8 ms·

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 t

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 is a big problem for example and there probably are lots of issues with drug usage and mental health as well. However, it's not a country with a lot of illegal immigration, or a lot refugees with ambiguous legal status. I.e. the vast majority of problematic people are all citizens that have full coverage under the excellent social system. So, they are insured and probably are entitled to some form of income. And the locals are very pragmatic about it not being desirable to have drunk homeless people passing out and freezing to death in the winter. So, they never had a huge problem with homeless people to begin with and what little homeless people they had were take care off via shelters and other solutions already. The "innovation" in Finland was realizing that simply providing proper housing to these people is a pragmatic alternative that actually improves their situation while lowering overall cost at the same time. Shelters cost money and they have to be staffed and when they fill up you need to spend money on emergency shelters, which costs more money. And shelters perpetuate the problem. So, providing housing lowers cost and you get a meaningful percentage of people to a level where they stop being a problem. Which frees up more resources to deal with the remaining people more effectively. And it's nice to see people get out of such a situation. Win win. That's definitely something other countries can learn from.

UberFly 4y ago
"simply providing proper housing to these people is a pragmatic alternative" Did this "proper housing" come with any rules? What is the bar that keeps the homeless from being evicted? I know where I am these places quickly become severe crime hubs.
- tempestn 4y ago
  It definitely requires a lot of support, especially initially, to be successful; indeed, just providing the residence isn't enough. And of course not all homeless people are the same. Some are simply having a rough time and really do just need that leg up. Others are struggling with substance abuse, mental illness, or mental or physical disability, and will at a minimum need support to transition to a stable living situation, but may become self-sufficient (or at least more-so) over time with that support. Others will need significant ongoing support lifelong, and so independent living won't be a viable option. Lumping all these people together exacerbates problems.
  - dazc 4y ago
    'And of course not all homeless people are the same.' Although obvious, it's not something one hears that often. There is a perception here in the UK that a homeless person is someone who sits on a corner begging all day. Ironically, a lot of these people are not actually homeless since they are where all the resources are targeted towards. Many real homeless people do not stand out from the crowd because, well why would you? [Speaking from experience]
- misja111 4y ago
  The houses which are given to homeless are mostly concentrated in certain area's. So if they cause problems, which of course they do, they don't bother 'normal' families. Those area's are pretty bad, but they're not as dangerous as e.g. in the US. I guess it's because the addicts are mostly alcoholics and they get just enough government money to buy their daily booze.
  - mach1ne 4y ago
    I’m Finnish and this is not my understanding. Finland has a specific policy that every time a new neighbourhood is constructed, a percentage of those houses are allocated for the municipal government, who then rent them for these less fortunate folk. This means that the problems aren’t concentrated but distributed. It’s part of the larger ideology of equality in Finland, which is that the extremes in both good and bad are softened.
    - misja111 4y ago
      Thanks, I didn't know that. I'm not Finnish but have stayed in the Helsinki area a lot. There were certain area's in e.g. Tikkurila and Jakomaeki which were pretty bad, and Finnish people told me it was because many alcoholics lived there in state housing. So I supposed that state housing was concentrated in certain area's.
      - exDM69 4y ago
        That is a different matter. Municipalities own a significant amount of housing available for rent. These are available for anyone but there are societal reasons why someone might be preferred (e.g. single mother), while others are in the queue. These are not the housing units given to the homeless. They are run by organizations and charities together in collaboration with municipal social workers. There are two or three houses like this in Helsinki.
        misja111 4y ago
        > There are two or three houses like this in Helsinki. So are you saying that two or three houses were enough to solve homelessness in Helsinki?
ojbyrne 4y ago
> 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 The article is from a Canadian newspaper. It is from Toronto, which, for Canada, has relatively mild winters. But it’s still Canada.
- dcow 4y ago
  that country refers to Finland from the GP's previous sentence.
  - anon-3988 4y ago
    root comment was saying that Finland have to have this policy otherwise people would literally die on the streets due to the extreme cold weather. the child commenter reminds root that the article is written by a Toronto paper, which is also a very cold place any yet does not have quite the same policy (I think Canada do have homeless shelters?)
emodendroket 4y ago
> 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. Unfortunately there are any number of people who would be happy with option B in this scenario.
- dazc 4y ago
  '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.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    In western Europe, yes. In America, no.
    - redeeman 4y ago
      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
      - dazc 4y ago
        It is your responsibility, which is part of the reason why you pay taxes in the first place. The fact that so much of your money is misappropriated is another story though.
        4y ago
sharkbird2 4y ago
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, exportable competence and just creating lots of jobs.
- Avamander 4y ago
  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.
  - dagw 4y ago
