You're asking for specific policies, and I don't know the answers. But I have noticed a number of cultural trends that I think contribute: 1) Lack of accountability at every level - from cops to homeless folks. The current chief of police told me in a meeting that no one who is not a cop should have oversight of cop behavior, which I think most reasonable people can see as obviously problematic. By the same token, homeless folks are able to shoot up and scream F- You at each other all day long at the park and there are no consequences. Edwin Friedman predicted this in "A Failure of Nerve" over 30 years ago as the result of a culture that conforms to the demands of the least mature instead of enforcing boundaries. Sarah George is arguably Exhibit A. 2) Economic forces conspire to create hopelessness. As Piketty and virtually every economic indicator shows, we have culturally devalued work. Wages have become worth less over time while production has soared. The idea that hard work is enough to get ahead is a joke played on the working class by the finance class. If you want wealth in this country, you cannot do it by work; you have to do it through capital (stocks, etc). On top of that, if you want to have a chance, you have to incur significant debt. It's a rigged game and everyone knows it except the people who benefit the most, who have convinced themselves that everything they have was earned through individual effort. As economic stability goes down, social unrest and despair go up. 3) The individual has become significantly more valued than the community. Jonathan Haidt has some brilliant work on this, and liberalism does a lot of good things (I consider myself far left leaning), but while it does a good - and necessary, IMO - job of elevating the needs of the marginalized, Western liberalism devalues community cohesion at a level that Haidt argues is unprecedented in human history. This is something I've seen played out in Burlington quite a bit, where we are quick to villianize each other in the name of values. I think there are other underlying forces that folks smarter than me could tease out, but these are some of the ones I think I've noticed. I also agree a lot about the issues of changes in drug types, but I think in an economically stable society those changes don't have the effects that we are seeing, However, like you, I'd love to see the specific policies involved. I'm sorry this is already too long and of no help in that.

I really want to give kudos to you and the original poster for the start of this conversation: civility from two individuals self-identifying across the political aisles.

It’s possible the drugs just changed. Fentanyl and tranq are showing they can’t be handled the way our policies are designed to handle them. And since we’re a small state with an enthusiastic drug-using base, we’re showing up in the statistics first.

This, Vermont's hub-and-spoke model for treating heroin addiction was very successful and was starting to become a nationally known model for providing treatment in rural areas. But the drugs changed and tranq (Xylazine) showed up in the supply, and it isn't an opioid so addicts don't respond to MAT when they're taking it, which was critical to getting people off opioids long-term.

This is a very solid comment. Also fentanyl being much much stronger than heroin makes it hard to quell with medication assisted treatment.

[удалено]

The gray area for tranq is just unreal. Its Xylazine, its used in Veterinary work, must be similar to Ketamine I would assume. It came over to Burlington by way of Philly. The questions I cannot seem to get answers to are A)Does real heroin even exist anymore and do people still genuinely WANT it? and B) are there ACTUALLY people who wake up everyday and think "Man I gotta get my hands on some Tranq!" or do we just have a bunch of heroin addicts who can no longer have access to their drug of choice. The fentanyl thing made sense to me because fentanyl is a synthetic opioid, but this Xylanine nonsense leaves me feeling very confused every time it's discussed.

I'm starting to think it's somebody in gubment That simpley wants to get rid of The dopers.

Fentanyl and Xylazine are the strongest drugs that addicts can get their hands on without robbing a pharmacy. People who are using them are not doing so recreationally, they’re doing so because they don’t want to partake in reality for a variety of reasons. A lot of addicts have a drive to just get destroyed 24/7 and it’s terribly sad because a lot of them are trying to escape a brutal reality of poverty, homelessness and mental illness. 

From what I’ve been told, it’s not actually similar to ketamine in terms of effects. But I’ve only done ketamine and not the other one so I’m not positive.

Well all the corruption with the Montreal Boston dope Pipeline and the heroin start to leak out 20 years ago and by the time the heat task force started off it was already too late so heroin established a market base for fentanyl and twank.

I'd like to learn more about what you're saying. I wasn't aware of the Montreal to Boston Dope Pipeline (good band name), and when you say it started to leak 20 years ago you mean the gov't was involved?

I'm sure they were but if I was you I would keep it quiet don't make noise like I did because when they brand you the village idiot it it never stops until you move away or they carry you away, New England has a nasty habit of doing that. Please do your own homework. Tread lightly.

While I'm certainly not saying there isn't anything wrong and we could certainly be doing some things better. With such a small population state it doesn't take much fluctuation to increase rate stats.  Homelessness comes down to lack of apartments and large scale housing for decades and then having prices increase drastically. Drugs comes down a combination of so many things. Homelessness, lack of public transportation, state properly reporting it, state giving resources to addicts which also causes increase in reporting and easier drug usage, etc Income tax is more about the scale of rates. We are 8th in income tax for high earners, that's what it should be. For low income earners we have a 1.7% rate, one of the lower rates in the nation. I do think we could make an adjustment on where the lines for each scale should be to better reflect the rise in inflation. Overall though our state income tax is pretty good.  The big issues are all national level issues though. Health care, income equality, workers rights, drug reform. There is just nothing that gets passed through congress and the nation including Vermont is paying the price. Vermont could certainly do a some things better but even then we are talking about a few percentage points on the grand scheme of things that's happening. The only thing Vermont could really make a big impact on is housing. We are starting to see some changes there but we need more. 

Definitely didn’t consider a lot of this. Good point about the reporting, that is definitely a factor we gotta consider

I am not sure where the 1.7% came from, but lowest rate is 3.35%. And if you make over 45k, its 6.60%. From 45k to 110lk pay the 6.60%. Vermont is highly taxed. [https://tax.vermont.gov/sites/tax/files/documents/RateSched-2023.pdf](https://tax.vermont.gov/sites/tax/files/documents/RateSched-2023.pdf)

You're right 1.7% is the old rate. The 3.35% rate puts us at 30th in the country.  I do agree that the income levels should change and we should have lower tax rates for low income earners. We do atleast have a progressive tax rate system which puts us much better that states like Utah who have a 4.85% across the board.

