Live data from Hacker News

Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

oecdecoscope.blog

421–430 of 660 posts

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#421
post #402
post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet most large cities have sections of it that are in total blight with abandoned homes, with windows blown out or plywood covering access holes to prevent intruders. Much of the problem is that the bourgeois class wants to live in the popular neighborhood, bidding up rents and values in isolated sections of large cities. Meanwhile, large chunks of cities have relatively affordable, but not as attractive neighbor…

Here in Berkeley and other SF Bay Area cities, we have imposed an "Empty Home Tax" [0][1] at some $ and % per year. As a proponent, I figured it would incentivize people to either rent or sell their unused properties which will house people and get rid of blight. Neither has happened much and these owners just take the hit. Housing as a speculative asset has some pretty terrible consequences. [0] https://www.berkeley…

> Neither has happened much and these owners just take the hit

Then they're too low. It's impossible there exist no X and Y where at $X and Y% this would make them sell.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#422
post #220

They also do a lot of compulsory psychiatric detention: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychiatric-bulletin... > Finnish mental health legislation takes a medical approach to compulsory measures, emphasising the need for treatment of psychiatric patients over civil liberties concerns... Finland has the highest rates of detention per 100 000 inhabitants, about 214 compared with 93 in the UK and 11 in Italy. >…

"Finland has the highest rates of detention per 100 000 inhabitants, about 214 compared with 93 in the UK ..." Wow those numbers seem high if they're counting unique people and not admissions and re-admisisons.

It’s 966 in Florida

https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ps.201900477

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#423

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…

This point of yours resonates with me (paraphrased): if we assume that inaction is not an option, the conversation can progress to solutions.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#425
post #192
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming others share your perspective and understanding. > The transition to using the word "homeless" has resulted in transforming something we can't easily measure -- "drug addicted or mentally ill people being a public menace" -- into something that we can measure -- "people without a good living arrangement". > the former is the actual problem that we care about The word homeless is pretty old, not someth…

> I spend a lot of time in cities and know others who do too. None feel menaced by people who are unhoused - why would that be menacing? - or high. High people generally don't know you are there, and are easily avoided. I've had zero problems; I don't know of anyone else who has This is completely detached from reality. I find it hard to believe you are being truthful unless you're doing some sort of gotcha where you…

Whether the very real fear of the homeless/mentally ill/drug addicted is justified and rational is a big elephant in the room.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a bit of nuance to this. The UK also has about 500 or so homeless people per 100000 inabitants. In the US the number of people in prisons is about that number per 100K. On top of their huge homeless problem. There is the brutal reality that the climate in Finland and being homeless are not a great combination in the winter. And the summers are short. Getting people off the streets saves lives. If it'…

> If it's -20 during the night you can either lock people up or collect their corpses in the morning. Or put floor heating under the streets like they did in Jyväskylä!

I think that's more about keeping them ice free. There's a shopping street in Helsinki where they did that, I think.

Anyway, sleeping rough in Jyväskylä sounds like it would be tough. Although you might have enough material (snow) to try to make an iglo. Some people do that for fun even. Of course technically if you make an iglo your home are you still homeless?

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A stable environment is certainly going to dramatically increase the chance of overcoming an addiction. It obviously does not guarantee success but it's a crucial first step in the process. As pointed out in the article the housing first approach is actually saving money in the long run by reducing subsequent costs incurred by social services, so the "everyone else is paying for their addiction" argument does not rea…

do people really believe this claim up front? providing active junkies: 1) completely free units to destroy 2) 24/7 emergency care teams 3) completely free healthcare and mental healthcare 4) no sobriety expectations of any sort 5) no possibility to be kicked out of the program for any reason is going to be cheaper than putting them in jail or an institution? wow sounds almost too good to be true it would be interest…

I think perhaps your biases are showing in the language you deploy (junkeis, free to destroy). You're asking for evidence that's readily available, if you want it, from studies to meta studies. The evidence ranges from conclusive to inconclusive, which isn't surprising given the many different types of implementation and existence of support ystems (or lack thereof).

