12 ms·

Finland provides housing and counseling to the homeless (2020)

193 points by ColinWright 3y ago

yuppie_scum 3y ago
2020
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
I wonder how they tackle a few problems such as I've observed around here: (1) People are comfortable on the streets, they enjoy the freedom, or they are at least accustomed to it, and paying rent/bills seems anathema to them. (2) People are severely disabled by mental illness or addiction, and simply can't manage a household by themselves. Or they never learned how and they fail dramatically. This may be the 20% contingent who are moving back in with friends/family. (3) People are naturally generous/irresponsible with belongings and income that they will spontaneously share the windfall with everyone they know. So your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types, and poor housekeeping skills definitely become operative here. Homes like this ultimately run into big trouble, like massive drug raids, fires, prostitution or something. Not fun. Around here, the brass ring of housing is Section 8, and Section 8 has strict rules about guests and inspections and income paperwork every year. If you're not abiding by the rules then you're out on your ear. I don't know how many people wash out, but my case managers have inundated me with certificates and kudos for being one of their best, longest-term clients. Housing First type approaches is great, and I'm glad to hear that they've "ended homelessness", even though that seems to sort of be contradicted by the 20% figure that was constantly cited in the article.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Finland is a very different society than the US. It's mostly rural (megacities like in the US don't exist) and very very cold in winter (and even summer isn't the best). Welfare is high. People don't live on the street because they want to. The mental illness is a bigger issue but here in Europe most countries have pretty decent healthcare for everyone (even the ones without money) so they don't have to be dumped on the street. Those people usually live their lives in institutions or assisted group living homes depending on their level of capability. Drug abuse is probably the biggest cause of homelessness here but it's not that common compared to the US. Alcohol abuse is but it's treated similar to mental illness with decent care.
  - linuxdude314 3y ago
    In the US, this all comes down to the Reagan era decision to stop funding asylums. The mentally handicapped used to receive treatment, now they are forced onto the street.
    - ransackdev 3y ago
      > The mentally handicapped used to receive treatment I think you meant to say “used to be locked up”
      - jojobas 3y ago
        Provided with shelter? Check. There's only so much you can do, no brain debugger+hot patcher invented yet.
        gattilorenz 3y ago
        It’s not a binary choice between living on the street and mandatory internment in something that resembles a prison, which is what I suspect was happening earlier. Other countries solve it by having protected communities, with more or less supervision and independence depending on the condition.
        jlawson 3y ago
        What do those communities look like for people whose "condition" is the worst? The ones who won't accept treatment but desperately need it, and are a danger to themselves and others.
      - raverbashing 3y ago
        It's hard for some to accept that yes, some people do need in-patient mental care and possibly for an extended period of time "prayer" or "social support" or whatever isn't a substitute for IV anti-psychotics Yes there was abuse, and yes that should have been curbed.
- linuxdude314 3y ago
  Are you bragging about your long term section 8 housing status?
  - School-Cotton 3y ago
    It's hard to believe that's what you took away from that comment.
    - ransackdev 3y ago
      I have nothing against welfare, I ate as a kid because of food stamps, but he has a point. Personal ambition and goals aside, wouldn’t the goal be to support you until you’re able to fully support yourself, so that those funds can be used to help another person in need so they can get to a better place in life as well?
      - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
        That's a goal for many participants, yes. In my case, I have a disability, I work part-time, and my parents support me too, and Section 8 still pays some rent because I'm not able to cover it all, even after that. And my situation has reached maximum improvement. There's a Family Self-Sufficiency program which is great. They provide resources for education and employment and stuff, and they escrow some funds which are usually awarded when you "graduate" from the program. Graduation entails raising income so far that your benefits cease and you are officially self-sufficient. They've recounted many success stories over the years. Mostly younger folks who hit a rough patch, but then got through college for a degree and then a great full-time job. I'm in the program, but I don't expect to ever graduate or see my escrowed funds. The FSS program is actually run by HUD as a funnel for first-time homebuyers. They encourage you to use the escrow as a down payment on a house. I will certainly say that as my income has increased and benefit decreased, that has undoubtedly freed up funds to help many other people, so I do my part by keeping income as high as humanly possible. I don't know about corruption. They do want people in the program to stay that way, of course. It's mandatory to report income, so every time I report an increase, my benefit goes down, and certainly I could be assured that if I blew the lid off that, my benefit would go away, and I'd be done with the program. I haven't encountered anyone enticing me to lie or conceal anything. YMMV, of course, because these programs are all run at the municipal level, so corruption in some places isn't going to translate to corruption all over.
- risyachka 3y ago
  #3 is not a problem at all as it can be trivially enforced. #2 its hard to imagine someone being more comfortable on the street that in a housing provided by the gov. They don't pay bill/rent there so no anathema here.And when they start having income - pretty sure most will gladly pay rent/bills to not lose their comfort as people get used to comfort very very quickly.
  - spondyl 3y ago
    > #2 its hard to imagine someone being more comfortable on the street that in a housing provided by the gov First off, the following is all anecdotal based on some articles I read a few years back now so take it with a grain of salt. New York had a program to house the homeless in hotels after running the numbers and concluding it would be cheaper to do so in the long run compared to the medical expenses and so on incurred. As part of that, I believe somewhere between 5 - 10% of people would persistently return to the streets despite having shelter provided. Most homeless are people in a dark period of their lives and get back on their feet with some aid to break the bootstrapping problem. A small portion however are considered to always end up there despite any help for whatever reason whether it's mental illness, drug use and so on. Of course, I'm not citing any links and I'm probably misremembering so I'd encourage you to do some more searching if you're interested. It seems like the NYC Hotel program was disestablished recently too.
  - alt227 3y ago
    #3 is in fact a massive problem and the reason 90% of shelters shut down. Most of the homeless people I have ever spoken to avoid government welfare centers and homeless shelters purely because they attract the type of people who take advantage of the genuinely vulnerable people who are looking for help. They say that they feel much safer out on the street and that their stuff is much less likely to be stolen than in a shelter. I have known more than one person who has been involved in setting up a charity and shelter for the homeless with the best of intentions, only for it to close a year later due to violence and drug reelated crime.
    - vidarh 3y ago
      Sounds like a difference between providing shelters for some vs. individual homes for all.
- noelwelsh 3y ago
  I think "ending homelessness" is a great slogan, and in politics the voting public generally don't go for nuance. What is reasonable and achievable is reducing homelessness to those who want to live on the streets. Alternatively, everyone who wants to live in an house has access to one. This is, I imagine, the real goal of the program.
  - ransackdev 3y ago
    Being a nomad is not the same as being homeless. Go to downtown SF and I guarantee you zero of those people have chosen to live on the streets.
    - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
      What is "choice"? Almost everyone living on the streets is there because of a series of choices which they made, usually over a long time frame. Perhaps at the time they were not entirely voluntary choices, or conscious choices, but cumulatively they have chosen a certain pathway that led them to losing their income, job, belongings, and housing. Even an abused wife who's been dumped out by her husband, well, she did choose that husband. Obviously there is nobody who rises from a warm bed one morning, says "screw all this!" sells all they have and goes to rough it on the streets (except, perhaps, for Saint Francis of Assisi, but he found something productive to do.) I spent a lot of time Downtown hanging out with minors, and one day my good friend who's a dad confided to me something surprising. He said "Most of these kids aren't homeless or runaways, you know. Most of them are from wealthy neighborhoods and have good parents, but they come out here just to mingle." So it was like Future Runaways of America out there. And make no mistake, the area has a huge effort of outreach to runaways and homeless minors. Once someone winds up on the streets, more choices are offered. Those choices can either drive a person deeply into a hole from which they will never recover and never get off the streets, or they could just keep them going while they can stabilize and find needed services, and begin a process to get off the streets. Many people will pursue the former. Even if they pursue the latter course, they may not make it. And then you have people who realize, hey, this life is ok for me. I guess I don't mind it so much, and it's not worth trying to get housed. So they stay as-is for the rest of their lives.