    In a similar sense EU has mandated that wastewater is to be treated in even very small villages. There are also second-order costs. I know people who live half the year in a 'very small village' (30-40 houses, no shops, no cars, no sewage system, water comes from wells) and these well meaning, but very inflexible, rules can make it very expensive to do even the most basic of renovations. I also spoke to a couple of people in a very rural village in Italy and asking about why so many houses were in such disrepair. Turns our the people living there could not afford to repair them in a way that complied with all the regulations about preserving 'historic' buildings. These where largely poorer people who's family had owned the house for generations. They couldn't afford to repair their homes, but they also couldn't move since their houses where in such a state that they where effectively worthless.
usernew 4y ago
[dead]
ricardobayes 4y ago
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.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  > 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
  - tfourb 4y ago
    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 can "convert" squatters into renters (who actually own rent) by bringing the property up to a minimum standard (which in turn the squatter would have to accept or move out), etc.
    - ekianjo 4y ago
      > 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 like Berlin? That's what leads to poor usage of apartments, because 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.
ekianjo 4y ago
> That's definitely something other countries can learn from. Other countries with totally different problems and different reasons for homelessness will learn what from that exactly?
- tfourb 4y ago
  That the first step of resolving someone's homelessness is to provide them with a home (and then obviously don't stop there but provide additional support where needed). Who would have thought?
deanc 4y ago
This is a nuanced issue and I agree with what you wrote. I live in Finland. Some additional thoughts: - The scale of social problems in the US is on a whole other level. More people requires bigger solutions. - The state vs government system in the US means it's every state for themselves when solving social issues. This is seen in states actively shipping homeless people to warmer climate states in order to make their problems go away. - As you point out, homeless people die in the winter. It's also cold in many places in the US, and hot in others - so people die all the time there too. - As a society Finland has a robust social security system, the society is built on it - and the idea of equality (Hint: its not, but it's not bad at all either compared to other countries). The amount of Americans I've seen arguing against free healthcare as they don't want to pay for it just blows my mind, I would imagine you'd go into a similar situation if the government raised taxes to "fix the homeless problem". "Well i'm not homeless, why should i pay for these people's problems" etc. (Not my view, just predicting how it will go).
- ajuc 4y ago
  > The scale of social problems in the US is on a whole other level. More people requires bigger solutions Problems get big if they are ignored for long enough. Fix the root causes first: https://www.retireguide.com/retirement-planning/risks/medical-bankruptcy-statistics/ https://www.retireguide.com/retirement-planning/risks/medica... Whatever remains can be solved with social housing.
- sremani 4y ago
  >> The scale of social problems in the US is on a whole other level. True. Just for some comparison, if Finland was a metropolitan in US, it would be ranked 10th. Above Phoenix metro and Below Atlanta Metro. I understand the good intentions of people trying to show case 'Scandinavian countries' as a model. They miss many things including Scale.
  - redeeman 4y ago
    yes, so economies of scale
  - Jedd 4y ago
otikik 4y ago
> Shelters cost money and they have to be staffed and when they fill up you need to spend money on emergency shelters, which costs more money Yes but shelters can be privately run and then a corporation can make a profit from that, because private companies are more efficient than state-driven things. That a company makes profits more important than perpetuating the homeless problem, or waking up to frozen cadavers. Think of the poor stakeholders.
- pydry 4y ago
  Thats kind of why homelessness exists in the first place though, and is getting worse. Providing enough housing to eliminate housing would bring rents down. That's bad for profits. Taking away the fear of homelessness gives low end workers more negotiating muscle. This means hence higher wages and less incentive to work as hard. Again, really bad for profits. This is why western governments feign the willingness to do something about it by half heartedly attacking the symptoms (e.g. drugs) rather than fixing the actual cause (lack of homes). It's also why the media fights so hard to misrepresent the causality between drugs and homelessness.
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  Besides NYC, which is an outlier in all the wrong ways in this sort of space, I've never heard of private shelters. That's not to say people aren't getting rich of nonprofit shelters.
- kwhitefoot 4y ago
  > because private companies are more efficient than state-driven things. Yeah, right.
  - otikik 4y ago
    Should I had put sarcasm indicators? :)
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
lozenge 4y ago
I think you're confusing homeless with rough sleeping. Rough sleeping is sleeping outside, while homeless can include couch surfing (staying with friends for a few days at a time) or sleeping in shelters. Shelters provide beds but no privacy/no security from other residents and no space to build up possessions. In the article, Toronto provides shelters and Finland provides homes.
- everybodyknows 4y ago
  > ... no security from other residents and no space to build up possessions. This seems a basic requirement for anyone trying to get to a better life. Are there no more enlightened shelters that provide some secure locker or parcel-checkin system?
johanneskanybal 4y ago
There's a really fun section in the amazing Norwegian comedy/drama "Dag". The premise is that you can't both have a good and fair society and good weather because the need to take care of everyone isn't serious enough if you have good weather.
seanmcdirmid 4y ago
> I.e. the vast majority of problematic people are all citizens that have full coverage under the excellent social system. The same is true in the USA; illegal immigrants have enough problems without being homeless, and almost always their point for being in the USA is to work. The "excellent social system" however, is not true for the USA.

