Category Archives: Housing

The Shelter Clusterfuck, Continued: Now With More Ridiculousness

6 Replies

This is a follow-up to my previous post on the Scott administration’s plan to exit 500 homeless Vermonters from state-paid motel rooms on Friday and into temporary congregate night-only shelters.

Which seems slightly less devious but even more absurd with the news that the governor signed the Budget Adjustment Act on Wednesday afternoon. My proposition that he’d delayed signing so he’d have a pretext for exiting all those people was inaccurate.

But the signing raises new questions. The biggest of which is, why in Hell did he wait so long? The bill passed the Legislature on March 1. I’m sure it took a few days to reach his desk, but the language had been agreed to. There was no need to sit on the bill. And since he did, his officials were left without firm direction on how to extend, or not, voucher accommodation for those being housed under the Adverse Weather Condition program. It meant, according to Commissioner Chris Winters of the Department of Children and Families, that state officials had little to no contact with AWC clients until Wednesday.

The only previous communication had been a letter warning clients that they might have to exit their motels on March 15. That’s all.

Continue reading →

“A Manufactured Crisis”

3 Replies

Gov. Phil Scott’s treatment of the emergency housing program has been a case study in mismanagement with more than a hint of deliberate cruelty. But today, his administration outdid itself.

Extra bonus: He is openly defying the will of the Legislature as expressed in clear language that his own officials agreed to.

Let’s address the on-the-ground reality stuff first, and then we’ll circle back to process.

On Friday, the Adverse Weather Conditions (AWC, pronounced like a raptor call) program expires for the season. As it stands, roughly 500 people now housed in state-paid motel rooms will lose their shelter. And so the state is patching together a handful of temporary congregate shelters (think cots, communal bathrooms, and no known provision for food) in four cities across the state: Bennington, Berlin, Burlington, and Rutland.

But wait, there’s more! The shelters are nighttime-only. They will be open from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. During the daytime? You’re on your own.

But wait, there’s even more! They are only going to operate for one week, more or less.

But that’s not all! The shelters will be staffed by hastily-trained National Guard personnel with security duty contracted to local law enforcement, whose officers will be armed.

A reminder that most of these people would qualify for extended motel stays due to disability status, old age, youth, or other criteria.

Were they trying to create the worst possible program? It sure seems that way.

Continue reading →

Just Because You Drove Off a Cliff and Landed Softly in a Grove of Trees Doesn’t Mean It Was a Good Idea to Drive Off the Cliff

3 Replies

We barely managed to evade another mass unhousing tonight, no thanks whatsoever to the Scott administration and only partial thanks to state lawmakers. They collectively thought it was a good idea to put a tight cap on motel vouchers and put it into effect immediately.

Technically it became effective before “immediately,” because Gov. Phil Scott has yet to sign the bill that imposes the cap. Yep, Our Glorious Leaders, going where no one has gone before, fracturing the time-space continuum. Again, as I wrote previously, I never want to hear anyone in the Statehouse cite a lack of time as an excuse for inaction. Hell, on this bill they had less than zero time and they still made it happen. Administration officials went ahead and implemented a policy that isn’t actually in law. At least not quite yet. Which might, now that I think of it, be technically illegal. But I’m not a lawyer, so.

By this (Friday) morning, the vast majority of motel operators had agreed to accept the $80 per night cap, so the vast majority of voucher clients still have roofs over their heads tonight.

Sure, an unknown but probably small number of households are without shelter. But it could have been thousands, and thankfully it wasn’t.

Who ought to get the credit? Why, Brenda Siegel, of course.

Continue reading →

Day Drinkin’ Time

2 Replies

Got a bad case of climate dysphoria today. It’s about 40 degrees colder than yesterday; Burlington saw new record high temperatures each of the past two days; in less than 24 hours we went from flood watch to gale force winds to freezing cold; and the newly-formed ruts on my dirt road have frozen into fascinatingly unpredictable configurations. It’s like art that can screw up your suspension.

Otherwise, well, there’s very real concern that we’ll have a mass unhousing tomorrow, Governor Nice Guy is turning heel, and Our Leaders don’t seem to have the vision to meet the various crises besetting us on all sides. Meanwhile, I’m sitting in my home office wearing a jacket. Indoors. I can’t imagine what it’s like for the involuntary “campers” our state’s policies have scattered across Vermont.

Oh, and I’m working on a really depressing story about the impact of bigotry in a Vermont town.

So yeah, third cup of coffee so far today. And by “cup,” I mean “22-ounce travel mug.”

Continue reading →

So I Guess March 1 Is Just Fine, Tra La La

Leave a reply

In my previous post, I slammed Deputy Human Services Secretary Todd Daloz for insisting on a cap of $80 — to take effect the day after tomorrow — on motel vouchers under the GA housing program. Well, now I get to slam Democratic lawmakers because they, too, see no problem with this administrative and human rights absurdity. Yesterday, the House-Senate conference committee approved H.839, the Budget Adjustment Act, with more generous eligibility standards for the voucher program but also with that damned March 1 deadline.

And today the full Senate rammed it through on a voice vote. On to the House tomorrow, I suppose, and then to Gov. Phil Scott’s desk. He’d better sign it lickety-split so the ink will be dry before the cap takes effect.

ON FRIDAY.

Most, but not all, of the participating motels have agreed to accept $80 per household per night. On Tuesday, Daloz said that about 400 rooms might drop out of the program. And there’s already a shortage of rooms. So if this thing goes through — and the skids appear thoroughly greased — then hundreds of Vermonters face complete unsheltering THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW and hundreds more are likely to be shunted around the state with precious little notice.

Good God in Heaven, what are we doing?

