Photo Credit: Ross D. Franklin
Under the administration of former Mayor Dave Ortega, Scottsdale started using a small amount of vacant hotel rooms to house the homeless. More specifically, it worked with the Arizona Department of Housing and used a bit under $1 million in state funds through its “Bridge Program’, designed to be transitional housing for those who needed some help for a temporary amount of time.
The size and scope of the program was very limited in Scottsdale; at most it was designed to help 120 people, and the transitional housing that caused a significant uproar in the city was only for 10 people, but it was still a relatively jarring development in a city like Scottsdale, causing pushbacks and an attempt to outlaw it in the city.
It appears as though legislators will be attempting to find a new way to turn the screws to this controversial program however: radical transparency.
State Representative Matt Gress, the representative covering Paradise Valley and parts of Scottsdale and Phoenix and who attempted to kill the practice last year, is now spearheading these radical transparency efforts. His bill will mandate that hotels that engage in this practice put up clear warning signs in their entrance, but also take a further step and attempt to outlaw the use of public funds for this purpose. And just like that, a controversial practice is met with even greater controversy.
As for the latter part, outlawing the use of public funds for this, then the onus should be on the state to make sure that enough adequate shelter is built. If hotels are used, one has to believe that it’s likely because there isn’t enough overnight shelter that is sufficient for these purposes.
But it’s also worth considering the nature of the homelessness. A young man who is on the streets due to a drug addiction is nothing like a mother and young child escaping an abusive home. They both exist and one can be a significant threat to those around him, but one is not. So if the state is categorizing them separately, and it seems as though they are, that absolutely should come into play.
Is this bill actually designed to keep people safer, or simply be punitive to those on hard times? Insofar as it is doing the former, then good. But lumping everyone into the same boat and knowingly or not dialing up the shame of their circumstances doesn’t help anyone.