- Mizoguchi 3y ago
  I heard Section 8 is also plagged by corruption (directly by a friend with acquittances in the program in the DC metro area). From what I understood and remember, many people working in the program are watching after their careers in goverment. There are various bands for compensation and benefits that are tied to performance metrics. One of the metrics for managers running Section 8 is level of occupancy, so what ends up happening is once you bring people into the program and fill all of your spots you leave them there even after their situation has improved and they are technically no longer qualified for housing benefits, this way you can report full occupancy year after year which helps your performance. Obviously those in need of housing are left out.
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    > One of the metrics for managers running Section 8 is level of occupancy I do not understand why managers would be incentivized to keep people in who shouldn't be in. Because there is a huge demand on the front end! People are clamoring for vouchers! I was on a waiting list for at least two years. The waiting lists only open at designated times, and for short periods. The number of people who qualify is enormous, and there are various factors in qualifying for how quickly your number comes up. When I attended an orientation (which was 10 Black men/women and White me) the word was that vacancies were very low, and a lot of participants were having trouble just finding housing that would accept the voucher. I was an outlier because I was merely transferring programs, and had already secured housing of my choice. I suppose it could go either way. Are people having trouble finding vacancies because of corrupt managers? Or something else? Anyway, if demand is that far above supply, I don't see any reason why Section 8 couldn't maximize its occupancy year over year no matter, what their turnover rate.
- silvestrov 3y ago
  > 2) People are severely disabled by mental illness or addiction, and simply can't manage a household by themselves This is reduced a lot by early intervention, i.e. always provide housing and always provide free healthcare. It is so much easier to handle being "slightly mentally ill" when you can trust 100% that you will always have housing, healthcare and enough money for food, clothes and other necessities. If you can do 90%, then government can provide you with last 10% by paying rent automatically and having a social worker visit once a week. This fixes problems early compared to you becoming homeless. There is a lot of steps between "fully functional middle class person" and "mental institution".
  - BbzzbB 3y ago
    Let's be real here, some people can't even do 10% let alone 90%. And than some people are severely mentally ill or addicted, not "slightly". I don't think GP is saying they're not doing a good job, but that "ending homelessness" sounds like a euphemism.
    - silvestrov 3y ago
      If you can "fix" 95% of people by providing housing, then handling the remaining 5% is much easier. These problems do not scale linearly. It is also surprising how much drug addicts and mentally ill can do when the basics has been taken care of.
      - nonethewiser 3y ago
        First, it may not be 95 and 5 percent. Second, thats not whats asserted by “Finland ends homelessness.” The assertion is that homelessness doesn’t exist there. So it seems like these cases are unaccounted for.
        true_religion 3y ago
        I feel it’s like how employment statistics don’t include people not looking for work… if all the people who want housing get it, then homelessness has been eliminated. Someone who has a house but chooses not to live in it isn’t homeless.
