Punching Down: County Cuts Funds to Hospitality House
At the May 20, 2025 County Commission meeting, I learned of the plan to cut $10,000 of annual funding for the Hospitality House from the county budget. Let me stress that this information was not in the original budget proposal shared two weeks before the public hearing, but in a brief notice added at the last minute.
A few of the public hearing speakers commented on this lack of transparency. As someone who tries to observe as many commission meetings as she can, I realized that the budget meeting dates were not posted on the website--that I only learned of the meetings when the county manager quietly mentioned them at the May 6th County Commission meeting. These meetings were held May 8 and 9, so I was unable to attend all of them due to the late notice and lack of transparency. Given that it was these meetings where the Commissioners made what they described on June 3 as "hard decisions," it bothers me even more that it was so difficult for the public to witness the reasoning behind those decisions.
At the hearing, Ben Henderson, Donna Lisenby, Tina Krause, Matt Webb, and Diane Nilan spoke eloquently in support of Hospitality House at the public hearing. I also want to pause here to celebrate this data point: last year, 247 people moved from homelessness to housing through the work of the Hospitality House. Securing stable housing is a challenge even in the best of circumstances, and the people served by the Hospitality House face daunting combinations of challenges, the odds lining up against them in ways that make this result almost a miracle. I wished we could have all stood and cheered at that point. In a year that has been full of bad news, of national cuts to programs that provide food to hungry people here in Watauga County, cuts to research and programs that prevent the spread of disease...(I could go on), here is one bright spot to hold onto, evidence of the radical idea that positive outcomes are possible.
I want to focus, though, on the implications of this budget change and the statements by two County Commissioners in defense of eliminating this funding.
1. Stated concern one: It creates a financial burden in terms of police/fire/rescue calls
Here is how Commissioner Marsh responded to those who spoke at the hearing. To be clear, he spoke sympathetically, even saying, "We'll never discount this growing issue." He said they had to balance costs given these numbers of combined police/fire/rescue calls: 144 to the Hannah building, 103 to the Health and Hunger coalition, and 673 to the Hospitality House.
Before I share my response to this argument, let me now share Commissioner Castle's response, which was more revealing:
2. Stated concern two: It's not as safe as it used to be.
Commissioner Castle said he and his family used to volunteer to serve meals, but it has changed. He said that on a recent walk-through with Commissioner Eggers, someone threatened to stab him.
3. Stated concern three: People come from all over to use this service.
"I'm all about helping local homeless families," Castle said, but per police reports, he claimed many have come from outside of the county and state.
My responses to #1. 1.A. The evidence does not support claims that the county currently cannot afford this funding.
This claim is that the $10,000 contribution to the Hospitality House must be cut to accommodate the increased costs the county has to pay for police/fire/rescue calls. Yet the original balanced budget proposal included the $10,000, plus brand new funding of $50,000 to another private organization, as well as an increase of $546,769 for the Sheriff's department, an extra $795,000 for an additional ambulance crew, and capital investments to the tune of $4 million a year for the emergency services and communications. The board chose to make a special effort to cut the $10,000, not because they had to. Indeed, like salt to the wound, they followed up in the June 3 meeting with an additional change to take $8,000 from the fund balance for a needed expense in another department. That is, with annual revenue of over $87 million, plus a fund balance of over $27 million, adding or cutting $10,000 is not a financial decision: it's a political statement.
It is fine to say, as they had the audacity to mention at the June 3 meeting, that with the high costs of Helene, they need to be cautious in funding commitments (audacious because the money they were discussing is currently reimbursable from federal funds, and if those funds are suddenly taken away, $10,000 won't make a dent).
As the speakers mentioned, the county funding helps them prove they have community support when they apply for grants. If funds are tight (though that's not what the budget reveals), then cutting rather than eliminating the fund might make sense. Eliminating the funding completely is, as I said, a political statement, a way for the county commission to attack, as surreal as it sounds, our local homeless shelter. And this, just nine months after Hurricane Helene taught us all that permanent shelter isn't always permanent.
My response 1.B. Cutting funding to the shelter will not address the problem of increased calls to emergency services.
I let the insincerity of the financial argument distract me from the larger argument, so I hope you're still reading. If you are concerned that there are too many emergency calls to the homeless shelter, I don't understand how cutting funding would change that. If anything, making the shelter more strapped for cash could lead to more problems, not fewer. Further, if the shelter starts turning away the people that the commissioners consider unworthy of support, that doesn't mean the people, and whatever struggles they carry with them, vanish, but it may mean that these emergency calls will come from all over the county rather than one main location where there is a chance to make a change (see above data on people moving from homelessness to housing).
Am I dreaming here, or shouldn't the goal be to figure out how to manage the challenges? I don't have firsthand knowledge of the challenges they face, either the shelter or the emergency services, but it is hard to imagine that cutting funding will make those challenges disappear. It seems likely this move could make things worse during a time when things are already getting worse as prices climb higher and higher and support services are cut (including the proposed cut to SNAP in the House reconciliation budget). Starving more people and refusing them safe shelter and access to support services...doesn't make sense to me.
The first argument is not supported by the evidence, but it's 1000% more reasonable than the ones provided by Commissioner Castle.
My response to 2. If the shelter isn't as safe as it used to be, then that's a case for more support, not less.
I just want to talk for a minute about the disturbing story that someone threatened to stab the commissioners during a walkthrough of the facility. I keep considering this. First, if this threat was genuine, I hope the commissioners did what anyone would do in this situation: Exercise their already existing legal rights to call the police and press charges.
