Our Political Betters have been wrangling with unsheltered homelessness for years now. The Legislature’s priority has been trying to get a roof over the head of every Vermonter, while the Scott administration has been laser-focused on cost control. Well, now they’ve hit a new low in terms of creative problem-solving and pretending to care.
See, apparently people with no access to shelter have been sleeping on the covered porch of the Pavilion Building, one of the Capitol District’s most historic structures. And the administration’s solution was not to find them accommodation elsewhere — it’s to scare them off with piped-in bird noise.
Yeah, we don’t care where you go, but we don’t want you here.
The noise devices were installed earlier this summer by the Department of Buildings and General Services, but were only reported last week after Vermont Public filed a public records request. No word on whether BGS made any attempt to get the Department of Children and Families involved to try to actually solve the problem.
It speaks of the administration’s policy bankruptcy when it comes to finding shelter for the unhoused. They don’t have any answers or any ideas. (Stay tuned for a post about what the administration is doing to Act 143, the Legislature’s well-intentioned reform of the emergency housing program. The governor signed it, seemingly not in good faith, because his minions are reportedly hacking and slashing away at it.)
The administration doesn’t give any more damns about Montpelier than it does about Burlington. Montpelier has more than 60 people sleeping outdoors, according to a recent count, and it only has shelter space for 18. Sixty may not seem like a lot, but Montpelier’s a small place. It amounts to roughly one unsheltered per 130 residents.
This isn’t unique to the capital city; unsheltered homelessness is a problem across Vermont, and the administration has failed to address it. So now they’re resorting to artificial noisemakers because, as Scott aide Jason Maulucci told VTDigger, ““The Governor believes it is important to maintain safe, clean and healthy public spaces.”
Not a word about the importance of ensuring that all Vermonters have a safe place to spend the night, because that has never been on the governor’s agenda.
And sure, it’d cost money. But it’d be cheaper than the social and financial impacts of doing nothing. Plus, there’s the moral dimension of the thing. As Jesus put it, “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”
Well, we’re trying to scare away Our Lord and Savior with fake bird noises. Seems suboptimal. For those who believe in heaven and hell, there might just be a place where responsible state officials have to sleep on park benches and get admonished to “move it along, buddy” by a cop every fifteen minutes for all eternity. Just sayin’.
The Vermont Political Observer. 
Your opinion pieces are typically better than this. Preventing / discouraging open drug use and tolerating public disturbance — including discarded needles and open defecation in front of a porta potty installed to provide support to the homeless drug users — is completely distinct from addressing homelessness in VT.
No amount of available housing is going to change this type of behavior.
Sorry I didn’t meet your standards. Your comment equates homelessness with substance use, which is partially true but largely a fallacy. The root cause of homelessness is a lack of housing, plain and simple. Most people who find themselves homeless are striving for a better life. Many are employed, but in jobs that don’t pay enough to obtain reliable shelter.
Shitty people make shitty politicians make shitty policies. I believe Vermont takes in $8 million in cannabis taxes a month. Surely, one month could be diverted to put a roof oveer some heads. But Governor Scatt would rather punch down on thee homeless and those elected officials (Burlington cityy concil) asking for help. A passive-aggressive bully coward like Donald Trump.
maulooch and veto phil are cruel, inhumane, and wrong headed about public safety. housing first investments have much better quality of life returns for all involved. as binary thinkers, overhauling failed systems just doesn’t interest them. it wouldn’t surprise me if they think this is funny. i see from phil’s candidate filing that he earned over half a million and owns a number of shares over $25k in tech stock, healthcare, big pharma, walmart, etc.. i guess he doesn’t have to worry about shelter nor does he care about representing his unsheltered constituency.
I think we missed an opportunity. What if the state had used Goddard College Campus to house the homeless? Every resident would have to have a chore, working in the vegetable garden, working in the kitchen or laundry, housekeeping, etc. On site councilors, training for jobs, and a board partially composed of residents. Instead of dumping money into motels, wouldn’t this model be a better option?
Possibly, although it would have required moving every unsheltered person to Plainfield, whose residents might raise an objection to the plan.
His putative opponent apparently following the, “don’t say anything if you don’t have anything nice to say,” rule. Bold strategy, etc.