Given a place to live, Finland’s homeless were better able to deal with problems

Post by everybodyknows » Fri, May 05, 2023, 6:18 PM UTC

ricardobayes wrote: post #148

tfourb wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all the same in Germany, but even as a property owner, I see some justification for effectively legalizing squatting in unused buildings. It would create some incentive for property owners to invest and rent out buildings, or otherwise sell them cheaply. Ideally this would be formalized and matched with a proper framework, i.e. municipalities can easily buy unused properties at a nominal cost, property owners…

That's exactly what they are trying to do. With the new law signed recently, they are increasing the yearly tax heavily on unused properties.

Post by seanmcdirmid » Fri, May 05, 2023, 6:23 PM UTC

deanc wrote: post #99

jillesvangurp wrote: post #19

I lived in Finland for a while. Being homeless in that country is pretty hard core in the winter. Which is a reason that sheltering people there is not a nice to have; you either shelter them or you collect their dead bodies in the morning. It's that simple. Places like Helsinki never had a large community of homeless people to begin with (natural selection). But it has plenty of social issues of course. Alcoholism i…

This is a nuanced issue and I agree with what you wrote. I live in Finland. Some additional thoughts: - The scale of social problems in the US is on a whole other level. More people requires bigger solutions. - The state vs government system in the US means it's every state for themselves when solving social issues. This is seen in states actively shipping homeless people to warmer climate states in order to make the…

Post by tfourb » Fri, May 05, 2023, 8:02 PM UTC

pyuser583 wrote: post #227

tfourb wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good housing first programs do not cluster beneficiaries but try to integrate them into "normal" neighborhoods and provide them with ongoing support by social workers, medical attention, etc. Just dumping a couple of dozen homeless people in a motel is not a great way to approach this, I agree.

NY requires low income housing to be distributed among middle-class neighborhoods. It’s helpful, but creates massive backlogs. Plenty of homeless people are on waiting lists. It makes it impossible to convert money into housing. You have to wait until you find a vacancy in middle class neighborhood. They can’t just buy a place and put people there - which is how housing usually works.

Post by usernew » Fri, May 05, 2023, 8:49 PM UTC

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #108

usernew wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Here, have a fun read. This is what happens literally every time it's tried. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/homeless-hotels- ... The difference is the Finnish scheme is getting people into their own homes, fairly well distributed across society - not beds in hostels/shelters or low quality apartments in sink estates.

Post by pyuser583 » Fri, May 05, 2023, 9:12 PM UTC

tfourb wrote: post #235

pyuser583 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NY requires low income housing to be distributed among middle-class neighborhoods. It’s helpful, but creates massive backlogs. Plenty of homeless people are on waiting lists. It makes it impossible to convert money into housing. You have to wait until you find a vacancy in middle class neighborhood. They can’t just buy a place and put people there - which is how housing usually works.

Why can't they? Municipality-owned housing is a thing in many places around the world and is generally cost-covering even when rented out to low-income housesholds. In many places (i.e. Germany and Austria), even some of the most desirable middle-income housing is owned by local governments so it's nothing that has to come with stigma attached to it. Housing always needs planning permission and that is something loca…