Category Archives: Housing

…And It Begins

Even as the Legislature moves forward with a budget that will end the motel voucher program this spring, local people are preparing to deal with the consequences. One little piece of that is covered in the new issue of The Bridge, Montpelier’s twice-monthly paper, in a front page story entitled “Local Orgs Prep for 30% Increase in Homeless Population.” (The above photo accompanies the online version of the story.)

The story outlines the frantic preparation efforts involving municipal officials and local nonprofits. It’s pretty damn daunting stuff, and I’m sure a parallel version could be written in any one of Vermont’s cities and larger towns — well, those blessed with an active media presence, anyway.

Short version: Local shelters are full, and the end of the voucher program will increase the area’s unhoused population by an estimated 30%. Two nonprofits that provide shelter and assistance, Good Samaritan Haven and Another Way, are trying to raise $20,000 to pay for camping supplies, food, medical supplies, and other basics.

Yeah, “camping supplies.” We’re giving tents to our unhoused and sending them out to fend for themselves.

The city of Montpelier allocated $425,000 in its current budget for addressing homelessness. That money is likely to run out. The city may open another shelter in its Barre Street Recreation Center, but would have to bear the cost of preparations (the building has issues with lead, asbestos, and lack of accessibility). and would need someone to operate it. Good Samaritan says it doesn’t have the capacity to do so.

These are small-bore examples of what I’ve said before: The costs resulting from ending the voucher program will exceed the cost of extending it. But the state won’t have to pay, at least not directly, so the budget writers can pretend these consequences don’t exist. At least for now.

Continue reading

Someone on Senate Appropriations Did Something Despicable Today

Here’s a new one! Today, a legislative committee made up of six Democrats and one Republican doxxed the Vermont Democratic Party’s most recent candidate for governor.

The above image is a partial screenshot of an email sent by Brenda Siegel to the committee. Siegel’s personal email address was redacted by me, not by anyone at the committee.

That’s right, they posted an email from Siegel on the Legislature’s official website and included Siegel’s personal email address. And Siegel’s email was clearly NOT intended to be official testimony. You can tell because of the “Hi there” salutation and the fact that further down in the email, Siegel specifically said that she would be submitting testimony later in the day. So someone on the committee deliberately decided to publish an email that wasn’t intended for the official record, and in the process expose Siegel’s personal email address.

Like I said, despicable.

Continue reading

Senate Budget Writers Set to Build Part of the Bridge — On the Other Side of the Canyon

The Senate Appropriations Committee is very close to approving a budget item for housing, and it’s not good news for the 1,800 households currently living in motels and hotels under a state program set to expire in little more than two months.

The committee didn’t take final action Thursday, but is likely to do so Friday — or Monday at the latest. Chair Jane Kitchel made it clear that there won’t be a substantial additional commitment to housing. There is room to shift some money around, but that’s about all.

The committee would spend some money to boost housing for the unhoused, but only enough to make a dent in this critical shortage. And it would not spend a dime to extend the motel voucher program that currently provides shelter for 80% of Vermont’s unhoused and is set to expire no later than June 30. In short, Approps would start construction on a bridge to housing — but only part of the bridge on the other side of the canyon.

Continue reading

Quick Follow-Up: How Many Lawmakers Have Experienced Homelessness?

The latest installment of VTDigger’s series on legislative ethics and financial disclosure is essentially a redo of one of my all-time favorite stories about the Statehouse: Taylor Dobbs’ “House of Landlords,” a 2019 exploration of how many lawmakers are landlords, property managers or contractors, and how that affects lawmaking.

The answer then, as it is now, is (a) a whole awful lot who (b) seem disinclined to enact any laws that might affect the interests of the propertied class.

Well, the Digger story focuses on landlords versus renters and as in 2019, the former are thick on the ground while the latter are scarce as hen’s teeth. One consequence of this imbalance, now as then, is a lack of movement on creating a statewide rental registry. Similarly, there’s no action to be seen on limiting no-cause evictions. The very concept is gunned down in a hail of anecdotes about longsuffering landlords and dissolute tenants. Rarely if ever do we hear the other side of the story — hardworking tenants who pay their rent on time and struggle to get their landlords to do necessary maintenance or repair.

So let’s take the next logical step, shall we? The Legislature is deep in discussions about how to avoid — actually, whether to avoid — a crisis in unsheltered homelessness about to hit Vermont. How many legislative decision-makers have ever experienced homelessness?

Continue reading

The Acceptable Cruelty Calculation

From the rumor front, there’s good news and bad news.

The good news: State Senate budget writers appear to be pondering additional funds for housing the homeless.

The bad news: They may be trying to do it on the cheap.

This week, the Senate Appropriations Committee is hammering out its version of a spending plan for fiscal year 2024. One big pending decision is how to deal with the looming end of the emergency housing program that serves 80% of Vermont’s unhoused through motel vouchers. If the program ends as scheduled in May and June, some 1,800 households could be unsheltered.

The House, after much dithering, added $20 million to its budget for related spending. Half would go toward purchasing vacant mobile homes, and the other half would boost support services for the unhoused. But the voucher program would end on schedule, and how the wise heads of the House failed to see the potentially catastrophic effects of this, politically, financially and morally, I have no idea.

