Trump’s Homelessness Order Unites Lamont, Housing Advocates

All it took was an executive order from President Donald Trump to align Gov. Ned Lamont with the legislators and housing advocates who are still angry at the governor’s veto of an omnibus housing bill.

They shared a disdain Monday of Trump’s order pushing cities to combat homelessness not by creating housing but with involuntary commitments for drug and mental health treatment.

“President Trump, homelessness is not a crime, not here in Connecticut and not in America,” Lamont said, addressing advocates at the state Capitol. “These folks need help, not handcuffs. These folks need housing, not handcuffs.”

Lamont, a Democrat who has hinted he will seek a third term next year, was rewarded with applause, whoops and a few hard looks from lawmakers who believed the governor fumbled an opportunity to put those words into action.

“We had a bill that did that,” said Rep. Antonio Felipe, D-Bridgeport, the co-chair of the Housing Committee. Felipe said he was optimistic of eventually finding a version acceptable to Lamont.

With his veto in June of House Bill 5002, Lamont sided with suburban opponents and Republican legislators who had urged a veto of the measure as an intrusion into local zoning.

HB 5002 was drawn to address a critical housing shortage by requiring municipalities to set “fair share” goals for affordable housing, prioritizing state aid to communities that build housing, and streamlining approval for so-called “middle housing,” defined as a building with two to nine units.

Lamont said Monday that talks are continuing on a revised version that he hopes could be adopted in a special session anticipated for the fall.

“I want a bill that we can all get behind,” Lamont  said. “We’re working on that every day, and we’re going to get a really good housing bill that has the support of all the people in this room.”

Lamont was among a dozen speakers at a press conference his staff organized Monday in opposition to an executive order signed July 24 by Trump that was cast more as tough law-and-order measure than a solution to root causes of homelessness. Its title: “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets”

“Endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks have made our cities unsafe,” Trump wrote. “The number of individuals living on the streets in the United States on a single night during the last year of the previous administration — 274,224 — was the highest ever recorded.”

The order cites no specific authority for a president to order local police or state agencies to break up homeless encampments or take homeless off the streets.

It states vaguely that the administration will seek “the reversal of Federal or State judicial precedents and the termination of consent decrees that impede the United States’ policy of encouraging civil commitment of individuals with mental illness who pose risks to themselves or the public or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves in appropriate facilities for appropriate periods of time.”

While the Trump administration has slashed spending for drug treatment and is considering more cuts, the executive order promises “technical guidance, grants, or other legally available means, for the identification, adoption, and implementation of maximally flexible civil commitment, institutional treatment, and ‘step-down’ treatment standards.”

State officials and advocates in Connecticut see the order as a dramatic shift from “housing-first” approaches to homelessness popularized during the Obama administration and continued by Trump during his first term, coupled with the availability of support services.

“The executive order would effectively criminalize homelessness and reduce support for incredibly effective programs that use a housing-first model. This does nothing less than suggest lessons from history, science and basic human compassion have been forgotten,” said Nancy Navarretta, the state commissioner of mental health and addiction services.

Jennifer Paradis, the executive director of an anti-poverty program in Milford and co-chair of CT CAN End Homelessness, suggested there was more to the issue than denouncing Trump.

“Homelessness is not criminal. Seeking community is not criminal. Poverty is not a crime. But let me be clear: Connecticut can do better, and we will,” Paradis said.

“We have led our country in this work for many, many years, and now it is time to do it again, compassionately and collaboratively.”

Paradis, who glanced over her shoulder at Lamont at one point during her remarks, said relief to homelessness is in state hands.

“This is the moment in which we must maximize leverage for decriminalizing homelessness and funding services —”

Applause drowned out the rest of her sentence.

“To me, moments like this are not the work, all right? But it sets the tone for how we work moving forward,” Paradis said. “We know what we need. We know that homeless services are impactful but sorely under resourced. We know that housing ends homelessness, and we know that we will not stand for the slander, hateful and harmful policy that is this executive order.”

Thomas Burr, a Connecticut representative of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, said the state has been a leader on fighting homelessness and providing mental health services.

“The previous administration of Gov. [Dannel P. ] Malloy, specifically, made significant investments in supportive housing, which was really a great thing to do, and we certainly celebrate that,” Burr said. “We celebrate the fact that Connecticut, back in 2015, was the first state to end chronic homelessness for veterans. That was huge.”

Burr, the father of a son who was homeless long ago as a consequence of mental illness, counseled against the president’s push for a greater reliance on involuntary treatment.

“Coercive treatment of any form is often traumatizing and counterproductive,” Burr said. “My son experienced this, and I have talked to more people who have had mental health and/or substance use issues who have found forced treatment to absolutely sour them on a medical model of treatment that has just delayed their paths of recovery.”

U.S. Reps. John B. Larson, D-1st District, and Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, and U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal also attended, emphasizing the immediate threat was from funding cuts that Trump can impose, not a directive to detain the homeless.

“This executive order is not law,” Blumenthal said. “It’s an edict from a lawless president.”

CT Mirror reporter Ginny Monk contributed to this report.

This article first appeared on CT Mirror and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

0
Share

4 comments

  1. Click count for OIB,

    Wait, what?

    State officials and advocates in Connecticut see the order as a dramatic shift from “housing-first” approaches to homelessness popularized during the Obama administration and continued by Trump during his first term, coupled with the availability of support services.

    That’s over 17 years, and I would assume that governmental mind-set approach to combating homelessness adhered to Bush and Clinton years in office, perhaps beyond the dog days afternoon.

    “To me, moments like this are not the work, all right? But it sets the tone for how we work moving forward,” Paradis said. “We know what we need. We know that homeless services are impactful but sorely under-resourced. We know that housing ends homelessness, and we know that we will not stand for the slander, hateful and harmful policy that is this executive order.”

    Of course, housing ends homelessness. Someone who has housing, a roof over their head is technically not homeless, if it’s under their control. Meaning not living with someone under their roof. Perhaps a larger portion of homelessness in America is due to substance and mental illness/challenge, that creates challenges beyond hosing supply and is tied into work/financials, No?

    Shit- homelessness itself is a mental induced illness. Try it, people, officials, advocates, interventionists Try to understand that mental mind-fuck of such a thing. No matter how hard you try to work at keeping roof over your head. Let’s see how such a thing can affect life decision making/path.

    The best trick the Devil ever did was make people believe it didn’t exist, so the story goes, always rational, well, when needed I guess. Hooray for your side/team, prophet, etc.. right?

    Can’t really speak on the extinct of such shifting approaches to combated homelessness that’s in Trump’s executive order, however in such of a sociopath governmental approach where words don’t seem to match sentiment and providing tents and perhaps a bridge to rest their head under is a measure to combat homelessness as care for those with one’s mental state/illness without a roof over their head may come off as disingenuous. SMFH.

    I am sure Burr, the father of a son who was homeless long ago as a consequence of mental illness, who counseled against the president’s push for a greater reliance on involuntary treatment may be his sentiment. But if his son was homeless, it is fair to say, unless Burr himself was homeless, he didn’t allow/provide his roof over his son’s head, no?

    Not judging his reasoning, his son being homeless, or his mental abilities to not provide a roof over his head. However, I would bet, anyone who has seen/lived/loved/cared for a person with mental illness, particularly substance drug abuse that has gotten so far gone, would rather see whatever it takes handcuffs as an effort, or any voluntary or involuntary program, in the hopes to help them beat taht “illness” to get clean and their life back on track to self sustainability, no? Not a way to continue such destructive behavior as a means of caring, helping such situations/mental illnesses.

    Considering jail is involuntary and consists of a large portion of incarcerations. My guess is a strong, effective “involuntary” treatment/program, “prison sentence/program, No?

    What say you WEEP. What is/would/have been better for your life existence. To be free for drugs abuse by whatever means necessary or the government providing you a safe play to continue, even supply it? (full disclosure this analogy is based on I believe WEEP was lost in that drug world and found his way out/back)

    Just a thought, if a person has a mental illness, and is homeless, wouldn’t that be a harm to themselves? Clearly, they don’t have the capacity to care for themself to a point they don’t/can’t provide a have roof over their head do to a mental illness that require interventions? I mean clearly intervention is needed or we/you/advocates/programs/interventionist wouldn’t be having this topic of discussion. So it is fair to say it’s the debate on what involuntary intervention measures are provided. JS

    That being said, while providing a home is by definition, the end one’s homelessness, for whatever mental reason. It is safe to say if you are homeless, particularly to mental/substance drug abuse. They don’t have a job, people.

    Not having a job or being able to work, or even having to pay most of your work income to just being to provide a roof over your head is a completely different matter, where supply is an issues. Thus goes to the term “affordability”. How if you the term “mental illness” is associate with one’s reason of being homelessness supply is disingenuous to the reasonable for their homelessness and any real solution to their state of mind that leads/led them to not having a homelessness.

    That being said, these entire press release/thread/discussion is “disingenuous” in nature. But what do you expect for political sociopaths. 🙂

    What say you Black Jesus? Is this debate on homeless, mental illness, and affordable housing ‘disingenuous” as Taste the Movement, Breath of Fresh Air. 🤣

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZeglDVqnNA

    0
  2. If you don’t have a job, financial mean how are you supposed to maintain a home/housing, a roof over your head, food, and everything that goes with self-reliance, “mental illness” or not?

    IDK, people, Sometimes the words don’t match the sentiment in this Political sociopathic game y’all got going on. Sure it seems rationally to y’all based on your coded side you find you self-on and the sociographical words/action, though you know when you turn that blind eye, but some side seem to be not providing/don’t do their “Job” I would think. 🙂

    You know what the real problem is here people, outside of your political sociopathic elected officials, You have to find that happy medium. 🤣

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=563zmSOcajY

    Beijing, the Port is still waiting on the cuddly pandas. 🙂

    It’s like Prego, People, it’s in there. its delicious. 🤣 Good Luck

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J87QekxQVI

    0

Leave a Reply