency as quickly as possible. There’s a refusal to make a specific appropriation, which will encourage the administration to cut as many corners as they possibly can. And if they cut corners, voucher recipients will pay the price.

In terms of legislative deal-making, this is about what you might expect. But there was a hope that House and Senate leaders, good Democrats all, would take a clear step beyond the ordinary and craft a plan with the interests of our most vulnerable given complete priority.

The funds were available. We know that for a fact. Unsheltering hundreds of households will be cruel, and will cost more than a full voucher program would have. H.171 is better than nothing, but it falls short of the alleged core principles of Democratic officeholders — and the governor, with his endlessly repeated promise to protect our most vulnerable.

Go ahead, pass the thing. It will help a lot of people. But don’t expect me to give you a cookie for a belated and begrudging effort to provide for those caught in our housing crisis. This remains a moral, political, and financial failure.