- bertil 3y ago
  I definitely want to echo wkat4242’s answers: - Most of your concerns are already taken care of by healthcare, notably psychiatry that is free and well funded (people who work there would disagree, but everyone who needs to see a doctor will), social services (same), unemployment and professional training programs. - It’s below freezing most of the year. There cannot be any rough sleeping: either you are inside, or people pick up your frozen body in the morning. If you end up too drunk to go home (which happens alarmingly often: substance abuse is a huge problem, more than anywhere else) hospitals have drunk tanks and Police officers or ambulances will be more than happy to drive you there before you hurt yourself or others. They are not uncomfortable, just… “easy to clean” and in an odd pink colour. You get coffee in the morning. What that program actually did was admit that shelters were not working and replaced them with individual flats. Finns’ staunch individualism probably explain that more than anything. (It also explains the substance abuse… anyway.) - I’m not sure that how rural Finland is super relevant, but it is true: the country was going through rural exodus (what happened in the UK in early 19th century) _this decade_; it doesn’t really mean there’s a village life that disappeared (people don’t talk to their neighbours) but it has contributed to a big real estate boom. Outside of two streets in downtown Helsinki, there isn’t a building that wasn’t built recently—as in, with internet. Therefore, having slats for homeless people is actually a small fraction of the new homes. The second key thing about Finns (after their lack of social appetite) is their passion for design. Key people in the country: famous people, CEOs, etc. are designers, the way famous people in France, Germany, China, Japan and Korea are engineers and lawyers in the UK and US. > your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types, and poor housekeeping skills definitely become operative here That’s the thing: all flats are well designed and minimalistic. There isn’t much you can damage. This might change as the real estate portfolio ages, but it’s not a major concern now–not compared to having to step over a frozen body in the morning. The 20% is because, even if the program is summarised as “give them a home”, they are not signing title documents on day 1. They likely need help, so while they are de facto occupants with full rights to develop their sense of belonging, on paper they still have a status that roughly translates to ‘homeless’ and formally, they rent for a minimal amount and hardly any eviction clauses.
- vidarh 3y ago
  > People are comfortable on the streets, they enjoy the freedom This is the significant distinction between providing crappy shelter and providing a home. A lot of shelter spaces come with a lot of strings, and the first step to fixing the issues is to accept that you need to cut many or most of the strings - if a significant proportion of homeless prefer homelessness to the help you're offering, perhaps the "help" isn't all that helpful. If you want to get people off the street, you need to provide a similar level of freedom in the housing you provide as what it replaces. > (3) People are naturally generous/irresponsible with belongings and income that they will spontaneously share the windfall with everyone they know. So your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types Is it worse having them in a house than on the streets? And how much of a problem is this going to be when everyone involved have their own shelter? It's only a windfall if you provide it to a few rather than everyone who needs housing.
  - thechao 3y ago
    My rabbi used to say that "charity with strings is just a bad job"; it's not charity if it's not given unconditionally.
    - throw9away6 3y ago
      If the person you provide charity to uses it to inflict harm on themselves and others is it really charitable?
      - thechao 3y ago
        They’re a person, not a puppet. I think you might be surprised at how little a budget is required for someone to harm themselves; some say it’s free!
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    1) should actually be “some people just want to be homeless.” Including people who could already return to a nice, clean home, but do not. So that remains unexplained.
- antegamisou 3y ago
  > (1) People are comfortable on the streets, they enjoy the freedom, or they are at least accustomed to it, and paying rent/bills seems anathema to them. This has to be the most peak late stage capitalism shit I've ever read here. It's not a terrible idea to keep a few things to oneself I guess...
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    Have you ever actually studied hobo culture or anything? I mean there have been whole classes of people, let's include the Romani, Bedouins, and Travellers, who love itinerant lifestyles and are, for all intents and purposes, "homeless people" who find a means of supporting themselves that doesn't involve sticking around in one place. They are all, of course, universally reviled by capitalists and communists alike, but whatever.
    - antegamisou 3y ago
      There is no population that actively rejects any form of housing (cardboard boxes excluded) and if there is, they definitely aren't moving to large urban areas en masse. And even if it's the case that they were formerly sheltered but 'decided' to be homeless again, it's probably the shelter provider that didn't do a great job at accommodating them. In any case, cultural opposition to housing is a pretty weak argument to make in order to express despair where your valuable taxpayer money goes to.