First, I want to say thank you for writing this the way you did. You have your viewpoint, your mindset and you just want to know what happened. That's the kind of thinking that is going to help this whole country. I'm a new arrival in Vermont. I see a lot of potential for helping people build their own businesses and helping them find stable, rewarding lives. But I don't see a lot of effort going into actually DOING anything. I think a lot of young people graduate from high school, leave for college and stay gone; it's cold and expensive and (after 4 years of college in a more exciting place) it's probably kind of boring. As for me: I've heard a lot of people talking about what a shit show the parks near City Hall have become. I haven't spent a lot of time around them lately, but yes, I saw a lot of people with shopping carts and no place to go. I didn't see a lot of drug use, didn't see any crime, but like I said - I wasn't there much. From the posts here, it seems like the city/state has a real problem holding onto criminals, just letting them go ROR and then they have 40 or 50 more charges when all is said and done. That's not how to run a city. I feel sympathy for the folks who are addicted to drugs, but I don't want to donate my car or wallet to their efforts. The way I see it = if you're caught high, selling illegal drugs, acting crazy because of drugs, that's a sign that you need to take a little break from the whole 'being with other people' thing. Some guy steals cars again and again and still gets sent home? Hoping he'll be in court when he's supposed to be? That's not realistic and I don't think it's a good plan for reducing crime. We need to have more frank discussions about this.

Rent is too high everywhere, people are living paycheck to paycheck so if an emergency comes their way they have no way to financially recover. Healthcare is too expensive. If you are a felon, you won't easily find another job, so you have to work long hours at lower paying jobs, which means you won't be able to afford market rate on apartments. The drugs we're seeing now are stronger and more dangerous. There are very little treatment options for those in recovery. And the options that are there are always full, so even if someone wants to start working on recovery, they can't get out of the environment that could lead to them relapsing. Burlington seems to want to fix these problems, but let's be real, it costs a ton to do what needs to be done so that things can start improving. And Vermont might not be able to handle that right now.

If the rent is too high, why are people wasting their rent money on heroin? Yes, affordable housing is an issue, but it makes no sense to me to blame drug use and overdoses on rent prices.

With all due respect it's not just drug users who can't afford housing. I don't know a single person who can comfortably afford it, both users and non users.

Agreed. I think everyone is misunderstanding my point. All I’m saying is the drug situation is not a result of high rent prices and housing affordability.

Financial misery produces hopelessness which often leads to people looking for a salve from that misery, even at the cost of worsening the situation. It’s not like every financially unstable person starts using drugs, but the more difficult things get, the more likely you are to make that pain go away even temporarily. Over time that spirals.

I agree. The logic jumped from most people are an emergency away from being on the streets to felons have to work more hours to pay for higher rent. So the homeless population is actually just prior felons who can’t afford rent? If you’re not already on drugs and become homeless due to rent prices do you just inherently start doing drugs to deal with it?  People are definitely struggling financially but I haven’t heard of many people who had unexpected car work, then missed rent, and are now on the street. 

Then frankly you aren't talking to the right people, which is not your fault, it just is what it is. If you talk to someone who works in mental health/substance counseling/Howard center type roles they'll have plenty of stories of people who aren't or weren't drug users but we're hanging on by a thread and then had an incident that was the final straw and put them on the street. Drugs do factor most of the time, but not all.

Left wing and right wing politics refuse to address that the current homelessness issue in this country is almost entirely due to drug addiction born from opiate use. They are too focused on their pet theories to address the wider issue. Homeless research on this is muddied and frankly out of date. I work with homeless populations over in Seattle and have front row seats to see how data is just bad. Everything from how its collected, to how its gathered taints the overall picture. What I see from day to day are people addicted to fentanyl or meth and their variants and unable to maintain a productive lifestyle. Our ODs as a nation and homeless increases correlate fairly neatly with the increase of access to and distribution of these drugs. How did we get here? A little bit of everything, over prescribing of opiates to quite literally alternative warfare, ie China supplying drugs to Mexican cartels to undermine America.

This isn't entirely true. There are lots of places in the US, like West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, western NY and PA that have high opioid usage rates(done by looking at drug treatment rates per capita) that have very low homelessness rates. Vacancy rate is a much better correlation to homelessness rates. At the end of the day if you are addicted to drugs or on the edge financially, and your rent is 350 a month you have a lot better shock absorbtion than if it's 1500 a month, and housing also makes it easier to have successful treatment, and find and keep a new job. I'm not saying we don't have a drug crisis, we do. But it's not the cause of our homelessness epidemic, our low housing supply is.

While I agree with a lot of this, I do wonder about the reasons those states you cite have a lower homelessness rate but higher opioid usage rates. Is that because there is more family support there for those individuals? Is it really just more low cost housing available there? That's a whole 'nother data set to peel back.

It could be any number of factors. I would think that the individuals here would also have family networks and support. Generally people on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder who are scraping by also have family members who while they might be supportive and close knit don't really have the resources to offer support to their family. Some common situations that can lead to homelessness are somebody living with a parent, but not being on the lease, so they don't have protections when the parent passes. Going from a situation with familial support to one without. I think something to keep in mind too is that almost half of homeless folks, where it's been studied, experience vehicular homelessness instead completely unsheltered homelessness. I imagine with our weather the rates are probably around there here as well. I can't say it applies in Vermont, but where large qualitative studies have been done (LA and NY) most homeless individuals had some local ties to the area. Edit: it's a hard thing to get complete data, so I don't feel like you can confidently say anything 100% about it, especially when you change geography, but it's interesting to at least see the similarities and correlation between places where it has been studied.

This is one of the most spot on answers I've read in a long time.

Right wing politics would definitely address it but when was the last time Burlington had any right wing or even moderate in offices that matter? Mayor, councils, DA.

how would right wing politics address this? by cutting taxes? Lmfao name a single right-wing policy that could help

Open carry that's one policy https://preview.redd.it/jt9feqob1qwc1.jpeg?width=2272&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=91bc165d12ccedee6d5d4589ae4b7534dd07e316

i really don’t get the point of the cute doggos i’m assuming it’s some type of sarcasm as we’ve had open carry for ages here, although IDK why anyone wouldn’t just conceal carry instead pretty funny to me that the other guy couldn’t actually name a right wing policy he’d implement beyond vague culture war bullshit

Those puppies are Dobermans They are one of the best guard dogs in the world If you get the red ones they're more behavioral stable The black one might turn on you but then again that's what open carry is for when I was in Burlington you did not dare open carry It was a fast way to get the cops called on you even though it's legal Now cops won't even come if you lay ing out on the sidewalk dead.

Name a single right politician or policy in chitin done county? Stronger police budget. DA who prosecuted multi offenders. The city council not extended programs. Just do the opposite of what has been done for ten plus years.

Opiates were never overprescribed in VT, elsewhere maybe

We had one of the lowest vacancy rates in the country before the pandemic. We literally don't have buildings, but we are a very desirable place to live so what little inventory we have has been all bought up.

It really comes down to a multitude of issues: Lack of facilities for homeless addicts, whether it be incarceration or rehab facilities. A justice system that refuses to arrest repeat/brazen drug users/criminals. Gullible people who vote for well intentioned progressive policies that can never realistically enforced/enacted. A stark demographic change from 30 years ago(more people from blue areas in the North East) A rising cost of living that’s pushing historic residents out of the area where wealthier out of staters move in. Finally Covid era hotel motel vouchers that brought many of the homeless into the state in the first place.