UberFly 4y ago

"simply providing proper housing to these people is a pragmatic alternative" Did this "proper housing" come with any rules? What is the bar that keeps the homeless from being evicted? I know where I am these places quickly become severe crime hubs.

tempestn 4y ago
It definitely requires a lot of support, especially initially, to be successful; indeed, just providing the residence isn't enough. And of course not all homeless people are the same. Some are simply having a rough time and really do just need that leg up. Others are struggling with substance abuse, mental illness, or mental or physical disability, and will at a minimum need support to transition to a stable living situation, but may become self-sufficient (or at least more-so) over time with that support. Others will need significant ongoing support lifelong, and so independent living won't be a viable option. Lumping all these people together exacerbates problems.
- dazc 4y ago
  'And of course not all homeless people are the same.' Although obvious, it's not something one hears that often. There is a perception here in the UK that a homeless person is someone who sits on a corner begging all day. Ironically, a lot of these people are not actually homeless since they are where all the resources are targeted towards. Many real homeless people do not stand out from the crowd because, well why would you? [Speaking from experience]
misja111 4y ago
The houses which are given to homeless are mostly concentrated in certain area's. So if they cause problems, which of course they do, they don't bother 'normal' families. Those area's are pretty bad, but they're not as dangerous as e.g. in the US. I guess it's because the addicts are mostly alcoholics and they get just enough government money to buy their daily booze.
- mach1ne 4y ago
  I’m Finnish and this is not my understanding. Finland has a specific policy that every time a new neighbourhood is constructed, a percentage of those houses are allocated for the municipal government, who then rent them for these less fortunate folk. This means that the problems aren’t concentrated but distributed. It’s part of the larger ideology of equality in Finland, which is that the extremes in both good and bad are softened.
  - misja111 4y ago
    Thanks, I didn't know that. I'm not Finnish but have stayed in the Helsinki area a lot. There were certain area's in e.g. Tikkurila and Jakomaeki which were pretty bad, and Finnish people told me it was because many alcoholics lived there in state housing. So I supposed that state housing was concentrated in certain area's.
    - exDM69 4y ago
      That is a different matter. Municipalities own a significant amount of housing available for rent. These are available for anyone but there are societal reasons why someone might be preferred (e.g. single mother), while others are in the queue. These are not the housing units given to the homeless. They are run by organizations and charities together in collaboration with municipal social workers. There are two or three houses like this in Helsinki.
      - misja111 4y ago
        > There are two or three houses like this in Helsinki. So are you saying that two or three houses were enough to solve homelessness in Helsinki?

ojbyrne 4y ago

> 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 The article is from a Canadian newspaper. It is from Toronto, which, for Canada, has relatively mild winters. But it’s still Canada.

dcow 4y ago
that country refers to Finland from the GP's previous sentence.
- anon-3988 4y ago
  root comment was saying that Finland have to have this policy otherwise people would literally die on the streets due to the extreme cold weather. the child commenter reminds root that the article is written by a Toronto paper, which is also a very cold place any yet does not have quite the same policy (I think Canada do have homeless shelters?)

emodendroket 4y ago

> 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. Unfortunately there are any number of people who would be happy with option B in this scenario.

dazc 4y ago
'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.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  In western Europe, yes. In America, no.
  - redeeman 4y ago
    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
    - dazc 4y ago
      It is your responsibility, which is part of the reason why you pay taxes in the first place. The fact that so much of your money is misappropriated is another story though.
      - 4y ago

sharkbird2 4y ago

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, exportable competence and just creating lots of jobs.