- MrStonedOne 3y ago
  [dead]
- waihtis 3y ago
  We simply don't have 1) and 2) - 1) nobody fancies freezing to death and 2) mentally ill people like you have do not exist over here. I can think of a maximum of 5 occurences in the past 10 years I've seen someone roaming on the street yelling obscenities, something you see on every block in SF. 3) The state will nurse you happily until death no matter how irresponsible you are. Truth it is has turned into a problem long ago which will be very painful to reverse.
- elif 3y ago
  (1) is a byproduct of being on the streets for a long time to begin with. people get comfortable in prison too, its just human adaptability. less people on the streets = less people "comfortable" on the streets. (2) that is why the Finnish model requires free counseling. (3) if every person has the same access to a council flat, why would you need to share? This seems to be a problem with the american style limited voucher system.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  > I wonder how they tackle a few problems such as I've observed around here: None of these problems are the majority of homless people. There are always some where special care is needed, or for whom nothing works no matter what level of care.
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
    But #2 is why we are having this discussion in the US now.
- watwut 3y ago
  > (2) People are severely disabled by mental illness or addiction, and simply can't manage a household by themselves. Or they never learned how and they fail dramatically. This may be the 20% contingent who are moving back in with friends/family. > (3) People are naturally generous/irresponsible with belongings and income that they will spontaneously share the windfall with everyone they know. So your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types, and poor housekeeping skills definitely become operative here. Homes like this ultimately run into big trouble, like massive drug raids, fires, prostitution or something. Not fun. Afaik, it is much easier to help these two groups when they do have access to safe and stable housing. Conversely, their issues get much worst when they are homeless. As in, if you intend to help these people, giving them housing is pretty reasonable start. > like massive drug raids, fires, prostitution or something Prostitution is legal in Finland. Second, drug raids is what cops do, not what homeless do. The homeless may do the drug use part, I am just pointing out you picked the phenomenom that is done by somebody else.
- dghughes 3y ago
  #3 There is a well-known group of "homeless" people here who beg around my small town. Aggressive towards mainly little old ladies leaving church, a bank, or drug store. The all sit on blue milk crates and have signs claiming no food, no home etc. but you see them being dropped off and picked up by a car each day. They beg while browsing the Web on your mobile phone isn't convincing of their plight. And you see them in local clubs too living it up with piles of cash. Supposedly homeless but I guess some could be and just a temp sharing of a room or couch in a rundown apartment. They continually smash things in it like the sink and walls, doors, etc (I know this because I know someone who knows the company who maintains the building). Laws prevent eviction if it's cold outside. I'd say many people would be all for homes to assist homeless rather than parks and sidewalks covered in tents. But I'd say they everyone doesn't because they feel we are all being conned. Which prevents the majority of homeless from getting help. >Section 8 has strict rules about guests and inspections and income paperwork every year. Sounds good but I've seen how many people who live on the street have become wise to gaming the system. It's a skill they learn to survive so I can't imagine a clueless civil servant here knowing how to spot that. One woman I knew was frighteningly good at it. She had six kids from five or six different men most dead from drugs, she continually stole from stores, but always got sympathy when she turned on the tears. She had a full-time job for most of the time government housing since she had kids. I just checked court records and see she was pregnant yet again by some scumbag two years before she died.
  - mikem170 3y ago
    You just listed some bad andecdotes. A half empty glass. What about contrary data? What about all the people living paycheck to paycheck who just lost their job? What about people fleeing a bad domestic situation? What about the single mom living with her two kids in a car? What about the divorcees paying child support who can only afford to live in their car? What about people struggling with disabilities and no support network? What about the person in the section 8 apartment nearby doesn't bother anybody? Realistically there are all kinds of homeless people out there. Some can be easily helped. Some can handle the responsibilities imposed by the modern world. Some can't. Demonizing them all isn't fair.