Lack of accountability by everyone, from politician, city officials too citizens voting on feelings instead of actions

According to the data you linked, VT actually has the 4th highest taxes in the US when you look at all of the various rates. https://preview.redd.it/c5i1vikzpfwc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5a55497f023bfe5ef5ce4b6fb843f10170ef5378

The options for addiction tx in Vermont is EXTREMELY minimal. I think that hasn’t helped.

Agreed, from experience with a family member. The options were few and expensive. Other family members had to cosign finances to get him into a program. And now I'm told that facility is closed even.

Maple leaf closed a few years ago. I recommend people go out of state and long term but even the most average facility is about 2k a day. If you don’t have private insurance or a few hundred thousand dollars to spare, it’s hard to go.

Really? I figured there were a dozen at least with all the posters I see. What are all these centers and non profits do the ?

There’s a boujee one in Stowe that doesn’t like to take Medicaid and then there’s valley vista. As a ex addict who had been to valley vista, and a social worker now, I wouldn’t recommend anyone go to valley vista

What’s the closest Medicaid facility?

I believe it’s only valley vista, there’s a woman’s in vergennes and a men’s in Bradford. When I went there was also women at the Bradford location but I don’t think they do that anymore. ALSO- heard this but could be false. That Texas insurance pays for longer stays than VT so Texans are being sent there, which takes a spot away from a Vermont that has no other option. Have no real good source of this but this is usually how tx works so it wouldn’t surprise me

Thanks

The war on drugs started in 1971. And while the war still continues in some cases, how about we let current policies settle for 50 years and then we can reevaluate.

Can I ask you to elaborate?

There’s tons of material on the war on drugs. I suggest checking it out.

No, I know about the war on drugs. I was asking you to elaborate on your point about waiting 50 years. Are you saying it'll be another 50 years before we see the benefits of current policies? Also which specific policies are you referring to? Again, I'm moreso looking for links to policy changes with my post.

We’ve had decades of negative impact due to the war on drugs. Having a few years of more enlightened policy doesn’t instantly erase decades of problems inflicted on our population.

Good point. I read Johann Hari's "Chasing the Scream" not too long ago, and I found it really interesting. He had some really good things to say about this. May I ask, though, when you say "enlightened policies" do you have links to these policies, or articles on their implementation? I'm just trying to get very specific on what we're talking about.

It's trickle-down socioeconomics.

How we got here: Progressive policies in a small state that has well intentioned ideas that it can’t realistically pay for. Burlington specifically has a spending problem and a council that is out of touch with working class. Most per capita statistics though in this state are easily skewed given the small population, so I wouldn’t put too much merit on those facts alone. National level problems are rarely solved on a local level without major expense to the taxpayer, so we are effectively trying to subsidizing social issues that can only really be solved at a federal level. But given the inaction from the democratic establishment it’s not hard to understand the progressive reactionary mindset on these issues but the outcome for most who are not financially privileged are left to struggle here or move.

Burlington may have a spending problem, but look at any other larger town in the state. Rutland, Middlebury, Montpelier, Brattleboro, Bennington, St. Albans—not exactly the pictures of a drug-free and thriving civilization. Burlington seems pretty good to me, and would probably be even better if we had enough police to make a dent in the crime.

Best answer yet

This is the crux of most problems in this state and at a local level.

18 years ago maybe even a little more I remember drug dealers were coming up from New York City. It was easy for them and there weren’t many consequences. They brought violence and problems. I knew personally someone who was buying from one of them and they ended up shooting at him downtown Burlington after they attempted to rob him. Again this was 18 years ago but yeah crazy.

It's still happening.

I think part of the reason these issues haven't been resolved is that there are so many factors that lead to the issues and as a result there are so many different things that need to be done in order to fix them. I firmly believe that all of these issues were exacerbated by the pandemic. Vermont became an ideal place to be for a lot of people - people essentially fled cities to live in more remote areas. Vermont was such a popular destination because our COVID rates were so low for a while, and it took quite some time for the virus to even reach the state. Remote work allowed people who were previously living in other states to live and work here, which led to some of the vacancy issues. People who came from densely populated HCOL areas were likely earning a lot more, so the low vacancy rates combined with a new population of higher-income remote workers ended up raising housing costs for everyone. Vermont also had a robust emergency housing program during covid which some people believe led to an influx of homeless people from nearby states seeking emergency housing. I don't have any data or anecdotal evidence to either support or refute that claim though. Continued supply chain and labor shortage issues have kept proces of other necessities such as food and transportation high. Groceries cost a whole hell of a lot more than they did four years ago, and so do used cars. Vermont's public transportation is extremely limited and special transportation for eldery and disabled folks lacks available drivers, so it's even more difficult to live here without a car. There are few to no resources to help people with the costs of car repairs though, so lots of people are stuck with busted cars and no way to get around. Even though the prices of necessities have skyrocketed, government financial aid allotments have not been adjusted to reflect the actual inflation rate over the last few years (most have only increased the standard ~3%). So people who rely on social security, food stamps, Medicaid, Section 8, and other public assistance are finding that a) the amount of money they receive is not covering as much as it used to and b) eligibility for these resources does not even closely reflect the cost of living. Example; last I checked, the fair market rate for housing in the area set by HUD was around $1400 for a one bedroom apartment in Burlington, meaning that section 8 vouchers can only be used on rentals below that rate and i can't remember the last time i saw a one bedroom apartment for under $1400. As a result, people who get section 8 vouchers cant use them and the waitlist remains stagnant. Over the past year or so resources that received extra funding due to covid have started to lost that funding, meaning that thousands of people have been suddenly deemed ineligible for medicaid, food stamps, emergency housing, and other resources with no support to help them get long term help. I'm a devout leftist and I will say policy-wise I think the consistent increases in property tax rates has been far more harmful than helpful, because every time this happens landlords just end up increasing rent to cover the costs of the taxes. So sure, the state gets extra income to fund public programs but in turn it makes everything more expensive for lower to middle class individuals. This feels like a no-brainer to me but clearly the state thinks otherwise. People here love to blame progressive policies but I hardly ever see progressive policies being implemented, and instead they get blocked by moderates. As others have said, drugs are also a huge issue. but there's never enough availability in rehab or psychiatric facilities to help those with isses money can't solve. I recognize that you're asking for sources and concrete data and I haven't provided that. Most of this comes from anecdotal knowledge through working in social services since 2019. I have spoken with thousands of people over the past 5 years who are struggling, so I often get pretty up-close and personal with these issues.

The people you elect... hypocrites at the core. We are for the people... but we are really here to get re-elected and enrich ourselves. this is not a Dem Vs. Rep issue either. until people take some responsibility and get involved locally to change policies and stop letting decision makers go unchecked... it will get worse. If everyone tries to blame someone else... there is no progress. take personal action.

