article 25 of the declaration of human rights talks about right to shelter and food
Given a place to live, Finland’s homeless were better able to deal with problems
141–150 of 254 posts
Re: Given a place to live, Finland’s homeless were better able to deal with problems
#142Earlier 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…
> It would create some incentive for property owners to invest and rent out buildings, or otherwise sell them cheaply. Property is property, you should be free to do what you want with them. Otherwise it's not property. It's like saying "you have a car, you need to use it everyday, otherwise we can justify people borrowing your car when they need one". Also, rent controls, aren't they a thing in some parts of Germany…
to my sibling comment, so what you're saying is, mob rule? this is probably defacto how it is, but it does not make it right. Nobody else has any rights to what I own, and I dont have rights to them. this kind of thinking that the "society" can just set rules that violates other people is a sick and disgusting development, this form of communist cancer has to be destroyed.
Re: Given a place to live, Finland’s homeless were better able to deal with problems
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
'Unfortunately there are any number of people who would be happy with option B in this scenario.' Since we are going on personal beliefs rather than hard facts, I suspect is number is very low.
In western Europe, yes. In America, no.
you do not have to be happy with something to not want to personally be responsibility. and to everyone here who thinks otherwise.
there are millions of malnutritioned people, including children, in many parts of the world. And i put fourth that you are happy they starve and get sick and die. After all, you arent spending all your money and effort trying to fix it? is it not your problem?
I would prefer that nobody is homeless, nobody starves, but at the same time, it is not my responsibility to do anything about it. Stealing my money via taxes and doing something(which to make it even worse, is a BAD something), is an attack on me
Re: Given a place to live, Finland’s homeless were better able to deal with problems
#144I 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…
I find it fascinating how the higher-cost and therefore counter-intuitive alternative, can sometimes be the better choice, due to long-term secondary effects that doesn't show up on said paper. Reminds me of the value of developing your own advanced projects, which is a huge cost (and risk) for a country or a company, but which can pay off big time in the long run through developing advanced marketable industry, expo…
In a similar sense EU has mandated that wastewater is to be treated in even very small villages. For those same second-order improvements, a sewer system may sound like a luxury but it does avoid a lot of shit.
Re: Given a place to live, Finland’s homeless were better able to deal with problems
#145This Guardian story gives more detail on how the program works: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle... Common objections to applying this policy elsewhere seem to be “We’re bigger than Finland” and “We’re not ethnically homogenous like Finland.” On the first point, 5M people isn’t really that small. It’s roughly the median population of an American state. On the second point, well… It does so…
Just IMO, many Americans probably don't think homeless people deserve free housing, because they have (the taxpayers) have to pay for their own housing and also contribute to homeless housing via taxes. "Fuck you got mine" is real here. Just see the nauseating argument against discharging student loans.
Well that's the core (or one of the cores) of modern US society - everybody for themselves. Maybe its not written on dollar bill, but if you look closely enough you can see it in various aspects of society. Gun wielding (for protection from other folks but government too, very common mindset in gun culture), having right to shoot folks that enter your property, whole health insurance system, whole social system, and definitely higher education. Basically a class system based on wealth/income.
I just named basic pillars of any modern society. Yes economic approach is very effective in open markets and due to historical reasons gives US top spot in global economy, but society as a whole is much more selfish and less humane. Not something future generations will look and judge kindly, unless we reverse massively due to some catastrophes (and then nobody will care about the past anyway).
One of the reasons very few people from richer western Europe strive to move to US, its just a bad quality of life overall and more 'primitive' cruel society, which define actually important stuff in life much more than just raw paycheck amount. And yes its cruel, walk among homeless folks in LA that should be in professional psychiatric facilities, and not dying slowly on streets in front of everybody, without much care, for decades.
Re: Given a place to live, Finland’s homeless were better able to deal with problems
#146Earlier 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…
> It would create some incentive for property owners to invest and rent out buildings, or otherwise sell them cheaply. Property is property, you should be free to do what you want with them. Otherwise it's not property. It's like saying "you have a car, you need to use it everyday, otherwise we can justify people borrowing your car when they need one". Also, rent controls, aren't they a thing in some parts of Germany…
That is a very extreme view of property that is not shared by vast sections of global society. The German constitution has a very explicit article that states "Property obligates. Its use should simultaneously contribute to the wellbeing of the general public" (my translation) for example.
Similarly, EU jurisprudence has confirmed that laws and regulations can limit the absolute control over individual property, if that contributes to an overall more important social good. Many countries around the world actually do not have permanent private ownership of land/buildings or limit it in significant ways. Historically, basically all societies and legal systems have limited individual property rights in certain, sometimes very extreme ways. The Uber-liberal definition of property that you cite is something of an outlier.