- jmyeet 3y ago
  > People are comfortable on the streets Ugh, I don't know if you're American or not but this is such an American take. It springs from the idea that homeless people prefer the streets to, say, a shelter without examining why that might be true. Shelters are dangerous [1]. They also often come with forced indoctrination and/or highly restrictive curfews and the high risk of your things being stolen. None of these things are a factor if you give people permanent shelter. There might be people who have lived on the streets so long they have serious mental health issues or it's greatly exacerbated existing mental health issues. In either case, isn't it better to remove people from the streets before this happens? Also, this is the minority. Why would we not give permanent housing to the majority who have simply been priced out of the housing market because of a few with mental health issues because or (or worsened by) their homeless situation? > People are severely disabled by mental illness or addiction Again, this can be paraphrased as "we can't give people housing because some of them can't manage housing because of the issues created by not having housing". Just think about that for a second. You don't seem the majority of homeless people. Why? Because they're at the first or second stage of homeless, which is couchsurfing (or other temporary accomodation) or living in their car, respectively. Addiction often comes after becoming homeless. Why? Self-medication in a desperate situation. > So your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types This is NIMBY propaganda. If everyone has shelter, why is there a reason to one house to become a flop house for "shady types"? Basically, this argument boils down to "we can't give anyone shelter because we can't give everyone shelter". It's a deflection tactic. Don't fall for it. The real problem here is that Americans (in particular) view poverty and homelessness as a moral failure and personal failing. It's not. It's the result of the profit motive for a basic human necessity. It can be remarkably cheap to make a substantial difference for homeless people [2]. [1]: https://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-choose-the-streets-over-shelters https://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-c... [2]: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-leaf-project-results-1.5752714 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-leaf-pro...
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
  >> 1) People are comfortable on the streets Finnish winter takes care of that item
- sampo 3y ago
  > paying rent/bills seems anathema to them Social services can pay rent and utility bills directly, so the person receiving rent assistance does not have the option to forget to pay the bills. > People are severely disabled by mental illness or addiction People with mental illness are typically assigned to an assisted living care home, or mental health institution, involuntarily. This is common in Europe. I understand, in America, involuntary institutionalization is pretty much a taboo.
jl6 3y ago
The trend looks good but “ends homelessness” is premature: https://www.ara.fi/en-US/Materials/Homelessness_reports/Homelessness_in_Finland_2022(65349) https://www.ara.fi/en-US/Materials/Homelessness_reports/Home...
isykt 3y ago
The US will never end homelessness because the small town people who have never see a homeless person outside of a TV show want to lock them all up and throw away the key and the people who live in large cities want to spend endless amounts of bond money on programs that give drug addicts $100,000 parking spaces. It’s the same reason we’ll never “cure cancer.” Cancer isn’t one thing, it’s many things, and it interacts with a complex system. The US is not even one complex system, it’s hundreds of them.
- imadierich 3y ago
  [dead]
- isbwkisbakadqv 3y ago
  What do you mean by the “$100k parking spaces” bit?
  - isykt 3y ago
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sf-rv-safe-parking-homeless-18130612.php#:~:text=San%20Francisco%20ran%20a%20site,model%20as%20an%20interim%20intervention https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sf-rv-safe-parking-ho....
- pydry 3y ago
  >people who live in large cities want to spend endless amounts of bond money on programs that give drug addicts $100,000 parking spaces People who live there != people who own property People who own property want to be seen to be pro more homelessness but if they want higher asset prices and higher rents then they need to fight for non solutions to homelessness.
  - isykt 3y ago
    It doesn’t really matter if the people who live there own property, the US doesn’t require property ownership to vote.
skeletal88 3y ago
If you are homeless in Finland then you will freeze to death in the winter when it is -10-20 degrees.