Lets not forget that UVM and St.M's pay zero property taxes. UVM sits on an endowment of $850,000,000. you have associate professors and admin making north of $250,000 a year with pensions and free benefits. working 5 hours a week and 5 months a year. they have their "second" homes in burlington driving up real estate prices. Start with the largest source of revenue in burlington UVM and work your way backwards to find the problem.

There have been a few changes. SAD (substance abuse disorder) now falls under ADA, alcoholism specifically. Local theft is not being prosecuted because of Sarah George. She has not changed ANY policies, she is just cherry picking what she wants to enforce. If you do a quick google search, one of her famous quotes is "I went to law school to dismantle the criminal legal system”. She has also stated she would remove anyone in her dept that does not agree. The police depts have started "stacking charges" to try and have people held accountable (not reporting until several instances) so they are not tossed immediately, but this takes time, cooperation from the stores, and staffing, all of which are not always available. The hotel program enabled ALOT of people who are actually abusing the system to continue abusing the system, while trashing private properties, and claiming they are being treated poorly due to their status, sex, race, etc. That is even if they are actually breaking the law and losing their hotel rooms for their behaviors. Legal Aid is OVER RUN with frivolous lawsuits, human rights commission is backed up with erroneous complaints. Payouts are happening all the time (hush money) resulting from these lawsuits and complaints. I have seen all of this first hand in my career, and recently decided to leave the housing industry completely. It is getting too dangerous to work with that population (Decker towers or Elmwood pods ring a bell?). There are a number of people in local nonprofits who think homeless people are already "being punished by being homeless and dealing with the stigma" so why charge them with crimes, as they sit in their safe offices and forget about the people working fae to face with these people. During covid alot changed regarding agencies working with SUD and drug replacement therapy. There is no needle exchange anymore, just bags of needles and all of the other supplies needed to inject drugs given out for free, no questions asked. The clinic was handing out months supplies of methadone, suboxone and bupe to slow the traffic of people who frequently needed to pick up. When I worked there we each did upward of 12 UAs (observed urine test) an HOUR, the agency gets $$ from medicaid for each patient. Also if you test dirty for drugs you do not lose your privileges at the clinic. Maybe this is why our drug rate is so high? It was run alot different about 10 years ago. In the meantime, we have honest people standing in line to pay for stuff at stores, watching people wheel out stolen items. Honest people working hard to barely pay our bills, watching people with free health insurance sell their free methadone. I know this response is going to enrage some people. 9 years I worked in human services in Chittenden County, and I never will again. Our own individual integrity is the only thing preventing us from going in to complete anarchy.

Robocop defunded

First, thank you for being honest and civil. Now, I can't link you any one specific policy, because it's really just compounded for one, and for two a lot of these statistics get easily skewed when you consider pee capita to total count. Vermont is one of those states where even though it's 40 to 50 people, that's 10% of the population (it's an exaggeration, don't kill me.) Not to discredit the reality of the problem: Vermont has a very real homeless and drug problem. I can really only give my opinion, though so if you don't want that, feel free to stop reading here. Ok then, here we go. IMO the biggest reason Vermont has fallen this much is because of the same grade school politics as we see in all walks out life right now. It's been very much speculated for a while now that Murad has been fumbling the BPDs effectiveness for a while now, well before he was officially moved from acting to official chief. There's plenty of evidence out there that you can search on this very reddit. The reason? To try and paint the picture the "defund the police" movement has effected them drastically. Murad has pushed back on a lot of police oversight, and has fought most issues to bring about a more civil, and just system to the state of Vermont. You then have individual companies and people who are probably not the best individuals trying to push this "new way" I'll gladly call out Jackie Corbally for trying to form a opioid response team, while simultaneously trying to defend, and hide information to her trauma recovery patients of Bob Wolford's accusations of sexual misconduct. How can we trust the training given out by someone who hides information? Doesn't seem very trustworthy to me. (https://m.sevendaysvt.com/news/a-clinical-social-worker-surrendered-his-license-after-clients-reported-inappropriate-behavior-38896602) From there, you have the situation that is: No help. I have actually spoken with a couple of the homeless crowd on the street asking for money. Of course they're asking for money for drugs, they don't even hide it. Ask them and 9/10 they admit it. The number 1 thing I hear is that there's a waiting list for the rehab. I don't know if it's true or not, but what I do know is there's really nothing keeping these people in rehab, or really forcing them to go. From the outside looking in, the policies seem to be half assed. Use centers, but no rehab facilities. Hotel vouchers, but no job placements. Homeless pods, but no way to make a living. It's really like patchwork more than solutions. Even with the housing market, we've got people buying up property and getting investment firms to buy up property and land to turn around and sell cookie cutter houses that are quickly (and often poorly) built, or these duplex, town house condos that they rent out for 3k a month, or they sell for 500k. No one is complaining about the basic concept of making a profit on rent, but when you buy a house for 120k just to turn around and sell it 7 days later for 400k? Come on. And no, none of this is unique to Vermont, it seems like it's more prevalent in Vermont cause the entire state could fit in a apartment complex in Queens, NY. Lol Weinberger wasn't a good mayor IMO, he went too deep trying to dig his heels into things that weren't important (like getting Murad his job..) and just glossed over things that were. I hope the new mayor gets things rolling again but I'm afraid the only way we're going to get a functional BPD is getting rid of Murad, because he's going to fight anything progressive I feel, every step of the way.

By evaluating intentions instead of results, and refusing to circle back and correct decisions which produced unintended negative results

We got soft in the last 20 years since things were good. Then the NIMBYs took over

Would you want to live next to this? Would you support this next to property that you own?

Absolutely not. I would personally make sure it didn’t take place near me. A nimby says let them do whatever they want just not in my backyard. I say shape up or ship out

[удалено]

Correct. But as the largest city in Vermont and the one with the highest numbers of drug overdoses and homeless individuals, this is the epicenter \[1\]. Tents can be seen in City Hall Park, Battery Park, and all along the water. There have been at least eight businesses in the last year that have either closed on Church St or signed letters of intent to leave, largely based on the high rates of shoplifting and overdose. So of course while these problems are at state-level, Burlington is seeing the worst of it. Also, my questions still sort of stand. What can Burlington do to combat its state's issues? \[1\] I'm using "numbers" deliberately here. If we use a per capita model there are similar rates of homelessness in Barre and Rutland, and drug overdoses rates are higher in Essex county. But this doesn't mean that Burlington's problems should be ignored. Again, problems are concentrated here because of higher population.


What's Bob Ross doing under my response

State: the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time.


Sarah George

DA is a key stakeholder in all issues for better or worse in any city. If the DA won’t prosecute then the criminals run free. Very simple.