Regarding your question on rent control in Germany: There are several layers:
- Some housing is government/municipality owned (unfortunately not a lot). The rent for those usually covers the cost of providing that housing but not more so it is quite cheap.
- Some private property has been built with government subsidies. This is bound for a certain time (I think 20 years or so) to a government-set rent and tenants usually profit from this even afterwards, because it is very hard in Germany to increase rent on existing tenants.
- Since 2015 there has been a national law on rent control. It covers municipalities which have been specifically designated by state governments. Landlords covered by the law can not increase the rent for a new tenant by more than 10% over the local average, but there are a lot of exceptions: buildings built or substantially improved after 1st October 2014, properties that already had a higher rent prior to the law, etc. It also relies on the tenants for enforcement and their willingness to engage in a protracted legal battle.
- Berlin tried to introduce much harsher rent controls. These were declared illegal by the courts, because state governments (in the view of the courts) do not have the competency to introduce certain types of rent control.
> if you own several places and the rent imposed by the authorities is too low for you to turn a profit, then it's not worth renting either.
This may be the case for new construction. But most existing properties are paid off, ongoing investment is limited (I can say this with some authority, as I own a couple of properties in two different German cities). The huge rent increases in German cities do not come from long-term tenants (because they are protected against steep increases by law). It comes from landlords taking advantage of huge demand by increasing the rent dramatically for new tenants. This is pure profit for the landlord, as the property has been profitable even before the rent increase. This is what most attempts at rent control in Germany are targeted at.
Re: Given a place to live, Finland’s homeless were better able to deal with problems
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It would create some incentive for property owners to invest and rent out buildings, or otherwise sell them cheaply. Property is property, you should be free to do what you want with them. Otherwise it's not property. It's like saying "you have a car, you need to use it everyday, otherwise we can justify people borrowing your car when they need one". Also, rent controls, aren't they a thing in some parts of Germany…
to my sibling comment, so what you're saying is, mob rule? this is probably defacto how it is, but it does not make it right. Nobody else has any rights to what I own, and I dont have rights to them. this kind of thinking that the "society" can just set rules that violates other people is a sick and disgusting development, this form of communist cancer has to be destroyed.
See my sibling comment: property in most societies is something that not only confers rights to the owner, but also responsibilities. If you own an apartment in a city where there is great demand for housing, but (for whatever reason) you decide against making that apartment available for someone to use, society (through creating laws and regulations) can decide that you forfeit your rights to that property.
It is the same logic that is behind laws and regulations that force people to improve their property in some way, i.e. by removing lead paint, installing more efficient heating, etc. This logic is well accepted throughout the world. "Property obligates" is the historical and present norm (except maybe in the U.S.) and the extreme libertarian view of "absolute rights" to property is probably what is a "sick and disgusting" development.
Re: Given a place to live, Finland’s homeless were better able to deal with problems
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Same for France
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.
Re: Given a place to live, Finland’s homeless were better able to deal with problems
#149Earlier 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…
> It would create some incentive for property owners to invest and rent out buildings, or otherwise sell them cheaply. Property is property, you should be free to do what you want with them. Otherwise it's not property. It's like saying "you have a car, you need to use it everyday, otherwise we can justify people borrowing your car when they need one". Also, rent controls, aren't they a thing in some parts of Germany…
There's actually quite a lot of restrictions on what I can and can't do with my car. For example, if I don't get my car inspected, I can't drive it on public roads. And even if I want to drive it on private land, it must be within a fenced off area that is inaccessible to third parties.
I also can't just erect whatever buildings I want on my plot of land, but rather I need to get a planning permission. Turning my land into a garbage dump is also gonna get me into shit.
Re: Given a place to live, Finland’s homeless were better able to deal with problems
#150Earlier 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…
> It would create some incentive for property owners to invest and rent out buildings, or otherwise sell them cheaply. Property is property, you should be free to do what you want with them. Otherwise it's not property. It's like saying "you have a car, you need to use it everyday, otherwise we can justify people borrowing your car when they need one". Also, rent controls, aren't they a thing in some parts of Germany…
I do prefer this level-headed approach especially when it comes to a basic need, like housing.
High rents are partially caused by low available inventory so if they can fix it by increasing taxes of unused properties, that's a great way of doing that. The other ways I've seen, like banning foreigners from owning properties are kind of bad, that's a net negative outcome (I think).