- Kevin McCallum
- Chelsea Barber
A Vermont judge won’t block the eviction of about 800 homeless people from a pandemic-era motel housing program on Thursday despite pleas from advocates that the move was both confusing to those involved and inhumane.
Washington County Superior Court Judge Tim Tomasi rejected the last-minute request by Vermont Legal Aid for a temporary injunction to stop the program from ending.
A hearing began at 8:30 a.m on Tuesday, just hours before a deadline for those affected to leave their rooms. Tomasi issued a ruling at about 1 p.m., writing that attorneys “have not established the ‘clear’ right to relief" needed for a preliminary injunction.
The decision means that many of the adults who no longer qualify for the housing program were forced to leave the motels they've called home for months or even years. Some motels have given people extensions until June 15 despite the state halting payments for the rooms, making it difficult to determine precisely how many people were affected on Thursday.
Chelsea Barber, 31, left the Travelodge on Shelburne Road on Thursday morning after four months. It's the latest in a string of motels she’s stayed in around Burlington and Rutland as she struggled with addiction during the pandemic.
“I’m happy to be out of there,” she said, shortly after loading her belongings into a car with two men. “I’m happy to be moving forward.”
Legal Aid attorneys said they had grave concerns about the health and safety of people leaving motels.
“Most of these folks don’t have anywhere else to go, and we’re concerned about their survival and their well-being,” Legal Aid attorney Laura Gans told the judge. “Being without a shelter is dangerous, destabilizing, dehumanizing."
The case hinged on whether motel residents had been given proper notice of their impending evictions. Legal Aid attorneys argued that, before rescinding benefits so consequential to such a vulnerable population, the state had an obligation to individually notify each person.
Instead, the state Department for Children and Families relied on motel owners to slide generalized notices of program changes under people’s doors, the attorneys argued. The notices did not explain why they had become ineligible and did not outline what other housing programs the affected people might qualify for, Gans argued.
Another Legal Aid attorney, Michael Benvenuto, argued that administration officials never formalized program changes through a rulemaking process, and that the lack of clear rules compounded people’s confusion.
“The termination of these housing programs should be done lawfully. It’s as simple as that,” he said.
But Tomasi noted several times during the hearing that the legislature had taken action to wind down the program on a specific timeline.
Ella Spottswood, the state’s solicitor general, drove that point home when she explained that lawmakers, in the budget adjustment act in March, prioritized funds for the most vulnerable people, such as those over 60, with children or who had suffered domestic abuse. Lawmakers granted these people an extra month, until July 1, in the motels.
“That’s a tough choice, but it was a choice that was made by the legislature, and an injunction at this stage would upset that balance,” she said.
As for the argument about proper notice, Spottswood said the housing benefits the people in the program were receiving were temporary, generally approved for 30 days at a time. So the people in the program knew or should have known their housing was ending unless an extension was granted, she said.
In this case, not only was an extension not granted, but the program is ending by order of the legislature, Spottswood said. The department has neither the authority nor the funds to continue the program even if it wanted to, she told the judge.
After rejecting the request for a preliminary injunction, the judge ordered the administration to respond to the underlying arguments by July 1.
The demise of the motel program has fueled a political firestorm. Gov. Phil Scott has argued that, without federal funds, the pandemic-era program needs to end. Administration officials say the program has always been a short-term fix meant to keep people safe during the pandemic.
Most lawmakers, after agreeing to multiple program extensions, came around to that view and passed a budget that ended the program even as it boosted funds for affordable housing development and homeless services.
Scott has vetoed that budget, however, setting up a June 21 showdown with lawmakers. The ability of the legislature to override his veto may hinge on whether Progressive and liberal Democratic lawmakers can stomach a budget that kills the motel program.
The judge's full order is here:
Washington County Superior Court Judge Tim Tomasi rejected the last-minute request by Vermont Legal Aid for a temporary injunction to stop the program from ending.
A hearing began at 8:30 a.m on Tuesday, just hours before a deadline for those affected to leave their rooms. Tomasi issued a ruling at about 1 p.m., writing that attorneys “have not established the ‘clear’ right to relief" needed for a preliminary injunction.