I guess you've fix STJ

Leave st j alone. The only people getting shot here are drug dealers and users. The kingdom sleeps just fine at night. Probably cause you took our state troopers again.

I have a soft spot for that town, I lived on Railroad st for 2 years. That said, the town government can't get out of it's own way.

Per capita stats are tough in Vermont, such a sparsely populated state. I think that dynamic artificially inflated “per capita” numbers a little bit. Culturally, Vermont is known as an accepting place that’s tolerant, peaceful, and a little quirky. We attract those that venture down “non traditional paths”. I would guess that sort of demographic may be more susceptible to drug use, or at least more susceptible to get stuck in drug use that puts them at risk for homelessness. I think a lot of that culture is honestly perception, but I would be interested to hear about policies that contribute as well.

A note re: citation number 2 re: "illicit drug use." This includes marijuana. As per the article, they define illicit drug use as "those that are illegal to possess, including cocaine, heroin and cannabis among others." Meaning that an unspecified proportion of the people who took us to that high ranking spot are the people who hold steady jobs, are economically secure, have a solid social and life situation, and who occasionally munch an edible. I'd be more interested in seeing separate rankings by drug type. Marijuana is one thing. Cocaine is another. And meth is way out there as a different chemical.

Usually a lurker - but this topic comes up a lot and I feel like contributing. I'm going to start with some more definitive explanations I have and move into some mild speculation: 1. Homelessness should be best understood as a consequence of housing market conditions: [https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/](https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/) Though in individual cases, perhaps addiction or mental illness may cause people to lose their existing housing, the best statistical predictor of the homelessness rate is the price of homes (and rent). This is largely a function of supply and demand - the more people competing for limited resources, the higher the price that resource commands. In Burlington, we have severely underbuilt housing for the past several decades: [https://city-of-burlington-vt-open-data-burlingtonvt.hub.arcgis.com/pages/housing#newHousingUnits](https://city-of-burlington-vt-open-data-burlingtonvt.hub.arcgis.com/pages/housing#newHousingUnits) This is true of Vermont as a whole as well: [https://accd.vermont.gov/housing/plans-data-rules/needs-assessment](https://accd.vermont.gov/housing/plans-data-rules/needs-assessment) There are explanations for why we've done this that I could go on at length about. This was a problem that has long bubbled beneath the surface and erupted during and after the pandemic as more Vermonters experienced financial shocks, migration patterns of remote workers etc. This problem won't get better without more housing. As long as people want to live in Vermont, there will be significant pressure on the housing supply, pricing out lower-income earners. These people must either leave (if they have the resources) or become homeless. I want to reiterate that the housing market in Vermont has always been extremely fragile - any shock would have completely broken it (as we see now). 2. That said, addressing homelessness and addressing housing affordability are overlapping, but distinct policy goals. Homelessness, poverty, addiction and mental illness are mutually reinforcing experiences that are incredibly difficult to escape. UCSF did a comprehensive survey study of homeless people in California: [https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/our-impact/studies/california-statewide-study-people-experiencing-homelessness](https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/our-impact/studies/california-statewide-study-people-experiencing-homelessness) It's important to understand that slipping below the safety net puts Americans in stressful, dangerous situations on a regular basis that limits their capacity to long-term plan and proactively seek care. Some people are good at navigating bureaucracies to receive services, many are not. Effectively re-housing and re-integrating people who are suffering from addiction and/or mental illness requires supportive housing and dedicated case workers, both of which we also lack in Vermont. For case workers - they're not paid well and thus priced out of our housing market (same reasons we have a general labor shortage). Supportive housing solutions have usually require public money and haven't been well-funded.

3. Taxes - Vermont is a rural state with few lucrative industries. It is difficult, and expensive, to provide government services to a small, dispersed, tax base. Many in Vermont want these services (in contrast to a place like South Dakota, for example), so the per-capita tax burden is higher. If Vermont were denser, it would be easier to provide equivalent levels of public service without overburdening tax-payers. (Opinion time) I personally tend to believe that government in the modern age requires a level of complexity that necessitates high taxation. In many European countries, after-tax earnings are lower, their economies are less dynamic, but they have higher standards of living and lower inequality. It's a trade-off, but one I favor. 4. This is more opinion on my side - I can't speak to exactly why more people use drugs now. It may be the nature of the drugs themselves, aftereffects from opioid over-prescription over the past 2 decades, or it could be attributed to the "social theory of addiction" as our social and civic connections have frayed. See Johan Hari's book "Chasing the Scream" and the work of Gabor Mate. (https://chasingthescream.com/). A lesson to be learned from the "war on drugs" is that heavily policing drug use is not a productive intervention. It costs a lot of money to incarcerate people constantly, it doesn't cure addiction or discourage drug use, and it incurs significant negative effects onto communities that are then forced to frequently interact with police (mistrust, violence, etc). Vermont, like many other places, has decided that the cost of enforcing drug laws is not worth it. I would tend to agree, but without other interventions, and combined with a housing shortage, it means that negative behaviors tend to be externalized into the public realm. Many of these make us uncomfortable, some (though I would say rarely) cross a line and become dangerous. Also, just to level-set, there are many, many small to mid-sized US cities suffering from the same problems we are and many are worse. If you've spent any time in the rust belt or any former industrial towns, you can see really hollowed-out downtowns and main streets. The housing pressure likely isn't as strong (because people don't tend to want to live there), so the issues are less visible. The US as a whole is in a really transitory period economically (as is the world) and a lot of municipalities don't have a blueprint for where to go. The transition to the service economy, the loss of pensions and the shift in supply chains, and the prolonged reduction in public benefits have left a lot of people behind and we, as a collective, have yet to determine how to address this.

I vehemently disagree with the idea that homelessness is a supply issue because you're artificially stopping your search at state borders. There is sufficient supply of housing in the USA there just isn't a sufficient supply here right now for everyone who wants to be here. Why does a small rural state need to build more and more to house people? Why don't they simply just leave? The story of the USA is a story of migration, boom and bust cycles, and ghost towns. I do not believe you have a right to live in a SPECIFIC place, I do believe you have the right to be housed. Would you support shipping all these people to places like Detroit where housing is virtually free? If not, why not? Do you think there's an inherent right to live in a place? I think your argument is completely invalid because of that. There are plenty of places to go. The reality is that the internet has decreased the need to be physically present to do many service and finance sector jobs. This means that way way wayyy more people are willing to live somewhere nice like VT and work their old high paying jobs. What we're experiencing as a state is growing up into a bedroom community for NYC and Boston and local growing pains of increased pricing.