On to Round 2 in the Senate, where two policy committees allowed token testimony from housing advocates. The latter presented a clear plan for extending emergency shelter while implementing a proven strategy to permanently expand available housing options and make a serious dent in the homelessness crisis.

Things looked bleak, but there are hints that the budget-writing Senate Appropriations Committee is looking to fund some version of said strategy.

Great, yes? Well, glass half full, glass half empty.

Continue reading

I’m Sorry, But I’m Not Taking Smart Planning Advice From the People Who Enabled This

VTDigger has seen a sudden flurry of letters and essays from residents of South Burlington, concerned that S.100, the state Senate’s housing bill, is going to turn their green and pleasant land into some sort of overdeveloped hellscape.

News bulletin: That ship has not only sailed, it long ago vanished over the horizon. Your town’s been an overdeveloped hellscape for years.

When I think “South Burlington,” I think the worst suburban sprawl in Vermont. Shelburne Road comes to mind, as does Williston Road and Dorset Street. As do subdivisions that devote vast amounts of land to high-maintenance lawns. The whole thing is, of course, designed around motor vehicles.

Not well designed, but designed nonetheless.

I know it’s a bit unfair to blame the current crop of SoBurbanites for the planning sins of their forebears. But just because they’ve got religion after a decades-long development bender doesn’t mean they can lecture the rest of us on how to address our housing crisis.

Continue reading

How Not to Hold a Legislative Hearing

Hey, remember when I wondered where all the other witnesses were? The ones who should be testifying on behalf of all the groups and institutions sure to be affected by the scheduled end of the emergency motel voucher program?

Turns out it’s just as well they didn’t show up, because the hearing was way too short even for the witnesses who did appear. The whole thing was kind of embarrassing, in fact. (It doesn’t help when lawmakers like Sen. Ann Cummings seem to be ostentatiously not paying attention, but it’s hard to resist the siren song of personal electronics.)

Wednesday morning, two Senate committees — Economic Development and Health & Welfare — held a joint hearing on emergency housing and, just as a bonus, the lack of housing and support services specifically for people with disabilities.

Either issue warranted a good bit of time. Instead, both were crammed into a single hour. Seven witnesses were on the schedule which [whips out abacus] means each of them were allotted less than ten minutes to make their case and answer questions.

Before I go on, lI should say that in the long run, this hearing will be a footnote. What matters are the discussions and negotiations around the FY2024 budget, and whether provision will be made for adequate housing and shelter for the 1,800 households who face eviction when the motel program is allowed to expire.

Continue reading

Where Are All the Other Witnesses?

Should be an interesting, perhaps pivotal, hearing Wednesday morning. Two Senate committees will hear from a series of housing advocates about the looming end of Vermont’s emergency housing program. Will their voices be heard, or will they get a polite brush-off as they did in the House?

Tomorrow’s witnesses include former gubernatorial candidates Brenda Siegel and Sue Minter (the latter now head of Capstone Community Action), Anne Sosin of the Vermont Affordable Housing Coalition, Christine Hazzard of the Brattleboro Housing Coaltion, and Susan Aronoff of the Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council. It’s kind of an all-star cast for housing insecurity.

But my question is: Where is everybody else?

Given the potentially wide-ranging consequences of ending the motel voucher program, there ought to be a line down the hallway, out the door, and around the building of people wanting to give Senate decision-makers a piece of their minds. The fact that there isn’t is a measure of the cluelessness of institutional Vermont about what might happen this summer.

Continue reading

We Aren’t Going to Solve the Housing Shortage This Way

This is the site plan for Stonewall Meadows, a proposed new neighborhood in Montpelier. Need I say that this is a prime example of how to waste a whole lot of acreage and squander an opportunity to build smart on one of the city’s handful of available building sites?

This plan, of course, got a green light from the Development Review Board, so it’s full steam ahead for some nice, expansive backyards where there could have been more housing. This is especially galling since the developer originally proposed a “cottage cluster” type of neighborhood that would have provided twice as much housing as the approved plan. Here’s the original layout.

According to the Montpelier Bridge, the developer “switched tacks after a neighborhood meeting and sketch review with the city’s Development Review Board last fall.” The neighbors complained about the loss of an undeveloped area and expressed concern about increased traffic. In other words, NIMBY.

Continue reading

House Dems Vote to End Emergency Housing Program, Then Brag About Protecting “The Most Vulnerable”

It’s standard practice for a legislative body to pass a bill and for leadership to issue a self-congratulatory press release. That’s what the House majority did after passing a budget bill. Which, OK, fine, passing a budget is a big tough job. A self-back-pat is not out of order.

But right in the middle, we get this:

This year and every year, House Democrats lead on supporting Vermonters in every community and every county. These shared priorities include: protecting Vermonters who are most vulnerable, sustaining support networks that keep people housed and fed, improving access to affordable childcare for working families, supporting thriving schools, investing in our workforce and economy, establishing paid family and medical leave, and meeting the needs of older Vermonters.  

Wait, what’s that? “Protecting Vermonters who are most vulnerable”? “Sustaining support networks that keep people housed and fed”? Come the fuck on.

(Pardon my French, but in this case it’s justified.)

This budget bill will end the emergency housing program that currently provides shelter to more than 80% of Vermonters experiencing homelessness.

This bill doesn’t protect the most vulnerable. It throws them out on the street.

Continue reading