Why Hotels Aren't Suitable Housing

There are as many reasons a hotel makes a bad dwelling for a family as there are hotels. They're crowded. They're expensive. Often, they don't have kitchens for cooking. Constantly rotating neighbors can include criminals and sex offenders. It's not an address someone can put on a job application. There's no access to social workers or other support staff.

Here's a new one: when hotels are treated as homes, they become dangerous. A fire at a Quality Inn in Springfield, Massachusetts this week threatened to make dozens of homeless people ... well, even more homeless. The fire started when some longtime residents tried to rig up a mini-kitchen and start cooking. (Small fires are often a symptom of poverty. Since the recession began, there has been an increase in the number of house fires caused by people using unsafe heaters or candles to heat their homes after their utilities were shut off.)

In recent months there have been even worse tragedies at other local hotels that are housing families. Last June a baby was abandoned at the Welcome Inn. And in February, a three-year-old accidentally killed his newborn brother when they were left alone in a room at the Clarion Hotel. These families shouldn't be in hotels for the long haul. Homelessness is no vacation.

This should be an issue where homeless advocates and stingy social services-haters agree. Hotels cost more than shelters and shelters cost more than apartments. In Massachusetts, the state is spending $2,500 per family per month for hotel stays. Placement in a more sustainable apartment (with a kitchen) would be cheaper; fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Springfield is $922. Even the least empathetic of politicians should be swayed by the bloated price tag.

Photo credit: Mykl Roventine