Avamander 4y ago
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.
- dagw 4y ago
  In a similar sense EU has mandated that wastewater is to be treated in even very small villages. There are also second-order costs. I know people who live half the year in a 'very small village' (30-40 houses, no shops, no cars, no sewage system, water comes from wells) and these well meaning, but very inflexible, rules can make it very expensive to do even the most basic of renovations. I also spoke to a couple of people in a very rural village in Italy and asking about why so many houses were in such disrepair. Turns our the people living there could not afford to repair them in a way that complied with all the regulations about preserving 'historic' buildings. These where largely poorer people who's family had owned the house for generations. They couldn't afford to repair their homes, but they also couldn't move since their houses where in such a state that they where effectively worthless.

usernew 4y ago

[dead]

ricardobayes 4y ago

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.

ekianjo 4y ago
> 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
- tfourb 4y ago
  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 can "convert" squatters into renters (who actually own rent) by bringing the property up to a minimum standard (which in turn the squatter would have to accept or move out), etc.
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    > 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 like Berlin? That's what leads to poor usage of apartments, because 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.

ekianjo 4y ago

> That's definitely something other countries can learn from. Other countries with totally different problems and different reasons for homelessness will learn what from that exactly?

tfourb 4y ago
That the first step of resolving someone's homelessness is to provide them with a home (and then obviously don't stop there but provide additional support where needed). Who would have thought?

deanc 4y ago

This is a nuanced issue and I agree with what you wrote. I live in Finland. Some additional thoughts: - The scale of social problems in the US is on a whole other level. More people requires bigger solutions. - The state vs government system in the US means it's every state for themselves when solving social issues. This is seen in states actively shipping homeless people to warmer climate states in order to make their problems go away. - As you point out, homeless people die in the winter. It's also cold in many places in the US, and hot in others - so people die all the time there too. - As a society Finland has a robust social security system, the society is built on it - and the idea of equality (Hint: its not, but it's not bad at all either compared to other countries). The amount of Americans I've seen arguing against free healthcare as they don't want to pay for it just blows my mind, I would imagine you'd go into a similar situation if the government raised taxes to "fix the homeless problem". "Well i'm not homeless, why should i pay for these people's problems" etc. (Not my view, just predicting how it will go).

ajuc 4y ago
> The scale of social problems in the US is on a whole other level. More people requires bigger solutions Problems get big if they are ignored for long enough. Fix the root causes first: https://www.retireguide.com/retirement-planning/risks/medical-bankruptcy-statistics/ https://www.retireguide.com/retirement-planning/risks/medica... Whatever remains can be solved with social housing.
sremani 4y ago
>> The scale of social problems in the US is on a whole other level. True. Just for some comparison, if Finland was a metropolitan in US, it would be ranked 10th. Above Phoenix metro and Below Atlanta Metro. I understand the good intentions of people trying to show case 'Scandinavian countries' as a model. They miss many things including Scale.
- redeeman 4y ago
  yes, so economies of scale
- Jedd 4y ago

otikik 4y ago

> Shelters cost money and they have to be staffed and when they fill up you need to spend money on emergency shelters, which costs more money Yes but shelters can be privately run and then a corporation can make a profit from that, because private companies are more efficient than state-driven things. That a company makes profits more important than perpetuating the homeless problem, or waking up to frozen cadavers. Think of the poor stakeholders.

pydry 4y ago
Thats kind of why homelessness exists in the first place though, and is getting worse. Providing enough housing to eliminate housing would bring rents down. That's bad for profits. Taking away the fear of homelessness gives low end workers more negotiating muscle. This means hence higher wages and less incentive to work as hard. Again, really bad for profits. This is why western governments feign the willingness to do something about it by half heartedly attacking the symptoms (e.g. drugs) rather than fixing the actual cause (lack of homes). It's also why the media fights so hard to misrepresent the causality between drugs and homelessness.
iudqnolq 4y ago
Besides NYC, which is an outlier in all the wrong ways in this sort of space, I've never heard of private shelters. That's not to say people aren't getting rich of nonprofit shelters.
kwhitefoot 4y ago
> because private companies are more efficient than state-driven things. Yeah, right.
- otikik 4y ago
  Should I had put sarcasm indicators? :)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

lozenge 4y ago

I think you're confusing homeless with rough sleeping. Rough sleeping is sleeping outside, while homeless can include couch surfing (staying with friends for a few days at a time) or sleeping in shelters. Shelters provide beds but no privacy/no security from other residents and no space to build up possessions. In the article, Toronto provides shelters and Finland provides homes.

everybodyknows 4y ago
> ... no security from other residents and no space to build up possessions. This seems a basic requirement for anyone trying to get to a better life. Are there no more enlightened shelters that provide some secure locker or parcel-checkin system?

johanneskanybal 4y ago

There's a really fun section in the amazing Norwegian comedy/drama "Dag". The premise is that you can't both have a good and fair society and good weather because the need to take care of everyone isn't serious enough if you have good weather.

seanmcdirmid 4y ago

> I.e. the vast majority of problematic people are all citizens that have full coverage under the excellent social system. The same is true in the USA; illegal immigrants have enough problems without being homeless, and almost always their point for being in the USA is to work. The "excellent social system" however, is not true for the USA.