As temperatures drop and municipalities prepare for another winter of homelessness response, a deeper debate has reemerged across Vermont: how much responsibility should communities carry for individuals who decline available shelter, treatment, and structured support — and where should the limits be drawn when those decisions spill into public spaces, budgets, and local safety?

The question is not whether the state should provide help. Vermonters broadly support offering warm shelter, food, medical assistance, and emergency protection during the coldest months of the year. The issue, raised repeatedly by residents and local officials, centers on what happens when support is offered but refused, and the refusal is followed by behavior that strains public infrastructure and local order.

A System That Offers Choice Without Corresponding Expectations

Vermont maintains an extensive system of emergency services: motel vouchers, shelter beds, warming centers, outreach programs, caseworkers, and medical and mental-health support. These resources are accessible in every county, and participation in nearly all of them is voluntary.

This structure creates a recurring problem every winter. Individuals who decline services — often due to rules involving sobriety, curfews, safety checks, or program expectations — still retain the ability to live outdoors, camp in public and private spaces, and occupy downtown areas with limited enforcement. Municipalities report predictable patterns: encampments along riverbanks, sanitation hazards in parks, repeated petty theft, and open-air drug use in business districts.

Critics argue that the state’s approach functions less like a structured emergency system and more like an “à la carte” menu, where services can be selected or rejected based on preference rather than need. This dynamic places municipalities, first responders, and local businesses in the position of managing the fallout from choices the system does not meaningfully address.

“National sheltering standards—such as the FEMA/Red Cross Shelter Field Guide—require clear rules, behavioral expectations, controlled access, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure safety for residents and the surrounding community.”
—FEMA P-785 Shelter Field Guide

Cost Pressures and Capacity Strain

The scope and cost of Vermont’s homelessness response continue to rise. The January 2025 Point-in-Time count recorded more than 3,300 people experiencing homelessness on a single night, and state data indicates that more than 4,500 cycle through homelessness over the course of a year. Roughly a third remain in the system long-term.

Emergency housing programs cost the state approximately $30+ million annually, with some motel placements exceeding $4,000 per month — more than many Vermonters pay in rent or mortgages. The reliance on temporary motels, scattered warming sites, and multiple overlapping nonprofit efforts creates a fragmented and expensive system that is difficult to scale. Without centralized facilities or long-term stabilization centers, Vermont continues to rely on emergency measures designed for short-term crises rather than long-term patterns.

Local officials note that the current approach has no practical mechanism for distinguishing between individuals who temporarily need help and those who repeatedly decline structured support. As a result, public resources are often consumed by individuals whose long-term patterns neither improve nor stabilize, creating pressure on the very services intended for people seeking to regain footing.

Refusing Help While Remaining in Public Space

A significant point of tension is the link between the right to refuse services and the ongoing ability to remain in sensitive public areas. Under current policy, declining available shelter or treatment does not require relocation, nor does it restrict camping or long-term presence in community spaces.

Residents and local leaders argue that these two rights — refusal of help and unregulated occupation of public land — should not be treated as inseparable. Offering assistance, they say, is an essential public good. But offering help does not imply an obligation to absorb the consequences when assistance is rejected.

Municipalities report that even when warming centers, structured shelters, and treatment options are open and available, some individuals opt to remain outdoors, often in visible or high-impact areas. This dynamic places additional burdens on police, EMS, and business owners, who often become the frontline response to situations that were avoidable had available shelters or services been accepted.

🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁

Questions of Governance, Not Compassion

The concerns emerging across Vermont are not framed around withholding support. Instead, they focus on the responsibilities of state and local governments to maintain public order, protect community spaces, and ensure resources reach those who genuinely seek help.

Local officials describe increasing strain on budgets, downtown districts, and emergency services. Property owners report repeated trespassing, theft, and safety concerns. Police departments note that low-level offenses connected to encampments — including vandalism, disorderly conduct, and drug use — have increased without corresponding enforcement capacity.

A recurring critique is that Vermont’s current policy landscape blurs the line between compassion and permissiveness. When public spaces become de facto encampments, or when private property is repeatedly used without consent, residents see these outcomes not as humanitarian failures but as governance gaps.

Calls for Structured, Centralized Facilities

One proposal gaining traction among policymakers and community members is the creation of county-level community housing campuses. These centralized facilities would provide dormitory-style shelter, food, medical services, detox access, mental-health support, case management, and transportation. The model aims to replace the fragmented network of motels and pop-up warming sites with a predictable, efficient, and accountable system.

Such campuses could also serve dual functions during natural disasters or other large-scale emergencies, expanding Vermont’s capacity to respond quickly while containing costs. The structured environment would allow the state to distinguish between people actively seeking stabilization and those unwilling to participate in basic expectations.

Infrastructure Gaps and the Enforcement Question

Another recurring concern is Vermont’s reduced correctional and psychiatric capacity. With aging jails, limited secure treatment beds, and diversion-focused policy trends, law enforcement has fewer tools to address chronic offenders or individuals whose behavior consistently threatens public safety. Officials argue that without a functional enforcement and stabilization layer, municipalities face an unmanageable cycle of repeat crises.

As winter begins, Vermont confronts familiar pressures without clear answers. The central question remains unresolved: What boundaries should exist when help is offered, declined, and the refusal results in impacts borne by entire communities?

Until those boundaries are defined, and not ignored, the state’s homelessness response will continue to rely on emergency measures, high costs, and systems strained beyond their design.

If you found this information valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Instagram

#fyivt #vthomelessness #vermontpolicy #vermont

Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!

Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!

Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!