Bill Schubart: The 3 Hs: housing, hunger and health care

The latest statewide count of homeless Vermonters is 3,458, an increase of nearly 5% from 2023, the second highest rate in the country, and experts consider it s This is a significant undercount.

Meanwhile, discussions of homelessness are being overshadowed by our governor’s focus on “affordability,” which has led to deep cuts in the motel voucher program.

According to a VTDigger article from last month, “lawmakers budgeted about $44 million for the motel program this fiscal year. Before new restrictions on the program took effect earlier this fall, about 1,400 households had motel vouchers. With an $80 room rate cap in place, the program costs approximately $112,000 per night. And we’re talking about building a new $70 million prison. How much permanent housing would $114 million fund?

If we look more broadly at the root of the problem, or better yet the hierarchy of causes, we will see a smarter, more cost-effective strategy.

Homelessness is primarily caused by poverty, mental illness, and substance use disorders. Over the decades, we have made largely ineffective efforts to effectively combat these factors. We have made marginal progress, but we will continue to fail until homeless people struggling with poverty, mental illness, or substance use disorders are safely housed.

Our neighbor, Canada, is a pioneer in providing housing with the support systems needed to meet these complex health needs. The “highly supported housing” project has been a resounding success and plans are underway to expand it to other areas.

Across the Atlantic, Finland has become the leader of the Eurozone, virtually eradicating homelessness within its borders thanks to its “housing first” policy. The model is based on the belief that decent, safe housing is a basic human right – along with universal health care – a commitment that we in the United States seem reluctant to consider. Instead, we choose to believe that health care and housing should be lucrative businesses, even as their rising costs make them increasingly out of reach for our average citizens.

The Finnish theory is based on the idea that if a person does not have stable housing, it is virtually impossible to make significant improvements in other areas of life. This approach distinguishes “housing first” from “treatment first” models, which have been shown to have little long-term impact on reducing homelessness. Finland has learned that the requirement that potential occupants must not use drugs and be able to take control of their lives has proven to be an insurmountable obstacle for many homeless people facing multiple problems, and that the path to help actually runs through a safe place to live. with comprehensive services – the principle of “housing first”. Housing is not seen as a reward for getting one’s life back on track, but rather as a precursor.

It goes without saying that housing is also a question of survival. The recent deaths of Lucas and Tammy Menard in Wolcott, although the cause is undetermined, highlight the mortal danger of “living on the streets” in cold Vermont. Another unidentified person was also found dead in a camp in Berlin.

We should start by committing to a “no homeless Vermont” strategy now. Does this mean we will achieve this goal immediately? No, this means we will do whatever is necessary over the next two legislative sessions to achieve this goal.

We can start by looking at all the shelters available to bring people in this winter. We have empty dorms at several colleges. Many of us older people live in homes designed for our young families who have now moved out on their own. Could some of us share living space with those who are otherwise healthy but cannot afford housing? Could HomeShare Vermont be a resource to expand options for healthy homeless people? We have a young couple who live with us in their school bus parked on our lawn.

One solution to the cost problem would be to create a voluntary income tax on high-income Vermonters to fund the construction of energy-efficient “wraparound supportive housing” in our largest communities.

Vermonters are rebelling at the idea of ​​paying higher taxes when they don’t know exactly what the money raised will be used for. When a clear and humane objective that directly benefits the community is within their reach and from which they immediately see the benefits, popular resistance to taxes, especially voluntary taxes, subsides. Look at the success of “gofundme” in supporting specific families in need in our communities.

We Vermonters like to imagine ourselves outgoing, caring, and focused on the well-being of our friends and neighbors. Our “better angels” go to work during disasters like severe weather. But faced with the chronic and progressive erosion of community well-being exemplified by the “three Hs”: housing, hunger and health care, we are often perplexed when we look to our government for solutions.

The “affordability” charge that our governor applies to any proposed solution to our broader problems does not absolve us of our obligation to our communities and neighbors to alleviate suffering here at home, especially when it comes to housing. Nor does it eliminate neighbor-to-neighbor solutions. Do we really want to let these problems persist without solution forever?

Seventy-three countries, representing 69% of the world’s population, have declared health care a universal right. Other peer countries are working to find ways to eliminate homelessness. Solutions are possible. But here at home, the $4.5 trillion health care industry is apparently too lucrative for the elite few who benefit from it to declare it a universal right.

Meanwhile, private equity is investing in housing across the country and increasing sales and rental rates in a market that is becoming increasingly unaffordable for many. Is family housing now so lucrative that we are willing to tolerate homelessness to also support its profits?

At the same time, there is evidence that access to housing, health care and education are three drivers of economic growth.

Perhaps we can begin to solve our own housing crisis here in Vermont by learning from other companies that have done so successfully. A targeted “voluntary community housing tax,” funded by affluent Vermonters who care about their neighbors in need, would allow us to begin building public housing with supportive services and achieve a common goal of ending homelessness in Vermont.

Are we really okay with our neighbors freezing to death in winter?