And also, does the fact that someone commits a crime or utters threats near or around an agency mean that funding for that agency should be cut? As a parent, I frequently gritted my teeth in fear when I got yet another call from the high school alert system that the school was in lockdown due to some kind of threat. Yet it wouldn’t make sense to cut funding to the mission of teaching because of these threats. And if you'd like a list of places where people haven't been safe due to actual gun violence, that would include churches, synagogues, public and private universities, high schools, elementary schools, preschools, open-air concerts, movie theaters, parades, neighborhoods, homes, etc. Outside these shelters, you may see more people struggling, but at least there, they have help within reach.
Also, I really want to know if this threat was genuine or was this clearly a symptom of someone dealing with a challenge such as untreated mental health or substance abuse problems? Did the Commissioners perceive that person as making a conscious choice to threaten them? This was such a negative story to tell, attempting to place shame somehow on the individuals involved, even the committed professionals and volunteers who work for the shelter. Yet failure to address challenges related to mental health and/or substance abuse is not a failure of an individual but a national shame stemming from our inability to recognize that health is a public concern that requires a comprehensive public plan, not a private profit system that leaves too many people to struggle and die.
I recognize and am grateful that the county commission budget approved on June 3 provided funding and/or supported grants for many public services that address related challenges, but this should make the commissioners more aware of what is at stake. The state of funding for services for vulnerable and struggling people is piecemeal and unpredictable, and such services are limited in what they can do and how. Too often, only the squeaky wheels get any help, while others suffer in silence, assuming that they are "unworthy."
And finally, I want to address the argument that made it hard for me to write this report because my eyes kept popping out of my head, and everything came out in all caps, exclamation marks, and angry emojis. Still, I'm going to take a breath and give it a try.
3. Claiming we can only help "local families" creates an us vs. them distinction that is a) false, b) disrespectful/ungrateful, and c) inoperable to the point of meaninglessness.
So first, let me explain how this is false, that is, the idea that Watauga County is made up of locals who pay all the taxes and they are being taken advantage of by master criminals coming from scary-sounding places like (eye roll) Chicago to… let me get this straight, take advantage of our local homeless shelter?
I reject absolutely the idea that it can ever be wrong for someone to need and use a homeless shelter. This is a bare minimum of support, one that carries with it the potential for positive change. It doesn't matter why someone comes to the shelter--it is a win-win to have this service as a flexible and open system to connect people in need to help. Period.
Next, let's unpack the implication that our county funds are "from locals and for locals." What do you mean by local? This term is inoperable to the point of meaninglessness. How long does someone have to be in the county to be local? Does the person have to be a homeowner? (In which case, you need to cut funding to every other agency, including the sheriff's, because they do not limit their services to the fortunate few who own their own homes). Ok, not homeowners, but people who have lived here...how long? How long is long enough to be local? I moved here at 18 months old, and now, fifty-plus years later, I will always be a stranger. I know for many in our local Republican Party, coming here to attend the university makes you definitely Not Local and Not Deserving of a Vote, even though this, too, doesn't make any sense. Not only do most students live here for four or more years, but also they are in many ways the lifeblood of our economy, contributing as much if not more than anyone you might call “local.” They deserve a say and support as much as anyone else. And what if you move here to work for a local company? Are you still not local, even though your work is needed? Tell that to the people you are struggling to recruit and retain for specific county jobs. The bottom line is that you could not successfully run any county services if you strive to limit your focus to whoever it is you consider "local.”
Next, let me talk about the disrespectful and ungrateful part of this.
46.95% or around 45 million dollars of county revenue comes from property taxes. Though I am from Boone, I am part of the Blowing Rock Persisters and know many who live in Blowing Rock have seasonal homes here and elsewhere. Does that mean they don't count? The county thinks they count when it comes time to pay taxes, right? In fact, if you were to do a search, I suspect many of those paying property taxes throughout the county don't live here year round, if at all. And many of the full-time residents paying taxes do not come from families who have lived in the county for generations.
Next, around 20 million in revenue comes from local sales taxes, a significant portion of which comes from (drumroll) tourists, who by definition are NOT LOCAL. Shall we tell them, when we tell them that the high country is open for business, that they can come shop here, but they better not need any help or fall on hard times?
That's the disrespectful part. The ungrateful part is that I still remember what happened here last September and October. Hurricane Helene hit in September, and do you know what happened in October and beyond? People from all over the country asked how to help. Some people showed up and wandered around looking for ways to help, to the point that public officials had to ask people to hold off for a little while because we had more donations than we could put to good use in our county and other areas needed it more. None of the people behind this outpouring of goodwill and support said, “Oh, sorry, we aren't local to Watauga County so we don't care about you and your hurricane problems.”
You will perhaps not be surprised that I have only written half of what I think, but I will share this one final note. For some reason, in our culture we act as if individuals who experience hardship should feel shame. No one is perfect, but that's true of the people who experience privilege and good fortune, too. But why is the burden of shame placed so heavily on those who are struggling, and not on the rest of us for failing to support systems that could help?
I wrote in the last commission report about my deep commitment to ethics, that you do the right thing even when no one is watching. Now I want to mention the apparently outdated concept that it is unworthy to punch down, to attack those who are in more vulnerable or weaker positions. That's why jokes about vulnerable people are shameful--because the comedian is punching down at someone weaker rather than punching up at someone who can more easily defend themselves.
It's a distinction that has gotten lost of late or has been attacked in bad faith as censorship. It's not censorship to tell someone that what they've done is ugly, rude, or hurtful.
When I first started observing this gerrymandered county commission, I didn't know what to expect. I have been mostly relieved that they seem rational and unlikely to behave the way some in the Congress or the NC legislature do. But now, I will never forget that they were the ones who chose to punch down, taking away funding from those who have the least.
--------------
You can find more reports on commission meetings at our main site Monitoring the Watauga County Commission.