Continue reading →

I Saved the Worst for Last: The Meanest, Absurdest, Most Ridiculous Thing Anyone Said at That Joint Fiscal Hearing

Leave a reply

The gent pictured above, bowtie rakishly askew, is Todd Daloz, Deputy Secretary of the Agency of Human Services. In a Tuesday hearing of the Legislature’s Joint Fiscal Committee, he staunchly defended Scott administration policy on emergency housing. I covered some of his remarks in my previous post, but there was one passage so incredible, so morally bankrupt, so blithely dismissive of basic calendrical logic, that it deserved a piece all to itself.

As you may recall, the single worst idea in the Legislature’s latest iteration of an emergency housing extension was the imposition of a motel voucher rate cap — to take effect on March 1 — of either $75 (House version) or $80 (Senate). That’s a drop of more than $50 from the current average rate. May I remind you that March 1 is a mere two days away.

It’s ridiculous. It’s absurd. It’s heartless. And extra bonus points, it’s just plain impossible in terms of governmental process. This is a provision in the FY2024 Budget Adjustment Act that still has to pass the House and Senate and gain Gov. Phil Scott’s signature, which is far from a sure thing.

I don’t see how all that can happen by March 1, much less all the necessary steps to implement the idea.

And yet, on Tuesday Mr. Daloz made a point of insisting that the March 1 rate cap must stand.

Continue reading →

Pointed Questions and Jazz Hands

2 Replies

The Legislature’s Joint Fiscal Committee tried something different today. It didn’t really go that well.

The committee called a hearing that was kinda meant to embarrass the Scott administration over its utterly inadequate response to our crises of homelessness and affordable. Well, it was cast as part of the JFC’s responsibility to track the progress being made (or not) under Act 81, the Legislature’s last-minute extension of the General Assistance housing program approved in June 2023. But the intent was to put administration officials under a bright light and watch them squirm.

Problem was, said officials (including Miranda Gray of the Department of Children and Families and Agency of Human Services Deputy Secretary Todd Daloz, pictured above) came prepared with reams and reams of jargon. They filibustered the hearing. It wasn’t 100% successful, but it limited the committee’s capacity to ask questions. It also had the truly unfortunate effect of almost completely sidelining input from providers of shelter and services to the unhoused. On the agenda, the administration was allotted 45 minutes of the 90-minute hearing and three provider witnesses got a combined 30 minutes. In actual fact, the administration occupied an hour and fifteen minutes, while provider testimony was crammed into the final 10 minutes of the affair.

There were still some embarrassing moments for the administration and some good information from the providers. The hearing wasn’t a bust, but it was far less effective than it could have been.

Continue reading →

Shouldn’t We Be Thinking Big on Housing?

6 Replies

As the Legislature pursues an actual housing policy in the absence of Gov. Phil Scott, who is focused solely on regulatory reform, there’s my question.

Shouldn’t we be thinking big?

Like “a record-breaking bond issue to jumpstart our supply of affordable housing” big.

Back in 2017 the Legislature and governor approved a $37 million affordable housing bond. In the ensuing two years, then-senator Michael Sirotkin, then chair of the Senate Economic Development Committee, proposed a second bond of $35 million (2019) or $50 million (2020). His efforts fell short, in part because then-treasurer Beth Pearce expressed concern about Vermont’s total indebtedness,

Well, it’s more than time to reopen that question and, honestly, push it as far as we possibly can. I’d aim high, maybe $250 million, and see what I could get. Why not? If we have a housing crisis, shouldn’t the response be proportionate?

Continue reading →

The Administration Does Have a Housing Plan But It’s Incomplete and, So Far, Mainly Hypothetical

Leave a reply

Earlier this week I gave Gov. Phil Scott’s plan to address the housing crisis a failing grade. Today, two of his top officials briefed the House Appropriations Committee on a report (downloadable here) prepared by the administration’s Council on Housing & Homelessness.

It was useful and informative. A lot of good work has been done, and a lot of good ideas are included in the report. Which is not to say I was wrong in my earlier assessment; the report is lacking in two crucial ways.

First, it does little to address our current explosion of homelessness. Its focus is on “prevention,” which seems to mean preventing future unhousings while doing not much for those already without a dependable roof over their heads.

Second, virtually none of it is in Scott’s FY2025 budget, which means that all its recommendations are just that. Recommendations. There’s been no commitment to implementation, not even an actual proposal. That doesn’t mean the report will be memory-holed, but there’s no proof that it won’t be.

Continue reading →

So Why Isn’t “Lived Experience” Part of Every Legislative Process?

1 Reply

The House Human Services Committee did it again Friday. They went and injected the experiences of homeless Vermonters into the normally dispassionate exercise of lawmaking. The results were, as usual, breathtaking, heartbreaking, and disruptive.

Which begs the question, why is this such an unusual event in the halls of government? Why do we rarely hear from those directly impacted by policy decisions made on high? Modest Proposal: Require every policy committee to hear “lived experience” testimony, especially those that deal with our tattered, inadequate, often cruel, social safety net. (Credit to End Homelessness Now, which has helped these folks remain housed and enabled their testimony in the Statehouse.)

Hey, maybe even we could establish “lived experience” advisory committees for the Agency of Human Services (including the Department of Corrections, you betcha). Not now, of course; it’ll have to wait until sometime after Phil Scott’s disembodied head in a jar loses its bid for a twenty-seventh term in office.

Those pesky “lived experiences” do inject a sometimes brutal dose of reality into the proceedings, making it more difficult to justify byzantine social service policies that are seemingly designed to punish participants and limit demand more than to actually address a real, tangible need.

Then again, they also display the indomitability of the human spirit, the intelligence and resourcefulness of those who live their lives on the edge. Giving them a seat at the table wouldn’t be an act of pity; it would be taking advantage of an underutilized resource.

Continue reading →