Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

thestar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 254 posts

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

#241

Post by pyuser583 »

tfourb wrote: post #240
pyuser583 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does the city owning the land improve things?

private landlords maximize profits or personal utility (if they live in the property themselves). Usually that means creating middle-income detached housing or large apartments with very high rental values or conformant to some idealized middle class image. When housing is tight, it also drives up rents enormously, because landlords will increase rents even if the cost of running the apartments doesn't rise and pocke…

Why not just require landlords to have dedicate units to whatever class they want to favor?

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

#242

Post by mikrl »

i_am_jl wrote: post #187
piva00 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scale... Isn't the USA supposedly federalised states? So each state has a small enough scale to solve its issues, with an added benefit that countries in the EU don't have as easily: a federal government that can work to provide funding, coordination and national-level programs to solve the issues. The closest to that coordination is at the EU level itself which is much more complex and less powerful than the federal…

>So each state has a small enough scale to solve its issues The problem is that states are choosing to address this problem by bussing homeless to other states. This is the primary issue with federalized states, solutions are crafted in the interest of each state, negative externalities be damned. The federal government doesn't have the ability under the constitution to address this problem in any real way. Until it…

> The problem is that states are choosing to address this problem by bussing homeless to other states.

What is stopping EU members from doing the same thing between each other? Why are US states exceptional in this case?

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

#243

Post by danaris »

dazc wrote: post #208
danaris wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds to me like the reason you became homeless was exactly because of housing prices, like the parent said.

The reason I became homeless was because I had to find another home whilst suffering from depression. To cut a long story short, I put off doing what I should have done until it was too late and then made a series of poor decisions. The cost of housing was nothing to do with it, I didn't have a lot of cash available at the time but I know plenty of people who did. My landlord even offered me another place for the sam…

The cost of housing was presumably a major factor in your landlord deciding to sell.

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

#244

Post by dahwolf »

ricardobayes wrote: post #88
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…

Spain also has relatively few homeless, at least compared to some other European countries. They have made it "de facto" legal to break in to an empty, unused home. If you squat a home, proceedings can take years to get you out of there. The only way to get an express eviction is if the owner reports it in the first 72 hours of people moving in. So no wonder you see bars on every single house window and alarms.

That's why in the Netherlands owners of unused buildings often use anti-squad tactics. They let in a legitimate renter in a type of anti-squat deal: rent is low but you can be kicked out at anytime (about 1 month notice).

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

#245

Post by i_am_jl »

mikrl wrote: post #242
i_am_jl wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So each state has a small enough scale to solve its issues The problem is that states are choosing to address this problem by bussing homeless to other states. This is the primary issue with federalized states, solutions are crafted in the interest of each state, negative externalities be damned. The federal government doesn't have the ability under the constitution to address this problem in any real way. Until it…

> The problem is that states are choosing to address this problem by bussing homeless to other states. What is stopping EU members from doing the same thing between each other? Why are US states exceptional in this case?

I don't know that EU members aren't doing the same thing. I'm sure the US isn't the only place this happens.

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

#246

Post by tfourb »

pyuser583 wrote: post #241
tfourb wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

private landlords maximize profits or personal utility (if they live in the property themselves). Usually that means creating middle-income detached housing or large apartments with very high rental values or conformant to some idealized middle class image. When housing is tight, it also drives up rents enormously, because landlords will increase rents even if the cost of running the apartments doesn't rise and pocke…

Why not just require landlords to have dedicate units to whatever class they want to favor?

That’sa possible alternative but the experience here in Germany shows that landlords will use every loophole available to get back to profit maximizing = just rent to upper middle class. Or alternatively they’ll just let low cost units rot away without the required maintenance. The effort to enforce this system is arguably better spend on simply running it yourself.

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

#247

Post by dazc »

danaris wrote: post #243
dazc wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason I became homeless was because I had to find another home whilst suffering from depression. To cut a long story short, I put off doing what I should have done until it was too late and then made a series of poor decisions. The cost of housing was nothing to do with it, I didn't have a lot of cash available at the time but I know plenty of people who did. My landlord even offered me another place for the sam…

The cost of housing was presumably a major factor in your landlord deciding to sell.

He was selling because his wife was divorcing him and claiming half the estate. So yes, even if the house was just worth £1, it was a major factor.

Since you are determined to be right, no matter what, I am going to concede defeat.

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

#248

Post by nerdyadventurer »

moomoo11 wrote: post #217
vidarh wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of the Finnish experience, and plenty of evidence from elsewhere, is that you're far more likely to address drug abuse (yes, the Nordic countries also have drug problems) and other problems once people are housed. The US exceptionalism is almost always a cop-out. For a country that is supposedly so advanced, a shockingly high proportion of Americans seem convinced you can't possibly solve anything.

I think it’s due to the fact that there’s no “honor” system or any homogeneity in the population. I’m a naturalized citizen and US is my one and only home. It’s sad that half the people I meet seem to hate living here and even hate their own country. When I was in Japan there was a massive rainfall and Kyoto station was flooding. I saw a bunch of old people appear out of nowhere wearing bright vests and helping to re…

I am glad you can see values in Asian culture, South and East Asians have respect for others specially elders, parents and take care of them.

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

#249

Post by moomoo11 »

nerdyadventurer wrote: post #248
moomoo11 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s due to the fact that there’s no “honor” system or any homogeneity in the population. I’m a naturalized citizen and US is my one and only home. It’s sad that half the people I meet seem to hate living here and even hate their own country. When I was in Japan there was a massive rainfall and Kyoto station was flooding. I saw a bunch of old people appear out of nowhere wearing bright vests and helping to re…

I am glad you can see values in Asian culture, South and East Asians have respect for others specially elders, parents and take care of them.

I’m Asian too lol

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

#250

Post by pyuser583 »

tfourb wrote: post #246
pyuser583 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just require landlords to have dedicate units to whatever class they want to favor?

That’sa possible alternative but the experience here in Germany shows that landlords will use every loophole available to get back to profit maximizing = just rent to upper middle class. Or alternatively they’ll just let low cost units rot away without the required maintenance. The effort to enforce this system is arguably better spend on simply running it yourself.

I definitely agree there’s a point where it’s easier to run the system directly than to regulate it.

In America, this just isn’t done. I’m trying to think why.

I guess part of the issue is that building/maintaining structures is high risk, while owning land is low risk.

So even if an American city owned lots of land, they would just do a long term lease to a property developer who would take on the risk of developing and maintaining it.

So the tax payers would get revenue, but not be on the book for any losses.

Actually playing the real estate game means making and losing money.

Trump spent decades in real estate, didn’t beat the returns on SP500, and was often bankrupt.

Most citizens don’t want the government engaged in high risk speculation.

I could easily see an American municipality owning lots of land, but not actually developing and maintaining the real estate themselves.

What happens in Germany if real estate falls through?

I had assumed you were Austrian because you mentioned Vienna. Vienna has a reputation for being very affordable, while Berlin is reputed to be expensive. Is that true?

Post reply on HN