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

Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

oecdecoscope.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 660 posts

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#321

Post by epistasis »

tlogan wrote: post #318

I wanted to point out that the approach adopted by Finland may not be suitable for the United States. Finland has a population of only 5.6 million—less than two-thirds of the Bay Area—so their solutions, unfortunately, may not scale effectively in a larger, more complex environment. The other - even more important issue with all these approaches, however, lies in treating all homeless individuals as a single category…

Why would they not scale? We have more people, more capacity to build, and greater opportunities for economies of scale.

Every homeless person, regardless of mental state, still needs housing. It is the one unifying aspect of homelessness.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#322

Post by _zjuf »

thePhytochemist wrote: post #50

This issue is very relevant for me since I have been homeless since May. It's been a bad run of being a target of criminal activity, unemployment and just running out of money during my job search. I cope with a mix of volunteering, overpriced housing (think $1200/month for a room in a rural area before I ran out of money for that), catsitting, house-sitting, staying with family and sleeping in my ancient car. Althou…

I'm confused about how you haven't been able to find a job. I'm a student in Ontario and have received multiple job offers. They're not great jobs (fast food, warehouse work, etc.), but it's better than having no job at all. Everyone I know has also been able to get offers for low skill jobs as well.

How have you not been able to get even a low-skill minimum wage job despite searching since May? I'm not trying to insult you or anything, just trying to understand your situation.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#323

Post by tlogan »

epistasis wrote: post #321
tlogan wrote: post #318

I wanted to point out that the approach adopted by Finland may not be suitable for the United States. Finland has a population of only 5.6 million—less than two-thirds of the Bay Area—so their solutions, unfortunately, may not scale effectively in a larger, more complex environment. The other - even more important issue with all these approaches, however, lies in treating all homeless individuals as a single category…

Why would they not scale? We have more people, more capacity to build, and greater opportunities for economies of scale. Every homeless person, regardless of mental state, still needs housing. It is the one unifying aspect of homelessness.

> Why would they not scale?

Due to the complexity and diversity in economic, cultural, and social value networks. For example, the approach which is working for Modesto will probably not work for San Francisco.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#324

Post by lostlogin »

brailsafe wrote: post #283
lostlogin wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The continual drive for growth is a problem though. By definition it isn’t sustainable, yet we keep adding, consuming, growing.

Why is a drive for growth bad? Seems like the double-speak of saying growth is bad while happily profiting off of and simultaneously restricting it is whats bad. Growing up in a prairie city I heard this sentiment from people who simply don't like other people constantly, and I'm like "When did you try growing, you stagnant deteriorated shithole!?", and sprawl doesn't count. They hate ambition, they hate people, they…

A lot of what you say here I agree with. I'm not sure that I'd define maintenance of infrastructure as growth though, and I too hate sprawl. Growing the economy is great, but only if done in such a way that it's sustainable. Growth or death is too simplistic, perfectly captured by the grandparent comment. Bringing in immigrants to generate growth when you can't house the current population seems crazy. Things don't have to get bigger to be successful. You could make a business and have zero employees and make a living. Does it need to be a massive company that's growing? There is always a limit, and something will eventually prevent growth, so why does it have to be an external force?

Where I am we are trashing the waterways and the land in pursuit of money. You can't swim in most our rivers anymore - the recent numbers look good though, as the government redefined 'swimmable' and now it's 'safe', despite the contaminants. https://www.nzgeo.com/stories/explainer-new-swimmable-water-...

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#325

Post by bdowling »

epistasis wrote: post #321
tlogan wrote: post #318

I wanted to point out that the approach adopted by Finland may not be suitable for the United States. Finland has a population of only 5.6 million—less than two-thirds of the Bay Area—so their solutions, unfortunately, may not scale effectively in a larger, more complex environment. The other - even more important issue with all these approaches, however, lies in treating all homeless individuals as a single category…

Why would they not scale? We have more people, more capacity to build, and greater opportunities for economies of scale. Every homeless person, regardless of mental state, still needs housing. It is the one unifying aspect of homelessness.

Homeless people want to live in cities, for all the reasons other people want to live in cities. In cities, affordable housing is extremely expensive. For example, in Santa Monica, California, an affordable housing project can cost over $1 million per unit.

https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/Ne...

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#326

Post by marnett »

timewizard wrote: post #294
gotoeleven wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about babies and children? What about enfeebled old people? Clearly some people can't take care of themselves. Presumably you don't think babies and alzheimers patients should be left to roam free. Why are severely mentally ill people any different?

