On Burlington’s much-discussed free weekly, 7 Days: the thing that happens when you produce weird, Beck-esque blog rants, or “bogus polls” that are in-kind contributions to Republicans (followed by the publisher digging in when called out on it) is that people start missing the good stuff you may also be doing.
And the thing that happens when this site has a history of receiving flailing name-calling, being called liars (with a wink-wink-nudge-nudge, rather than using the L word), having potential front page contributors intimidated out of participating, and more along those lines over the years, it becomes easy to miss the really good work that continues to be done over there. Ken Picard, for example, is someone I’ve repeatedly referred to as one of my favorite journalists in the state, and that shows again in his piece this week on the St. Albans-based federal unit that assists immigrants who are abuse victims.
But the real score this week is an article by Andy Bromage which is, frankly, a public service to Vermonters, and is especially relevant now that we’re on the cusp of a firmly Democratic controlled Montpelier. Bromage looks at the growing problem of homelessness in Burlington and comes up with this stunner of a statistic:
Every January, Vermont service agencies participate in the Winter Census, also known as a point-in-time survey, that counts the state’s homeless population in shelters and encampments across the state. In 2008, the number was 2286; today it’s 2782.
[…] That gives Vermont the highest homeless rate per capita in New England
That’s appalling. I suspect one of the reasons we don’t hear more about this is the same reason seemingly groovy Vermont types get all twitchy when racism comes up; its not consistent with the largely non-native driven mythology of what Vermont is supposed to be – and the white, upper-middle class groovy liberal crowd can get pretty worked up about defending that mythology. Of course, in doing so, they allow problems like this to fester.
So the piece is an important read, but it’s not perfect; quite unfortunately, it frames the “problem” in terms of landlords having their houses infested with pesky squatters, rather than the problem of people who are homeless. Still, I suppose that’s writing to the 7 Days audience, so I won’t get too perturbed. It’s still an important journalistic service to get the story out there.
When I was in college, I worked on a report on the differing perspectives on homelessness on the political left and right. It was eye-opening to simply not be able to find any material on the Republican right on the topic. To them, it’s simply a non-issue. With a Democratic Governor, maybe it can become the issue it needs to be.
We have hundreds of families who are homeless or at risk of being homeless, and scores of veterans, amongst other demographics. VHFA has been charged with developing a plan to end homelessness in VT within a decade.
I have to think we can do better than that, and having a Dem Leg and Gov has that potential, though we need to keep the fire lit. I’ve noticed the party is selectively courageous at times, and what I heard from candidates on the trail still echoed the “we have to make hard decisions because there’s no money” line instead of “let’s find new revenues from the rich and powerful to provide for the poor and vulnerable.”
A dose of Article 9 would cure what ails us…
I was extremely disappointed, and in fact quite perturbed that this was the article’s frame. I completely agree with you about how shocking so many of the statistics that were thrown out are, and in general found the piece a much-needed bit of sunlight into a very dark, hidden problem. I also am right there with you in your analysis of white, upper-middle class groovy liberals defending their “Vermont mythology” despite the serious and festering problems in our communities.
What a shame though that the reporter (and/or editors) framed the problem as one of “those pesky/dirty/drunk homeless people” infesting areas and buildings which are neglected, abandoned or ignored.
There’s also a mention of those who “choose” to be homeless in the article; a problematic way of dismissing the fact that, even though by choice, such people (a very small portion of the homeless population, I’d guess) are nonetheless homeless. One could say “well, they don’t deserve or sympathy or resources/services, because they’ve chosen to live this way” and that’s a fine conversation for us all to have- but it ignores that people who are choosing to live homeless are most likely doing so because their other options are that much worse. It would probably behoove us all to explore those problems rather than dismissing and writing off their lot entirely.
The problem with a lot of the discussion of homelessness is that is stays shallow. People talk about the symptoms of homelessness – people squatting or living on the streets, in the woods, and in shelters. They also talk about providing cheap housing, which is something. But the real problems are structured into our economy.
Minimum wage is a joke. It has no relationship to what real working people need to live a basic, decent life. Too many people are one paycheck away from the street. Businesses are allowed to externalize costs onto the government. When people can’t earn enough, then the govt. has to provide health assistance, heating assistance, housing assistance, and so on. And it can’t really afford to because corporate behemoths have rigged the tax system.
Labor laws are another sick joke. Walmart doesn’t allow people to work more than 28 hours a week, which precludes them from claiming benefits. Unionization is absurdly difficult.
And then there was deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, which was supposed to go hand in hand with a range of community based options for care. Which never materialized.
Sure, there are people who choose to live “on the road,” and I’ve met them. Most people without a place to sleep have fallen through the cracks of our economy, and fixing those cracks is the long term solution.
Acts of homefulness
http://occupyca.wordpress.com/…
around the state, that at the very least, regional shelters could be opened where rooms & meals are available.
If they are families there are tons of mobile homes which are worthless except for their utilitarian value. They could be placed in existing parks & used as needed for families in need.
I think Springfield has a shelter,in Rutland there is the Open Door Mission.
Maybe something in BF, unsure.
There are agencies like SEVCA, BROC etc which are well established,already set up & provide some of these services on a limited basis which to my knowledge are run well.
They could be tasked w/providing oversight on how to best combat the problem & deal w/it efficiently if funds were chanelled in.
Some of these ppl would likely be found to be eligible for services already & helped to find the best way to assist them in becoming self sufficient where possible @ some point while dealing w/their immediate needs.
My mother was a social worker & did this sort of thing, she claims that many of these ppl on the streets are in fact those released from institutions who are not recieving the right help & services.
I’m pretty much done with that rag.
I was astonished when the poll article came out and was incensed when Paula Routly went of VPR to justify her intentionally giving Dubie a weapon against Shumlin by promoting shoddy journalism. She sounded like an airhead on the radio, which I know she is not.
And here again the author sides with the rich and powerful by slanting the article about the homeless in Vermont.
The only time I ever even see 7Days anymore is once a month when I get my kids a meal at Positive Pie 2. Nowadays, I only read The Cabbie because all the other articles are suspect.