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

601–610 of 660 posts

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#601

Post by Qwertious »

rhubarbtree wrote: post #429
cudgy wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abili…

There are things we can do besides/in addition to permitting more housing construction. Namely, lowering the barrier to entry for construction:

If we reduce the minimum lot size, then we reduce the minimum land purchase required in order to construct housing. And of course, lower upfront investment means lower risk and more newcomers are financially capable of buying in in the first place.

Lowering turnaround times for approval would also lower costs, and broadening the range of housing that gets by-right approval is a common way of doing that. Another is to just set a cap on the approval period, e.g. after 100 days, if you haven't received a response rejecting your application, then it's approved by default, and any rejection must be accompanied by a specific stated reason for rejection.

The overarching problem, though, is that there needs to be a political will to reduce housing costs (as you implied). But even that is partially missing the point, IMO - plenty of NIMBYs are acting for rational non-financial reasons - they're afraid that higher local density will increase local traffic and take up the finite local free parking spaces. Free parking is especially problematic, because paid parking will never satisfy people who see other people getting free parking in the same area. And of course the whole car-traffic problem is driven by cities being especially car-centric, with car traffic fundamentally not scaling up well compared to public transport.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#602

Post by throwawayq3423 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #566
throwawayq3423 wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in California. The fact that 80% + of the local homeless come from other states is the one thing that makes the problem unsolvable.

90% of the homeless people in California lived in Californa for over a year before becoming homeless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_California

That can mean any number of things. A lot of people move to LA to "make it" with no plan B, they didn't have a plan B where they came from either.

California has 30% of the US homeless population, but 11% of it's total population. It is dramatically disproportional, period.

https://shou.senate.ca.gov/sites/shou.senate.ca.gov/files/Ho...

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#603

Post by cyberax »

brailsafe wrote: post #599
cyberax wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firstly, your link is focused on zoning changes, specifically how they are insufficient to prompt addition supply to be built. Yeah. The misery pushers (urbanists) can't admit outright that their ideology is leading to disaster, can they? So they now need not only zoning restrictions lifted, but the state must also build housing and give it out to "deserving" people for cheap. > Secondly, building more suburbs and…

You keep referring to people who like cities that function as cities as "misery pushers" and then in the same breath doing as much as you can to create an association between increased density and all these hypothetical negative possibilities. Likewise it just seems as though you've developed some level of prejudice based on the negative experience you're contending with in your neighborhood, and then extrapolating t…

> You keep referring to people who like cities that function as cities as "misery pushers"

That's an apt description.

> in the same breath doing as much as you can to create an association between increased density and all these hypothetical negative possibilities.

Why are they hypothetical? Density has long been associated with worse outcomes (higher crime, etc.). I can provide plenty of citations to scholarly literature.

> Like how does it happen that you lived in no specific place in Europe for example, then to where you are now

I grew up in Russia (Izhevsk), moved to Germany (Karlsruhe), then to Ukraine (Kyiv), and (briefly) to the Netherlands before coming to the US. I did not have a car in any of these places.

> and one thing gets built which convinces you that actually every city in Europe is and has always been wrong.

Yes. I'm able to compare the life in the US and in Europe first-hand. And Europe has plenty of dark secrets of its own. For example, Copenhagen in Denmark became the world's most liveable city by ruthlessly controlling its population. It still has not reached its peak number in 1970-s. Bet you didn't know that?

> Your chart shows two lines that seem to represent sales of something over time in nearby cities, which may or may not be relevant, but are at most a narrow slice of what one would need to look at in order to understand what's going on over in Minneapolis if anything.

I have real estate data with street-level information. It's not a public dataset, so I'm replicating my results using public datasets.

> You then create a strawman who thinks the removal of zoning restrictions will automatically lead to a utopia

No. I'm saying that removal of zoning limits to allow increased density does NOT lead to lower prices. It leads to increased density and increased misery as a result.

Minneapolis is simply a good example of this. There is another very good one: Seattle (where I live now). It increased its density by 25% over the last 12 years, many times leading the nation in the number of active construction cranes. The result? Faster price growth than even in SF.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#604

Post by seanmcdirmid »

SequoiaHope wrote: post #396
friend_Fernando wrote: post #368

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…

That isn’t quite right. Speculators look for good deals, meaning they look at prices N years from now and try to make money on that. They aren’t pushing prices up just for existing, they are predicting higher prices and acting to take advantage of that. They are looking for second hand property that is undervalued for the horizon they are looking at.