The decision means that many of the adults who no longer qualify for the housing program were forced to leave the motels they've called home for months or even years. Some motels have given people extensions until June 15 despite the state halting payments for the rooms, making it difficult to determine precisely how many people were affected on Thursday.
Chelsea Barber, 31, left the Travelodge on Shelburne Road on Thursday morning after four months. It's the latest in a string of motels she’s stayed in around Burlington and Rutland as she struggled with addiction during the pandemic.
“I’m happy to be out of there,” she said, shortly after loading her belongings into a car with two men. “I’m happy to be moving forward.”
Barber said she planned to move in with her mother-in-law in South Burlington.
Legal Aid attorneys said they had grave concerns about the health and safety of people leaving motels.
“Most of these folks don’t have anywhere else to go, and we’re concerned about their survival and their well-being,” Legal Aid attorney Laura Gans told the judge. “Being without a shelter is dangerous, destabilizing, dehumanizing."
The case hinged on whether motel residents had been given proper notice of their impending evictions. Legal Aid attorneys argued that, before rescinding benefits so consequential to such a vulnerable population, the state had an obligation to individually notify each person.
Instead, the state Department for Children and Families relied on motel owners to slide generalized notices of program changes under people’s doors, the attorneys argued. The notices did not explain why they had become ineligible and did not outline what other housing programs the affected people might qualify for, Gans argued.
The judge didn't agree, citing the state's past experience that, when it mailed program participants notices, the letters were often returned.
"The decision to have notice delivered by the hotels was designed to improve the quality of the notice," the judge found.
"The decision to have notice delivered by the hotels was designed to improve the quality of the notice," the judge found.
Another Legal Aid attorney, Michael Benvenuto, argued that administration officials never formalized program changes through a rulemaking process, and that the lack of clear rules compounded people’s confusion.
“The termination of these housing programs should be done lawfully. It’s as simple as that,” he said.
But Tomasi noted several times during the hearing that the legislature had taken action to wind down the program on a specific timeline.
Ella Spottswood, the state’s solicitor general, drove that point home when she explained that lawmakers, in the budget adjustment act in March, prioritized funds for the most vulnerable people, such as those over 60, with children or who had suffered domestic abuse. Lawmakers granted these people an extra month, until July 1, in the motels.
“That’s a tough choice, but it was a choice that was made by the legislature, and an injunction at this stage would upset that balance,” she said.
As for the argument about proper notice, Spottswood said the housing benefits the people in the program were receiving were temporary, generally approved for 30 days at a time. So the people in the program knew or should have known their housing was ending unless an extension was granted, she said.
In this case, not only was an extension not granted, but the program is ending by order of the legislature, Spottswood said. The department has neither the authority nor the funds to continue the program even if it wanted to, she told the judge.
After rejecting the request for a preliminary injunction, the judge ordered the administration to respond to the underlying arguments by July 1.
The demise of the motel program has fueled a political firestorm. Gov. Phil Scott has argued that, without federal funds, the pandemic-era program needs to end. Administration officials say the program has always been a short-term fix meant to keep people safe during the pandemic.
Most lawmakers, after agreeing to multiple program extensions, came around to that view and passed a budget that ended the program even as it boosted funds for affordable housing development and homeless services.
Scott has vetoed that budget, however, setting up a June 21 showdown with lawmakers. The ability of the legislature to override his veto may hinge on whether Progressive and liberal Democratic lawmakers can stomach a budget that kills the motel program.
The judge's full order is here:
Comments
Comments are closed.
From 2014-2020, Seven Days allowed readers to comment on all stories posted on our website. While we've appreciated the suggestions and insights, right now Seven Days is prioritizing our core mission — producing high-quality, responsible local journalism — over moderating online debates between readers.
To criticize, correct or praise our reporting, please send us a letter to the editor or send us a tip. We’ll check it out and report the results.
Online comments may return when we have better tech tools for managing them. Thanks for reading.