Is there something unreasonable or discriminatory in taking care of children and elderly in need? I'm not sure what I said that would lead you to this uncharitable conclusion. Of course I don't think they should "roam free," but that doesn't mean I think your comparison is fair. Are mentally ill people automatically feeble to the point of requiring full guardianship? If you're not quite sure what I'm getting at then…

We aren’t talking about one flew over the cuckoos nest here.

We’re talking about people walking around shoeless covered in dirt and open sores talking to themselves or screaming obscenities in public while walking into traffic. They are public safety risks - to the community and themselves. Not to mention it truly is inhumane to let them live like this.

You have to realize in threads like this you are likely talking to people that live in a community plagued by this extreme of circumstances. Living in San Francisco I saw what I just described just this afternoon outside my own window…

Are you suggesting state guardianship is not warranted in situations like I have mentioned above? Or are you just not aware that in many US cities things truly are this bad?

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#327

Post by friend_Fernando »

tlogan wrote: post #318

I wanted to point out that the approach adopted by Finland may not be suitable for the United States. Finland has a population of only 5.6 million—less than two-thirds of the Bay Area—so their solutions, unfortunately, may not scale effectively in a larger, more complex environment. The other - even more important issue with all these approaches, however, lies in treating all homeless individuals as a single category…

> such as former convicts, individuals with substance abuse issues, those with mental health challenges, people who lost jobs or income, refugees, and more

The one thing they all have in common is how much more expensive it is to house them than it used to be.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#328

Post by epistasis »

lostlogin wrote: post #320
epistasis wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to house the people we have is in no way a "drive for growth".

The context was that immigration was being encouraged, while not having enough housing. Immigration being used to fuel growth. Housing the people is great, but encouraging immigration while being unable to house the current population is not.

That's at best a less-than-complete view of immigration.

For immigrants themselves, it is usually an issue of self-determination and freedom.

I can't say I'm fully privy to the immigration debate in Canada, but framing it as an issue of "growth" could not be a complete view of the advocates of immigration. Especially with the level of acceptance of refugees in Canada.

The not enough housing aspect is completely incidental to immigration. In my city, the overriding reason that we have not built enough housing for even our own children is that people show up to block any environmentally friendly housing proposal, largely arguing against growth. In other words, using the framework you are right now! And it's a rather twisted version of the "we can't have growth" framework because it ignores the underlying reason for not allowing growth: environmental sustainability. So instead, the only housing that gets built is the most environmentally disastrous type of housing: sprawl far away from the locations where people need to be for their jobs and everyday life, causing massive environmental destruction.

I would argue that there are few more counterproductive ways to talk about the environment than to bring up a "need for growth." First of all almost nobody actually cares that much about growth in 2025 and secondly it has disastrous consequences when the rubber meets the road.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#329

Post by epistasis »

bdowling wrote: post #325
epistasis wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they not scale? We have more people, more capacity to build, and greater opportunities for economies of scale. Every homeless person, regardless of mental state, still needs housing. It is the one unifying aspect of homelessness.

Homeless people want to live in cities, for all the reasons other people want to live in cities. In cities, affordable housing is extremely expensive. For example, in Santa Monica, California, an affordable housing project can cost over $1 million per unit. https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/Ne...

The reason it's expensive is or because the US is bigger. It's because the people in cities want to keep people out so they make it very expensive. Which in turn fuels homelessness.

The desire to exclude, the refusal to permit enough housing, and the rejection of density are the fundamental cause.

The scale of the US has nothing to do with it. It's merely a cultural choice by a prior generation that younger generations have not yet been able to overrule. But they will.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#330

Post by wpm »

bdowling wrote: post #325
epistasis wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they not scale? We have more people, more capacity to build, and greater opportunities for economies of scale. Every homeless person, regardless of mental state, still needs housing. It is the one unifying aspect of homelessness.

Homeless people want to live in cities, for all the reasons other people want to live in cities. In cities, affordable housing is extremely expensive. For example, in Santa Monica, California, an affordable housing project can cost over $1 million per unit. https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/Ne...

They don't cost $1M a unit just because. The article you posted highlights a number of reasons it was as expensive as it was, many of them policy choices that could be undone with the stroke of a pen and a round of votes. There is nothing about building housing in cities that makes it that expensive other than the regulations, many of which could use a re-think or a re-scope.

Otherwise, what's Finland's secret? Are they building houses for the homeless in the middle of nowhere? How do they manage to build public housing in the city without it ballooning into a $1M per unit boondoggle?

Post reply on HN