But yes, wealthy people have more capital and leverage to participate in time-displaced arbitrage. Gentrification is a bit more productive, since investors work at making their properties more valuable at least.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#605

Post by seanmcdirmid »

squigz wrote: post #470
verelo wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fifty years ago Montreal was the business centre of Canada, now that’s Toronto. That $800 rate might actually be more affordable in a less business oriented city, or even Montreal itself since it’s seen a lot of decline in that time. Having said that, there’s zero debate rents are out of control. I own a triplex and every time a unit turns over and i do my research on rent i get a bit shocked. I’ve found myself legit…

I'd be shocked if you could find $800 rent in any city in Ontario, business-oriented or not.

Windsor? As a nicer Detroit, I thought they might at least benefit from weaker rents considering what’s available across the border. But that’s just a guess, I haven’t lived in that area since the 80s. Here is one source that says a 1 bedroom will set you back $1400: https://www.zumper.com/apartments-for-rent/windsor-on

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#606

Post by squigz »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #605
squigz wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be shocked if you could find $800 rent in any city in Ontario, business-oriented or not.

Windsor? As a nicer Detroit, I thought they might at least benefit from weaker rents considering what’s available across the border. But that’s just a guess, I haven’t lived in that area since the 80s. Here is one source that says a 1 bedroom will set you back $1400: https://www.zumper.com/apartments-for-rent/windsor-on

Ha, I wish.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#607

Post by Arn_Thor »

sugarplant wrote: post #486
Arn_Thor wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 soc…

>marginal decrease in for example medical expenses why would there be a decrease rather than an increase? they're linked up with a full time care team as well as paths for more healthcare services. they also are allowed to continue to destroy their body with drugs. a local newspaper just ran an article here about how many health problems they have when they get into the local program. yes i am very bias about the top…

You're entirely ignoring the fact that it is effective in getting people clean. That is the outcome we're trying for, and achieving with this policy.

The fact that you're paying for a drug user to be warm and safe may stick in your craw, but it helps more people get clean, and so is good for them, their families, society and even your neighborhood as they return to be productive members of society. The money spent on their childhood and education isn't "wasted". They are less likely to be a nuisance.

Your feelings of disgust towards these people is a natural reaction. But if you can manage to see past it and realize these are human beings no different than you, by far and away mostly people who want to get clean but find it impossible in their circumstances and need help doing so, then you could be part of the chorus of voices pushing for positive change.

Let's all pull in the same direction: strong social safety nets, community building and mental health care to prevent people falling to drugs. And if they do, the care and assistance they need to pull themselves out of it. Not everyone's going to manage to do it, but eveyrone deserves a solid second chance.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#608

Post by Arn_Thor »

mmooss wrote: post #580
Arn_Thor wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Fear is a feeling, and I'm not sure what "very real" means, as if your feelings are matter of national importance. If someone commits a crime, then the people are justified in acting - in a proportionate, necessary way - through government. Otherwise, your fear is your problem. Maybe the homeless person is scared of you - after all, you can call the police and subject them to serious abuse. I agree that it's an often…

I'm saying the fear people feel is real, and "valid" in the sense that the rest of us must recognize it, not dismiss it.

Only when we meet people in the fearful place they're at, and they feel heard, can we start to try to make them see that the fear is not justified or rational compared with the actual risk posed by the homeless or mentally ill or what have you.

I do agree, it's human rights for everyone or no-one.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#609

Post by fulafel »

timewizard wrote: post #238
cousin_it wrote: post #106

I think governments should offer free housing to everyone who asks, in their city of choice. "But why should taxpayers pay for that? It's expensive!" Yes, it would be very expensive. But you know what's even more expensive? The sum of everybody's lowered wages, bad bosses, fear for the future, fear of having kids and so on, due to the threat of homelessness. Yes, building housing is expensive, but the removal of fear…

> Yes, it would be very expensive. But you know what's even more expensive? The sum of everybody's lowered wages, bad bosses, fear for the future, fear of having kids and so on, due to the threat of homelessness. I doubt your supposition. Once you create free housing you reduce your tax base. You are creating a positive feedback loop of costs, lost revenue, leading to more costs, leading to more lost revenue... and s…

If free public services caused this kind of feedback loop, rich social democracies wouldn't have free healthcare, free education, socially provided housing for the needy etc. Or do you see housing being special in this regard?

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#610

Post by immibis »

cudgy wrote: post #395
wat10000 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A business center doesn't have to be expensive. That’s made to happen because housing isn’t allowed to be built in sufficient quantity, not a necessary consequence of success.

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…

Transport affects this. Berlin has a pretty extensive network that gets you from any part to any other part in an hour or less. It's thought to be a factor in why the rents rise uniformly instead of rising a lot in the middle.
Post reply on HN