By Donald Koch, candidate for State Senate in Washington County
“If you build it they will come.” Some say, “we did, and they did.” Others say that’s not true. But we don’t know the truth, because there has been no official effort to determine whether the generous benefits offered to the homeless by the State of Vermont have contributed to the fact that Vermont’s percentage of homelessness is the second highest in the country. They say there is no evidence, but there is no evidence unless you choose to look for it, and we have chosen to be voluntarily ignorant. That’s not a good policy.
Let’s consider the causes of homelessness: physical and mental illness, and disability; divorce, or death of a partner; drug addiction; loss of employment; eviction from rental housing; choice of a lifestyle; and the list goes on. And let’s attribute to most of those who are homeless the desire to improve their conditions and obtain permanent shelter. Vermonters are generous and compassionate; we want to help. The question is the best way to help, regardless of a person’s most recent place of residence.
I submit that simply supplying the homeless with motel rooms or the equivalent, even with an end date, is not an effective way to help.
What does help is reaching out to each homeless person, determining the cause of that person’s homelessness, taking an inventory of the person’s assets and abilities, learning about the person’s background (including the person’s previous place of residence), and working out a plan for improvement leading to the ability to maintain permanent shelter. Is mental illness a problem? We have many programs for treatment. What about drug addiction? Vermont has some of the best programs for those who want to ditch drugs. Is a person fleeing domestic violence? Some legal assistance may work. The point is that the state, or its partners, must get to the root of a person’s homelessness and work with that person to help resolve that person’s problems. I’m sure that such a labor-intensive effort will be more successful and less expensive than just plunking people in motels.
And for those who seek no help but choose to live without permanent shelter, I say we should respect their choice and not force our “wiser” choices on them, so long as they do not occupy private property without permission or public property to the exclusion of the designated use of that property by others. Communities may, therefore, need to set aside some public lands, appropriately regulated, for a limited number of “campers.”
A program like the one outlined here needs to be governed by certain principles. Our intent is to help those who are able and willing to be helped. Here is one place where we should adhere to the old adage, “A hand up, not a handout.”