In terms of cost, we need to look at the total social cost. If (big if) we were to assume that property destruction in housing units costs money, it is no strech to think that any marginal decrease in for example medical expenses (much more expensive in total social resource terms) more than make up for it. And a marginal improvement in a long-term expensive social problem would easily justify a high initial upfront cost.

I'm not saying you're wrong for asking the question, just that I have no problem accepting the findings that housing first is a cheaper solution in the long run if it gets more people clean and off the streets--as the evidence indicates.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relative scarcity is the necessary and sufficient condition. Either there's enough housing or there isn't (there's a bit of slack with relocations, house sharing and spare bedrooms but it's largely inconsequential.) That means that supply (i.e. quantity) is enough. It's true that if it was impossible to speculate on housing, there would be less incentive to create artificial scarcity by e.g. lobbying for restrictive…

> Relative scarcity is the necessary and sufficient condition. Either there's enough housing or there isn't This seems like an oversimplification. Speculation affects demand, so the amount of speculation is hidden within “relative scarcity”. If there is no speculation then demand is directly related to the needs and finances of potential occupants. If there is speculation then demand becomes connected to the buying p…

Yes, but this speculation is grounded on the possibility of extracting future rents. Which is an assumption about future relative scarcity.

We’ve all decided that it’s totally fine to artificially limit the supply of real estate. Speculation is the market (correctly, in most cases) betting that that will continue.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#429
post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And yet the non-functioning economy might be a result of the excessive immigration. It's not. If you have a narrative for how immigration could explain why there's record-high home prices and yet there isn't a corresponding spike in construction, then please post it. Because this is pretty obviously a problem of suppressed supply.

I’m not implying that immigration is the only reason for higher housing prices. My opinion is that 0% interest rates and loose credit are the primary reason. However, simple supply/demand would suggest that immigration AND 0% interest rates both affect demand quickly while supply requires securing land, building homes and getting approval to build homes takes significant time. Migrations are happening at a faster rat…

On HN and on tech twitter I often see this statement: “the reason rents are high is because we don’t build enough houses.”

But I don’t think that’s really true, I think that’s very simplistic. The missing observation is that housing has become an asset class in a way it wasn’t in the past. Large numbers of people purchase houses to rent seek as landlords, and the only limit to the demand for rent seeking is the ability of those landlords to borrow money. So a major determinant of rent is now the ability to borrow money, the interest rate, and the number of people wanting to be rent seeking landlords.

Increasing the housing supply by the amount physically practical in say the course of a decade is probably unlikely to make much difference to rents if the primary driver of rent prices is the ability of rent seekers to borrow to buy the new properties. First time buyers can’t compete on borrowing because they have smaller deposits or less access to capital, so they are forced to rent, which means the rent seekers can continue to buy up properties.

In the UK, buy to let mortgages have become a substitute for pensions for the baby boomer generation. Encouraged by the government, housing as a yielding asset has essentially taxed the young to pay for the boomers retirement.

Whilst housing can be used as a rent seeking asset, it is very unlikely building new houses is going to lower rents. Landlords will simply always be able to outbid renters, so rent will remain at the height of whatever the renters can afford, I.e. extract the maximum rent possible. There is an endless demand for housing from rent seekers, provided they can rent out that property.

Couple this with the fact that the government in the UK at least has used the property market to hide the reality of the economy - that the economy is basically collapsing - there is so much vested interest in maintaining the status quo that no regulation will be introduced that will cause rents to drop, such as limiting the access of rent seekers to capital, or preserving properties for owner buyers etc.

Tl;dr - rents are expensive not because there is too little housing, but because we need them to be expensive.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#430

Wait, in finland, homeless means death most of the time. This is creepy.

Alright what are the odds that Finland’s famous and much lauded approach to reducing homelessness was actually nonsense, and you’re the first person to tell the truth: that it’s actually because the homeless all just froze to death? That’d mean every news outlet has somehow ignored it, there are no whistleblowers and nobody else has bothered to look at any data on it.
Post reply on HN