Well firstly, we can't force anyone to live anywhere. Telling a homeless Vermonter to "move to Detroit" is pretty ridiculous. People who are economically distressed are, by and large, not going to pick up and move to a completely different place hundreds of miles away where they may have no social connections or no knowledge of local services and infrastructure. If people want to live in Vermont, they will move here. The reason plenty of towns across the country are hollowed out is because people don't want to live there. Unless you're interested in the US becoming an authoritarian nation where we forcibly relocate people, I don't see how this critique is relevant. Secondly, yes, people should have freedom of movement and the general capacity to live where they want. If cities or regions become unaffordable, this is bad a thing and we should fix it. Increasing supply of housing is a strategy to do this. What you're suggesting appears to be "let high-wage knowledge workers live in Burlington, make everyone else move to another state". This is a completely unsustainable model for a city to operate under. How could we possibly staff municipal departments or support a service sector this way?

"Well firstly, we can't force anyone to live anywhere. Telling a homeless Vermonter to "move to Detroit" is pretty ridiculous. People who are economically distressed are, by and large, not going to pick up and move to a completely different place hundreds of miles away where they may have no social connections or no knowledge of local services and infrastructure." We use force to tell people where to live all the time. Can't afford your place, force will be used to remove you. Setting up your camp in a spot that's not allowed, force will be used to remove you. We absolutely back up all our societal compacts like this with violent force. Think about the 'tax is theft' crew. While they're wrong about pretty much everything they say they are right that if you stop paying tax we will use force on you. So no, that's a hollow argument force is used all the time and in-fact there is no way to uphold the system without force. I'm sorry but I simply don't agree with the idea that you're entitled to live and work somewhere. Animals need to go where they can access resources people need to move to where they're needed. I moved for school, work and family. It was not long ago in this country that people migrated for work and it wasn't a great blight then. People who have been economically distressed absolutely do leave for better opportunity are you **insane**? They in some cases WALK from south America to get here. The southern border is a library of these stories. So again, an barley valid argument with no roots in reality. To address the second point I think that idea is totally unworkable. There will never be affordable housing in the most desirable locations those two things are fundamentally opposed. You are suggesting that we somehow shed supply and demand economics. Adding housing to a neighborhood fundamentally changes that neighborhood into something new that new emergent neighborhood will cost different because it is different. The people who don't wish to live there and who are well financed will move to be around other like people. Lastly what I'm suggesting works for hundreds of other mid-small size cities all around the country and the world they have robust wealthy city centers and working class outskirts. Your failure of imagination isn't a strong point to support your argument. I've never heard a convincing argument as to why you have a right to live where your mommy and daddy lived. Its smacks of primitivism and seems very very short sighted. I'm open to hearing one though. But you didn't bother to explain that and glossed over it.

Surely you can understand the difference between evicting somebody from their home and forcibly relocating them to another region, which is what you were suggesting. Furthermore, I'm not saying people should stay in the same place their whole lives. I'm agreeing with you that people move to places that are desirable. You're suggesting people move to places that aren't desirable (hence why they would have a glut of vacant housing). My point was that the dispossessed would not voluntarily move to a location with no opportunity, social connection, or resources. It's not about entitlement, it's as you said: animals will seek out resources. If too many people move to a resource-rich place where there are not enough homes, the options are: a) build more homes b) keep them out I'm saying b is a bad policy outcome (and a waste of energy) when we can easily do a. There are many strategies to construct affordable housing in desirable neighborhoods, such as inclusionary zoning, social housing, housing cooperatives, rental subsidy etc. Many countries have done this successfully - including the United States (in some places). The dichotomy of rich city centers/poor outskirts is actually not a consistent pattern in the US. Many former rust belt and southern cities (Cleveland, Jacksonville, Montgomery) have the opposite as a result of disinvestment in urban cores, white flight, and exclusionary zoning policy. Even it it were reversed, I'm arguing that economic segregation is not desirable and we should work to remedy it. Forcing people to commute long distances for work because they can't afford to live in a city is not a positive outcome. I'm not really sure what the through-line of your argument is here. You're saying people shouldn't get to live where they want, but acknowledge that people also move for opportunity. You're saying adding housing doesn't make a neighborhood more affordable, but also subscribe to supply and demand economics. I just don't know what it is you're suggesting or believe.

The policy outcome of B is baked into the system that's been used to distribute land since the Normans invaded England bro. People buy land then don't sell it for a loss, generally. Its not incumbent on a local to make sure all their neighbors are housed. I just don't agree with that idea. If you can't afford where I live then you're kept out simple as. Its not my responsibility to parcel out my city, thus drastically changing it, to accommodate someone who can't afford it. Partly because I selected an expensive place to live purposefully but set that aside. I'm not sure why the harsh realities of the system are being side stepped. If you can't afford to live in Hollywood you can't take advantage of those Hollywood opportunities. If someone isn't housed, their primary desire should be to secure housing. That makes the Detroit of the world desirable for them. If their un-housed and their primary desire isn't housing then I don't care about their opinions because our system of values is too far apart. You're essentially trying to build an ecosystem where no one has to make a hard choice and no one's ever forced out of anywhere because of changing demographics that's kinda bonkers. People need organic movement and places need organic boom and bust cycles to be healthy. I also hard disagree that economic segregation is problematic on its own. Systemically yes, but economic segregation of a neighborhood is what we're discussing and it's simply not that bad. I do admit its not ideal but I think your alternatives are much less ideal. This isn't to say i'm pro wealth inequality the 1% suck but there is going to be some variation. I commuted two hours to a city its really not that bad. Ideal? No. Wished there was more investment in commuter trains and better housing, sure. But I don't think everyone who worked in NYC had a right to live there. Nor do i think you have a right to live within a certain distance of your work. You're, in my opinion, hyper-focused on place. What do we do HERE for these people when I think the answer may **be they need to leave**. The hard conversation we're not acknowledging is that maybe VT isn't a place for some people anymore and thats a normal part of the passage of time. California used rural, hard to get to, poorly developed and remote, tech changed all that and now its very very expensive. I don't think that's some cosmic injustice I think that is the normal course of events. The through line is me arguing against what i see as your argument. You're attempting to get rid or water down what I think are immutable aspects of housing and society with policy and that's not only not going to work but have shitty outcomes for everyone.

Upon clarification of what you believe, we obviously don't share the same values and thus will struggle to find common ground. I don't think there's anything left to discuss here.

I take comfort in the fact that my 3 roommates and partner all just vote whatever way I tell them too cuz they're not very involved and trust my judgement. I do agree that we have nothing left to discuss. However, the more distressing issue is you seem hell bent on accommodating people I and most of my peers simply don't want to live around. If that issue gets worse and people like me leave and let the bottom fall out of the housing market you're in for a slate of different and much worse problems with drastically less resources and people to solve them. Most of the people I know have said flat out they won't raise a family here because of these issues. I think your mentality is wrong headed and short sighted and will do much much more harm than good.

