Project HOPE

Opposed Project HOPE and any use of opioid settlement dollars for it, and urged the council to just vote it down.

Questioned the shifting funding mix and whether opioid dollars require a documented opioid connection; asked if vouchers would go to Bangor Housing properties.

Supported Project HOPE itself but agreed opioid settlement funds should not pay for it.

Detailed unresolved questions about the committee process, housing locations, and the 63/63 funding split, and asked the council to vote no.

Demanded measurable outcomes, financial breakdowns, and proof of the Portland model's success before funding the program.

Said the council keeps 'beating a dead horse' sending items to committees that don't move them forward.

Argued housing first doesn't work, pushed treatment first and a Dorothy Dix connection, and urged a no vote.

Landlord who supported postponement to address funding concerns, though she loathed the delay with winter coming.

Supported housing help but opposed using $126,000 of opioid settlement funds; questioned pilot sustainability.

Asked for goals in writing, questioned pilot performance measures, and urged the council to let another community host the program.

Asked where Project HOPE apartments and landlords are, questioned general assistance cost-sharing with surrounding towns, and said Bangor is not the bank.

Said he changed his mind and opposed the funding over sustainability, warning one-time dollars become permanent tax burdens.

Landlord who described costly unit damage and urged due diligence on tenant selection and landlord partnerships before funding.

Supported housing navigation generally but insisted the match not come from opioid settlement funds, which should fund recovery-specific programs.

Said it's a pilot being adopted as if proven; asked for the five-year plan, housing-duration data, and answers before spending — citing ARPA and bathroom money as prior mistakes.

Reiterated that wages aren't keeping up with housing and food costs, and again urged higher taxation of major corporations.

Opposed more opioid settlement funding, worried taxpayers will inherit the costs, and asked what accountability requirements — sobriety, employment efforts — participants must meet, citing a stabbing on the Riverwalk.

An unidentified remote commenter briefly questioned the $300,000 figure and compared it to spending in New York City and the Michael J. Fox Foundation before being cut off.

Asked whether apartments funded through Project HOPE would be inspected so they aren't destroyed like the Ramada, warning $300,000 is a lot of money without monitoring.

Fully supported Project HOPE but opposed funding it with one-time opioid settlement dollars, saying that creates a predictable financial cliff and that over half a million settlement dollars have already been absorbed into city operations.

Opposed giving the Public Health Department any more opioid settlement money, noting $550,000 already spent on HIV case management hasn't reduced the outbreak, which now counts 45 confirmed cases.

Ran through a list of unanswered questions: where are the apartments, who are the landlords, who pays general assistance for out-of-town placements, and what happens when funding runs out — calling for a long-term strategic plan before any dollar is spent.

Said he lives next to the Schoolhouse Apartments supportive-housing project and is being pushed out because promised services never materialized — doors unlocked, cameras useless, drug use in the building.

Called Project HOPE the missing middle between homeownership assistance and street-level costs, and urged passage with winter coming.

A public health professor, thanked the council for consulting experts and urged the use of evidence-based methods in spending decisions.