State Employees Held Hostage

At great cost to you and me, the taxpayers, the Shumlin administration is holding 1,500 state employees (a fifth of the workforce) hostage.  The state employees who worked in Waterbury are being denied a return to that work assignment because the Shumlin Administration wants to close the State Hospital.

Here's something you should know right now - the State office complex in Waterbury has been rehabbed and is ready to have employees move back in.  Yes, the administration needs to let the telephone people back in and the computer network people but the building itself is ready for occupancy.  You may have missed that only the cellar area was flooded and that 75% of the buildings had no water damage.

So why is the administration keeping people in cramped spaces in the Montpelier office complex and in expensive rental space in the Burlington area and elsewhere?  Why would they do something like that?  Simple, if they get most State employees back into those buildings then the public and many legislators will ask why not move the State Hospital back into its space and the governor and Jeb Spaulding can't have that - they want the hospital closed and are using the flood to do it.

I keep wondering why no one in the press is asking how much putting VSH (Vermont State Hospital) patients in the Brattleboro Retreat and other settings is costing.  A hint - a lot!  The administration is hoping to hide that cost in post-Irene recovery funding.  So far no one is interested in pursuing it so you and I will have to foot that bill also.

Keep in mind this is a lot of money being spent as recovery money that is not really realted to the flood or the recovery.  This money is being spent with the idea of getting you to spend even more - to build, contract out or otherwise replace the State Hospital.

Don't Let  Good Crisis Go To Waste

Every Governor for the past 40 years has made closing the State Hospital a goal.  None have done it because the legislature has not wanted to tackle it.  Now, Peter Shumlin has decided to use a real crisis to manufacture a supposed crisis response of replacing the hospital.  That only happens if the building is unusable.  If Shumlin and Spaulding let the state employees return then the hospital looks to the legislators like it could, or should, also reopen.

The legislature is feeling cash strapped and so doesn't really want to deal with the hospital issue.  Plus, they are hearing from their local hospitals that Vermont needs a secure, State-run facility.  In the past the response has been to just limp the existing hospital along.  The previous administrations have just funded it enough to pass accreditation inspections.

The truth is, running the State Hospital is a losing proposition for the State. They pay out more in sick time, workers comp claims and medical related expenses there than they do at any of the correctional facilities.  If you run a hospital or community mental health facility why would you want to take it over from the state?  None of them do and so the legislature and the Shumlin Administration will be saddled with continuing to run a State facility - the question is: will it be in a totally rehabbed Waterbury facility or a new building elsewhere.

It's time for the Shumlin Administration to come clean on its motives. It's time for the legislature to become adults and make a decision on the hospital and fund that direction.  And it's time for both of them to come out from behind the smoke screen of Tropical Storm Irene and be honest with Vermonters. (Wouldn't that be refreshing?!?)  But most of all it's time to stop holding 1,500 employees hostage and let them go back to doing work for Vermonters from their offices in Waterbury.

Refreshing the View

The gang at blogger recently announced that there are five new ways to view a blog on their platform. I'll be investigating these and maybe choosing one for any future posts here. So, stay tuned.

Blogger Buzz: Fresh new perspectives for your blog

Economy Part 2: Housing

Housing is one of the three essentials of human life.  Vermonters are steadily being priced out of the housing market because of stagnant wages and non-resident buyers. 

The median price of a home in Vermont was $200,000 in 2008.  To afford this price a potential buyer would need at least $63,000 in family income; however, Vermont's median income is $51,566.  This means that most Vermonters can't buy this home. 

The median income earners are in the market for homes priced at $160,000 or less - assuming they have enough savings for the down payment and closing costs.  At this level and below are mobile homes with land and "fixer uppers." Thus, the traditional "starter home" is out of reach for young couples and others wanting to get into their own home.

Housing Alternatives

One answer is to increase owner-occupied rental properties.  This type of real estate allows the owners to purchase more building than they could hope to in a single-family home.  It allows the building owners to build equity faster and also potentially provides more affordable rentals.

Another is clustered housing with homeowners holding the land in common.  The legislature could put into place tax incentives for development of this type.  I would rather see this enacted at the local level than at the State.  I would rather that communities provide tax incentives to developers and the State would make up the difference in the tax loss, especially for education funding.

This development should be focused in, or adjacent to, village centers.  Towns should be working toward more centers within walking distance that limit the need for vehicle trips to get to shopping and services.

Vermonters Helping Vermonters

We can encourage these two housing options using State Employees' and Teachers' retirement funds. Instead of sending this money out of state to invest in Wall Street, let's keep it here to house people. As these people prosper so will the retirement funds.

I suggest taking the next year's worth of payments into the retirement system (both the employee's and State's shares) and investing it through the Vermont Housing Finance Agency and the Vermont Community Loan Fund.

This money would be targeted to the two types of housing I mentioned, either new or existing. The exact rules could be worked out either in the legislature or the agencies but it should have a preference on low or middle income Vermonters.

This is just my opinion, what do you think??