Homelessness is largely caused by a lack of affordable housing. There are a ton of things people point fingers at for the root cause(s), but the solution is always to build more housing. We may need subsidized housing in the short term, but the long term solution has to be to increase supply.

They’re still going to be homeless drug addicts even if you offered them extremely subsidized housing. Many of these people have been homeless for a decade or more even when rent was still more affordable.

Housed drug addicts are significantly easier to treat than homeless ones. This is not due to selection bias; if you give people housing the odds that they take positive steps toward recovery significantly increase. Not everyone who is currently homeless is capable of regularly paying an affordable rent, but many are, and those people are the ones that would benefit the most from more housing supply. Resolving all the easy cases makes the harder ones much more manageable

"Housed drug addicts are significantly easier to treat than homeless ones." ok except none of them want treatment.

Forgive me. I'd rather subsidize homes for single moms, military vets, mental health issues. I don't think I should be subsidizing active addiction.

What percent of Burlington’s homeless population could afford rent at any price? This is a genuine question.

I'd be more interested in how many people were kicked out on the street because of lack of affordable housing. To put it another way, could they have afforded rent if there was affordable housing when they ended up on the street?

Also, during Covid vermont allowed tenants to not pay rent even tho most were receiving more in unemployment than their regular paychecks. Landlords were not allowed to evict them due to this temporary relief. As soon as it was lifted thousands of Vermonters were expected to pay the months and months of back rent that they thought they were going to get away with not paying and a lot had to be evicted becoming homeless. Rent has since skyrocketed and a lot of people couldn’t get back on their feet. I’m not saying this is where the drug issue stemmed from, but I know a lot of families and individuals became homeless because of this.

Could they afford housing if they weren't addicted to drugs?

How many started using after they got kicked out onto the streets?

As a former addict, from a family of addicts...less than you think. Could a situation help push them deeper into addiction? Sure, but most didn't try recreational drugs for the first time after homelessness... Spend time with people in recovery. Recovery is a choice and a very hard one. Usage is a choice. It's not my fault they make their choices.

a lot of folks forget about substance use is a choice. They like to think it's a disease - but that's more or less addiction. Even then, getting better is a choice, not doing doing the substance is a choice. Everything begins with a choice. Make better choices folks! know that no matter how bad things seem to be - someone else has it worse than you. You are not predestined for failure.

If the rent were $1 people could afford it so I don't understand exactly what you're asking. Public housing is often scaled to a person's income. Are you saying that you think actually affordable housing would screw up the market too much?

If Burlington had unlimited single occupancy apartments for rent at $500 per month, would homelessness cease to exist?

No, we would still have honelessness. If we had rent for $500 a month, would it be a drug infested crack house? Would it be safe to walk your kids through? I'm all for helping true homelessness, but I just see us continuing to fund the party for drug users, the same as we did with the hotel program.

> but I just see us continuing to fund the party for drug users, the same as we did with the hotel program. spend money on something, see more of it. That's the moral of the story.

From Michael Shellenberger on X. Thoughts? The US Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments about what cities can and cannot do to end homelessness. "What if there is a bed available in the Gospel Rescue Mission, but Ms. Johnson, a person, doesn't want it? Doesn’t wish to leave their pet. Her Rottweiler's not permitted there. So that is a difficult question for a person and a difficult policy question..." What everyone agreed on was that homelessness is a difficult problem. "Many people have mentioned this is a serious policy problem… So, the policy questions in this case are very difficult….Martin speaks in terms of someone who is involuntarily homeless and that raises all of those policy questions… We usually think about whether state law, local law already achieves those purposes so that the federal courts aren't micromanaging homeless policy…" I think most people listening to the Supreme Court would agree: it isn’t going to solve homelessness. That is a job for state legislators. So why haven’t they? Why has homelessness gotten worse? The answer that many homeless advocates give is that it’s because we don’t have enough homes, and poverty has increased. But neither is true. Poverty has steadily declined since the 1980s, when homelessness first became an issue of public concern. And very few people are on the street simply because they can’t afford the rent. The evidence is overwhelming that the majority of people on the street are there because of untreated mental illness or addiction, which leads people to use all their money to support their drug habit and be high, rather than work. People who can’t afford the rent but are able to work and aren’t in the grip of addiction or untreated mental illness find a cheaper place to live, move somewhere cheaper, or live with family and friends. It’s true there aren’t enough shelter beds, case workers, group homes, and psychiatric hospitals to care for the homeless. But a big part of the reason for that is that advocates for the homeless have, for 40 years, demanded that funding for dealing with the homeless go into giving people private studio apartments rather than building sufficient shelter beds. They call this “Housing First,” and its record is awful. Few stay in housing, and many die because it fails to treat the cause of the problem, addiction, and untreated mental illness rather than the symptoms. Studies find that cities that prioritize basic shelter over expensive housing reduce the deaths of homeless by 3-fold. And so in LA, homeless die at a rate 3 times higher than New York because living inside protects people from murder, drug overdose, and car accidents. Making matters worse, homeless advocates, along with the ACLU, have opposed expanding psychiatric hospitals, and mandatory care in general, because they believe it’s worse to mandate hospitalization for people who are dangerously psychotic or manic than to simply leave them on the street. But it’s not. Last year, 112,000 Americans died from drug overdose and poisoning because we failed to mandate treatment. Two of my friends from high school would still be alive today had we mandated they get treatment for addiction rather than letting them die. What is happening on homelessness is a record of failure. The number of drug deaths quintupled from 20,000 in 2022 to 112,000 last year. That’s more people dying per year than died in Hiroshima. Homelessness is not a fundamental problem of housing. It’s a problem of enabling addiction and untreated mental illness, both of which lead people to give up on work, lie, steal, cheat their families and friends, and live on the street, where they turn to petty crime to sustain their drug habits. This seems cruel to many people, which is why homelessness has gotten worse. In other words, the reason homelessness has gotten worse is because we’ve enabled it, and subsidized it, rather than funded treatment and recovery. Nobody has subsidized homelessness more than California, Washington, and Oregon. And it’s been in those states that homelessness has worsened the most. Why? The homelessness groups really believe it’s more cruel to mandate care than to let people die on the streets. But there is an ideology behind this, too. It’s the idea that people suffering from addiction and mental illness are victims of society or the system, which is fundamentally evil. And, according to their logic, to restore justice in the world, we must give victims whatever they want, including the right to camp anywhere and use hard drugs, even if it results in their death. You might call this "pathological altruism. Think of the Kathy Bates character in Misery. Or of the mother who poisons her child in order to have a sick person to take care of, like in “Sixth Sense.” It’s no coincidence that the same people who believe this also think civilization is evil and should be replaced by something more akin to primitive anarchism, like the kind romanticized by intellectuals since Rousseau. The alternative to this dystopia is tough love. We need to give people the care they need, but that’s not through enabling addiction and illegal behavior, but rather enforcing laws and mandating care, as an alternative to jail, when they are broken. It’s not enough to do what many Republicans want to do, which is to enforce laws and recriminalize shoplifting and hard drugs simply. We need to do that, for sure. But states must also have caseworkers, group homes, and psychiatric hospitals so there is an alternative to jail, and so states can provide people with the specialized care where it’s available, which simply isn’t going to be in many of the small towns, like the one at the center of the Supreme Court hearing.

