This whole “motels for the homeless” issue continues to reverberate, months after the Legislature took a (then little-noticed) meataxe to the motel budget, which then caused the Department of Children and Families to issue some extremely tight rules about who gets a free room.

Rules that, given our shortage of shelter space, were certain to leave a lot of homeless people without a place to stay.

The latest: after a tsunami of complaints from homeless advocacy groups, DCF has backtracked — substantially easing the rules. VTDigger:

The previous plan would have cut from the program 70 percent of people who previously qualified, according to the department’s estimates. The new plan would cut participation by about 20 percent, according to DCF’s estimates.

Which is nice, except that I recall DCF Commissioner David Yacavone appearing on VPR’s “Vermont Edition” on July 10, issuing a calm, measured, and slightly smug defense of the rules. Guess he changed his mind. Also, the new rules threaten to blow a hole in the DCF budget. And key lawmakers are cold to the idea of paying the extra freight. Claire Ayer, chair of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, told VTDigger that the motel “money was being spent in the wrong places.”

Yes, well, I think everybody agrees that $50-per-night motel rooms are a poor substitute for a decent shelter program, good transitional support, and an adequate supply of affordable housing. But lawmakers haven’t exactly rushed forward to fund those better alternatives; they simply whacked the motel budget.

This issue takes up a lot of real estate in this week’s “Fair Game” column in Seven Days. Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz takes a dig at legislative “lefties” who’ve ben critical of Governor Shumlin’s tightfistedness, but who are now out-toughing the Gov on the motel issue. And yes, he’s got a point, but a couple things come to mind:

After the jump: A certain Dem/Prog takes the stage, repeatedly.

— The Legislature was forced into cutting programs by Shumlin’s complete intransigence on taxes and his inclusion of some even worse choices, such as the draconian cut in the Earned Income Tax Credit.

— State spending on motels was a favorite hobbyhorse of Heintz’ own paymasters. I seem to recall at least two very large articles in Seven Days about the motel program. The second included flashy graphics detailing the “Cost to Taxpayers” of temporary stays at certain Vermont motels. The kind of thing I’d expect from WCAX-TV, or Vermont’s Worst Newspaper™, the Caledonian-Record.  

So if “lefties” are “dishing out the tough medicine,” as Heintz puts it, then Vermont’s maverick “alternative” newspaper certainly did its part to foster that particular prescription.

Now here’s a funny thing. When you go back and read Seven Days’ coverage on this issue, one name pops up over and over again: Senator Tim Ashe, Democrat/Progresssive (or is it Progressive/Democrat?). In December, 7D quoted him as saying the motel program is “skewed toward crisis management and not crisis prevention.” Which is a nice sentiment, and presumes you’re adequately funding crisis prevention.

In the January article festooned with aforementioned graphics and entitled “Leaders Question Program that Puts Vermont’s Homeless in Motels,” the following “leaders” (all Senators) are quoted as “question[ing the] program”:

Tim Ashe

Tim Ashe

Tim Ashe

Tim Ashe

Sally Fox (not quoted; simply mentioned as a co-sponsor of an Ashe bill)

Tim Ashe

Tim Ashe

Tim Ashe

Jane Kitchel

Is it just me, or does one name stick out on that list?

Oh yeah, Tim Ashe, mentioned in this week’s “Fair Game” as having “crusaded against the motel program for years.”

Tim Ashe, subject of Seven Days’ multitudinous disclaimers: “Tim Ashe is the domestic partner of Seven Days publisher and coeditor Paula Routly.”

Y’know, when Ashe ran for Mayor of Burlington, I thought Seven Days did a fine job of playing it straight. In this case, when it lavishes attention on an Ashe hobbyhorse, I have to wonder. (Maybe this is why one journalism type told me that 7D’s newly open News Editor position was “fraught, to say the least.”

Or maybe not.)

I also have to wonder what kind of game Our Leading Elected Progressive is playing. HIs argument, as quoted in his favorite weekly, is that the program is “skewed toward crisis management and not crisis prevention.”  Which is a lovely rationalization, but for three problems:

— You can never prevent all housing crises, especially in an economy where the middle class has been decimated and many of our citizens live perilously close to the poverty line. You’d better fund crisis management AND prevention.    

— If you’re going to cut funding for crisis management, you’d better concomitantly beef up the prevention side. This session, the Legislature did the easy half and left it to DCF to figure out the rest.

— Ashe has not only blasted the short-term nature of the motel fix, he’s also leveled some dog-whistle criticisms of the program. He asserted, without citing evidence, that it’s drawing homeless people from out of state. And he’s implied that the state’s being taken for a ride by profit-minded innkeepers. But, as Seven Days itself reported, the average per-night cost in Burlington was $56 in FY 2012. That’s about as cheap as you can get.

I conclude with a bit of complete speculation, which is one of our House Specials at the GMD Cafe.

This isn’t the first time Tim Ashe has tacked toward the middle. Is he aiming for a future statewide race, and hoping to position himself as “the tough, responsible Progresive”?

(Or, in supermarket terms, “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Shumlin”?)

If you think that’s overly conspiratorial, then I remind you of last year’s race for Senate President Pro Tem, which resulted in John Campbell’s re-election in spite of numerous grumblings about his leadership. Ashe was one of those supporting Campbell, and his reward was the chairmanship of the powerful Finance Committee. After which he told the Vermont Press Bureau’s Peter Hirschfeld that he was “eager to help Gov. Peter Shumlin fulfill a pledge not to raise broad-based taxes.”

He seems to be “eager” for something, that’s for sure.