Alleged “nice guy” Gov. Phil Scott has done more than his share of garbagey things. The constant belittling of the Legislature, the persistent passive-aggressiveness, the blame-shifting and refusal to take responsibility for anything that happens, the stubborn adherence to policies that don’t work even as problems continue to worsen, just off the top of my head. But I don’t know if anything tops — bottoms? — what his administration did on Wednesday about the state’s deliberate mass unsheltering of vulnerable Vermonters.
What it did — well, what it actually did was nothing whatsoever. What it hinted that it was planning to do, in off-the-record leaks to Vermont’s two biggest TV news operations, is set up “at least two shelters for families, with a projected completion date of Nov. 1″ according to WPTZ, which reported that the shelters would accommodate “11 families, including 21 children.” (WCAX reported that “three new shelters for homeless families” were in the works.)
This is just despicable on a number of levels. First, it’s so inadequate that it’s practically an insult. Hundreds of households, totaling at least 1,500 vulnerable people, have been unsheltered since mid-September, and the state’s plan is to provide for about 30 of them?
Second, WCAX reported that state officials are “aware of”… “at least 21” children left unsheltered. That’s bullshit. There are far more children than that who’ve been affected by new limits on the GA housing program. And they know it. (They admitted it this morning. See below.)
Third, the unsheltering has been completely predictable for months and it’s become reality exactly as predicted since September 15, when a new cap on state-paid motel rooms took effect. And only now the Scott administration is dropping hints about three tiny new shelters?
What the hell have they been doing since last spring, when the Legislature passed — and Scott approved — cutbacks in the motel voucher program? Were they just hoping that 1500-plus vulnerable Vermonters would simply disappear? Or somehow find places to live in our overheated housing market? I guess so, because they clearly didn’t engage in, you know, planning for this mass unsheltering.
The worst part of the whole contemptible episode is the timing. Yesterday, advocates from around the state gathered in the Statehouse to outline the direness of the situation and beg the state to take strong, immediate action. Here’s what happened next: Reporters went to administration officials for comment, and the officials needed to say something. So they spun out this hint of a plan with almost no detail in a transparent effort to “win the news cycle.”
And it worked. The TV stations led with the family shelter “plan” and either killed or dramatically minimized their reporting on the press conference. VTDigger and Vermont Public posted a story around 11:00 this morning by their shared reporter Carly Berlin that led with the “plan” and shoved the advocates into the background.
Berlin’s piece offered more detail, and none of it was at all reassuring. She reported that according to Joshua Marshall of the Department of Children and Families, “nearly 300 children” have been exited from state-paid motel rooms since September 15. So where in holy Hell did that “at least 21” number come from? Was it a convenient fiction to explain why the Big Plan was to accommodate precisely 21 children?
Why yes, I do believe it was.
Marshall also clarified that while two of the shelters will be ready by November 1, the third will take a “few months” to prepare. “Few” as in what? Two? Three? Five? Are we talking the dead of winter, or sometime after that?
Finally, and this is the real kick in the privates for our overworked helping agencies: The “plan” doesn’t include any staff or services. Instead, Marshall said, the shelters would “need to have a provider enlisted to support.”
Well, shit. If he’d attended the press conference, he’d know that the available nonprofits are working their fingers to the bone and beyond. They are overextended. They are on the brink of exhaustion. There is no capacity outside of state government to take on the burden of running these new shelters.
I can’t think of a single good thing to say about this. My effort to accurately describe its badness led me to consult thesaurus.com on more than one occasion. Shameful.
The Vermont Political Observer. 
I wonder why they don’t use some of the unused dorm rooms a the Vermont State University system.
I’ve wondered the same thing about empty campuses around the state. Apparently it would take a fair bit of renovation. And then there’d be teh staffing question. But I imagine the biggest obstacle is local opposition.
On a serious personal note – I no longer believe Scott when he claims to not be a supporter of Trump, and this is for a number of reasons.
Scott has a complete disregard for Vermont constitutional and statutory law as has been plainly evidenced by his childish and whiny appointment to Sec of Ed that had been rejected in accordance with Vermont law by the Vermont Senate.
Scott loves to talk big to garner your support, but when it comes to actions? Nada but whining about how people won’t do things his way. The above story is a great example where Scott promised to look out for the most vulnerable and kept repeating that until the most vulnerable needed his help … then it was that mopey face and whining screeches about the legislator Vermonters chose to do the legislative work.
The whole public schools thing – Scott has had literally (the literal sense, not the figuratively literal) on single concept – get Vermonters to vote down their children’s school budgets. Beyond that? Nothing except import Florida/DeSantis values to run the kids schooling.
And this whole bit about remaining a proud member of the proven disgusting pig rapist Trump humping GOP/VTGOP … why would he do that? Scott doesn’t need a political party to be reelected. Scott CHOSE the rapist supporting political party by deliberate thought and action.
Don’t trust Scott, don’t vote for Scott. He’ll do the yeoman’s work for the vile, violent, racist, bigoted, authoritarian agenda of the rapist and GOP/VTGOP – all so he can chase his 1990s era political and social agenda.
“J’ai essayé de dépeindre ce qui est vrai et non idéal.”
“I have attempted to portray what is true and not ideal.”
Toulouse Lautrec on his paintings of women in the brothel.
“The above story is a great example where Scott promised to look out for the most vulnerable and kept repeating that until the most vulnerable needed his help“
The question here, of course, is who is the most vulnerable? Who do we pity the most? Is it the billionaires or the ones unceremoniously kicked out of the hotels because our one percent believe that they cost too much money and, well, don’t contribute to campaigns?