The article quotes from the study: “For years there had been an adequate supply of cheap housing in the city of Hudson. In the 1990s, this pattern began to shift as older tenement houses in Hudson were bought by individuals more interested in classic architecture than in using them as rental housing on the low end of the housing market. Those that did come back on the market as rentals were often priced far above the standard shelter allowances provided for individuals or families in receipt of public assistance." How inconvenient for DSS.
The study goes on to recommend that, instead of building a homeless shelter, which, it points out, would have to be very large to accommodate the county's homeless population, now averaging 100, and would involve, in addition to the initial capital investment, the continuing expense of staffing and support services, the county establish "congregate housing"--apartments in buildings that the county either leases or owns. The study assumes that DSS will remain in Hudson and therefore recommends that the congregate housing be in Hudson as well or "within reasonable proximity to the city." Would this mean more buildings--enough to create apartments for 100 people--off the tax rolls in Hudson?
Does the study mention dysfunctional government? By my count the early 90s was almost 20 years ago. If we had transparent and responsive governing bodies during this time, we would not be talking about where to house the homeless but where to jail the crooks who have helped spawn them.
ReplyDelete"Spawn" is an interesting choice of words. Not a kind choice, but an interesting choice.
ReplyDeleteHopefully, no children born into poverty in Hudson reads this blog or this comment.
Susan Lynn Troy
You're absolutely right, Susan. Very poor choice of word; sounds harsh. By the same token, homelessness and poverty are much harsher. And we do the poor and homeless no good by not talking about poverty and homelessness. In fact, it's the failure to do so that makes things worse.
ReplyDeletebest,
peter m.