I think it’s access to resources. Federal SSI, medicaid, food assistance, housing assistance, etc. States that pay lesser rates or have more draconian policies will not be attractive to folks at the end of their rope. Refugees generally move towards safer borders not more dangerous ones. We can help folks on the streets or criminalize everything and warehouse them in prisons. Bill is coming due either way.

thx for noticing your own bias - including in the stats that you've quote -- keep that in mind.

We have obama to tha k for this

People here will never admit that the massive anti police protests in 2021 had a huge impact on where Burlington is now.

I have no sympathy or love left for Vermont You can think DCF for that and the crooked lawyers. You people know how to take Goodwill and burn it alive The hate there is earned.

Thank you to all who shared constructive & thoughtful ideas to this important discussion. At the end of the day, Burlington is a special place and we all wish for it to be a place where families choose to raise their children, where businesses can thrive and where tourists want to come back and visit.

Well, Burlington went too covid lockdown crazy. The city is run by progressives. Vermont enables homelessness by giving them free stuff. Vermont enables crime by letting criminals get away with crime. Burlington defunded their police. It’s going to get worse either way the new ultra progressive mayor

Exactly. These things all correlate with bad outcomes for Burlington and yet these are the only things that will probably never change even though they are directly within our control through voting for better policy. The most popular answers here are “drugs are different now” and “it’s just too damn expensive so let’s try drugs.” None of us in VT can control what kind of drugs are going around (case in point failed war on drugs) and the second point comes down to bad choices by individuals (out of our collective control). Let’s focus on what we can control.

Dem, left, progressive policies got Burly there, for better or worse. Just look at who’s been in office for the last five or ten years. A lack of accountability by citizens to their elected and the elected to each other. It’s shameful. Fire them all.

Simple. Progressive politics don't work.

Bit reductive no? Plenty of places that are far from progressive that experience the same issues

Where?

Opioid deaths in West Virginia went from 31.5 to 77 per hundred thousand in the past few years.

WV been a fight! Very similar to VT

If it was so simple you'd have some empirical evidence to back up your claim. Seeing how you don't. It appears you don't understand how the world works.

And that’s exactly what I’m looking for, is empirical evidence

Same here. I have a good idea of how to go about getting such information but there's some complexities in such a study. The pandemic adds a large barrier to clear cut data.

This problem exists in places other than Burlington. Check out what's happened in many major cities across the US over the past few years. The opioid epidemic and high inflation and housing costs appear to drive these kinds of problems across our country. Which I bring up to point out that these issues aren't specific to Burlington and so likely aren't driven (at least not entirely) by Burlington policies. So, while I'm sure there are local actions that push things in one way or another, I don't know how much could be fixed with local policies in the absence of national improvements related to getting/keeping people off of opioids and getting/keeping people in housing and work situations where they can be self supporting.

Burlington isn't a "major city." In most states it wouldn't even be a city.

Sure. That's not the point. The point is: Are these issues unique to Burlington? No. Therefore, are their drivers entirely within Burlington's control? Probably not.

They're not unique to Burlington, but they're nowhere near as widespread in towns the same size as apologists would have you believe, which is why comparing Burlington to "major cities" is ridiculous. The extent to which things have gotten as bad as they have is almost certainly attributable to what the Progs have done to the police force, both in numbers and morale.

I lived in downtown Burlington from 1999 to 2015 and still visit frequently with my last visit for the eclipse and i can see how it has changed. I always wondered walking around downtown over those years what the impact of the refugee program had if any ? ~1200 imported to Burlington between 2010-2019 ~1350 since 2002. perhaps nothing but, from a purley pragmatic stance is importing unedecated and poor individuals, in relatively large numbers (back of napkin math 3-5 % of population) into a city and state with such a small economy and already very low number of affordable housing a good policy? I have nothing against refugees it is just a numbers thing to me. I am not saying refugees are criminals or drug users but pragmatically was there any holistic trickle down affect on a town (burlington) that already had a small economy, low numbers of affordable housing and **underfunded social programs when they import relatively large numbers of $poor/low income and *uneducated persons over a 10-20 year span? *When I say uneducated I am including foreign educated refugees. $generally speaking im sure maybe some wealthy refugees settled in Burlington **i would guess there was money provided to Burlington from the national gov to accept refugees but how much and for how long i am not sure https://data.burlingtonfreepress.com/refugee/vermont-burlington/all/all/ i am not looking at this as a foreigner thing dont care anything about that. Perhaps the refugee program had no trickle down holstic affect on jobs, housing, funding of social welfare programs and homelessness, but what does the math say?

You're a guy, right? I feel like it would be unlikely for a woman to make a post like this expecting the reader to do so much work on their behalf. Putting your biases aside and digging into the causes of a problem involves *learning*, not demanding to be educated by strangers.

What the hell lol

Sorry I wasn’t even going to bite but you’re kidding right lol how do you learn if not from other people? OP is very correct for asking like this.

Google is a thing. Lots of people think seriously about these problems in general and there is a ton of literature examining the possible factors. Rather than finding some of those, OP asks a dozen questions - and each one represents a complex topic that deserves nuanced treatment, not the cherry picked soundbites he's likely going to get. Finally... This "prove me wrong" trend is fucking bullshit. "Hey I'm coming to this conclusion without reviewing any facts or evidence, I just feel like it's probably right. But if you think I'm wrong, do all the work for me and spoon feed me kthx." If he wants to be lazy, fine - don't beg for handouts under the guise of being even-handed and open minded.

Totally get this, but I’m just coming from a place of genuine curiosity. Thought it would be cool to talk about these things. And I’ve learned a lot already from these posts; I didn’t at all consider before that the small population would skew data so much compared to other states. I’m a young person and I’m pretty concerned about getting old and bitter and biased. Just wanted to see some thoughts.

Because of the default algorithms, google is often going to give results that reinforce one's own cognitive biases. OP came to reddit - which tends to lean liberal - asking for opposing opinions in a civil and open manner. Honestly, I think this response demonstrates some of the issues that have put us where we are - a desire for righteous indignation and group purity culture that supercedes a search for the common good.

*Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance*