Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Steven Farnham, a resident of Plainfield.
According to the Burlington Free Press, Vermont Public Radio raised over a half-million dollars to add to the Vermont Disaster Relief Fund last Tuesday. This is fantastic news, but thought of in another way, it’s as if every Vermonter gave a dollar, which seems like a pretty paltry sum.
Of course every Vermonter didn’t give (in that particular fundraiser), and likely others who did gave extraordinarily generous amounts. My point is, imagine what would happen if every Vermonter gave two, five or 10 dollars? Is there one of us who can honestly say he cannot afford to give such meager sums? And what of VPR? Not to bite the hand that helps, but why only one day of fundraising? Why aren’t they equally as merciful to the listeners in their regular fundraisers?
What if the Legislature imposed a one-time tax on all Vermonters of something between $10 and $100 (depending on income) with flood victims, and those who already donated being exempt? What kind of money would that raise? Given some of the silly and preposterous things our tax money is occasionally spent on, would such a one-time tax be exceedingly unpopular?
Personally, I say that my employment and income situation is a disaster in its own right, but I’d be a liar if I told anyone I can’t afford to give $10. And there are residents of Vermont who’d be lying if they said they couldn’t afford $10,000.
I didn’t think about this until I read Andrew Nemethy’s piece about the Weston Mobile Home Park. According to his article, “[Shaun] Gilpin says stereotypes of mobile home residents ‘are generally unwarranted’ based on his experiences. Many have jobs, as nurses or in construction, or are retired.” Perhaps we should add to this that they (mobile home park residents) pay their taxes, and in times of need, are often the first to offer a helping hand. Yet who is helping them now?
The news is full of reports of how much of Vermont’s touristy areas have been ravaged by the flood. There is copious coverage of politicians rubbernecking around these communities to declare them the obvious disasters they are. Here we are, nearly two and a half weeks after the flood, and this is the first I’ve heard (in the news) about damage to any mobile homes, in a park or otherwise. Are the “stereotypes of mobile home residents” of which Nemethy writes affecting whose damage gets priority coverage in the media? Will the same stereotypes affect who gets priority treatment from the Vermont Disaster Relief Fund?
From the road (Route 12), it is evident that there is damage at the Weston Mobile Home Park, but the extent was not apparent to me until I read Nemethy’s article. You cannot tell from the road that 80 percent of the residents are gone, never to return. Nor can you tell from the road (or Nemethy’s article, for that matter) where they went.
Not all beliefs about mobile homes are stereotypes. For starters, though inexpensive compared to stick-built homes, mobile homes are cheap in both construction and composition to the point that in this writer’s opinion it is amoral to manufacture and sell the things. They give off deadly poisonous gasses when they catch afire, and usually are total losses in the event of fire (or in this case, flood). Though inexpensive to buy, they are not (per square foot) inexpensive to heat or maintain. Indeed, they are the perfect vehicles to exploit low-income individuals, and help prevent same from ever accumulating significant equity in quality living space. They may be useful in certain stop-gap, or emergency, situations, but (again, in this writer’s opinion) a bad long-term investment; indeed they are a poor short-term investment if better options are accessible.
Then there is the issue that some people consider mobile homes to be unsightly and do not want them in their neighborhoods. I doubt the people who live in them concur, but I have never asked them, so I do not know. I will assert that I have never heard that anyone who lost a house to something like a fire, tax sale (or flood), and subsequently moved into a trailer, considered it an improvement.
Suppose that as much of federal aid and the VDRF funds as possible are set aside to help residents in situations like Weston. Maybe VPR and other media outlets would offer to conduct a few more fundraisers? To that, maybe a portion of the one-time tax I mentioned above could be added. And finally, involve Habitat For Humanity, and any other similar organizations available.
All this said, trying mightily to sidestep an Irvingesque quagmire, I propose an idea, which could use the Irene disaster as a catalyst for a positive change that would strike several proverbial avian creatures from flight with a single stroke:
- Help the victims of Weston rather than leave them to fend for themselves.
- Set the victims of Weston up in good quality housing (instead of mobile homes).
- Get the victims of Weston out of harm’s way (the flood plain).
- Eliminate from the landscape a small part of housing inventory that some consider so offensive.
- Enable us to secure some of our least fortunate residents (and likely well-deserving) in better living conditions than before Irene.
I do not know about all wealthy Vermont residents, but I’m sure John Irving would be delighted to give generously to such a cause, given his well-known sentiments on trailer parks.
I can well imagine (and am already dreading) the comments this proposal may elicit from certain quarters, but I offer it with the best of intentions. Make of it what you will.