- FpUser 3y ago
  In Canada it is the same in the winter yet there way too many of homeless
- nabla9 3y ago
  Homeless = no permanent residence. Homeless people can get shelter for night. Municipalities and the state have an obligation to provide a warm place to sleep, and every individual, regardless of their place of residence, has the right to have it. But that's not a home. Most homeless stay at relatives or friends (60%). Some stay in institutions, like hospitals or shelters for victims of domestic violence. Then there are homeless dormitories, but they are so full of alcoholics and drug users that many people prefer to sleep outside in tent or something. Most homelessness is just temporary, but there was still 1,133 long term homeless people in Finland December 2022. If you are a person without problems managing your life, you get your home typically in few days or weeks.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  Despite the latitude, weather in coastal Helsinki is milder than inland American cities at lower latitudes. There are thousands of homeless individuals in Minnesota and the danger of freezing to death in that state is rather higher. In any case, sleeping out of doors is only a minor fraction of the homeless. People forced to sleep in shelters, or to couch surf, are also homeless. The federal United States government defines the term to mean those "who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence" and then goes on in detail.
ethagknight 3y ago
Reading the article, it occurred to me that in Memphis TN, a) we have substantial govt housing facilities that are decent, b) We also still have a big big homeless problem, and c) we have abundant (like 10s of thousands) of cheap homes that nobody wants. I bet we aren't doing enough to "graduate" people out of our govt housing facilities, where doing enough is a combo of giving people houses and property that the government owns (via tax auction) and then enforcing stricter compliance with rules and limits in government housing. People live 30+ years in rent free high rises designed for a short term housing stabilization solution!
- jeffbee 3y ago
  The all-transactions housing price index in Memphis has more than doubled in the last decade, while the number of employed persons has expanded by 10% to an all-time high. It’s a simple housing problem. Memphis lacks the housing necessary to make its market function.
  - ethagknight 3y ago
    Blunt analysis, the danger of data without on the ground insight. Significant portion of housing in Memphis is transacting in the 5-figure range, many houses in the 20-40k range. We could easily triple our "all transaction index" and still have wildly affordable housing. I have purchased a half dozen homes in a Neighborhood Housing Stabilization-focused non profit, fixed them up, and try to sell them at cost. Nobody wants them, the govt sponsored options are a much "better" deal, at least for the short sighted. We also lose "employed persons" because so many are on some form of non-working status.
    - jeffbee 3y ago
      The absolute value of the home is irrelevant. The price of homes doubled in the same period of time that the household income expanded by only 20%. You can see why that amounts to a housing crisis.
      - 3y ago
FpUser 3y ago
I wish them success. No matter the underlying reason it is really inspiring to see people provided with the basic needs so they can get back on their feet without running downward death spiral.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
imadierich 3y ago
[dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rr808 3y ago
Finland is a very poor comparison to USA. It has a small, largely static population of virtually all white people with lots of cheap land. Of course homelessness isn't a problem.
- nicoco 3y ago
  Doesn't "lots of land" works for the US too?
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    The US is basically completely out of land where people want to live. Mostly due to exclusionary zoning laws that make apartments illegal.
- slashdev 3y ago
  Why do you have to bring race into an unrelated discussion?
  - lr4444lr 3y ago
    A good faith reading might imply that ethnic, linguistic, and cultural homogeneity makes it easier and more cost effective to predict problems and incentive responses.
    - slashdev 3y ago
      White is hardly homogeneous. Race is a poor proxy for culture and language. I’m not going to assume good faith when it’s not the likely explanation.
      - davidktr 3y ago
        In Finland, ethnicity is fairly homogenous, and so is culture and language. The only exceptions are the Sami people (10,000 in Finland) and Finns of historically Swedish ethnicity. So in that sense, the white people of Finland are very homogenous. I strongly believe that US-based categories of ethnicity do not work well in European contexts. We also try to avoide the term "race", that has a bit of historical baggage over here.
29athrowaway 3y ago
Finland population: 5 million Now add 326 million more, larger territory, a bunch of administrative agencies of government and see what happens.
user3939382 3y ago
If ending homelessness was profitable for Raytheon it would be cleared up overnight. The politicians with the power to solve this issue don’t give a shit.
EGreg 3y ago
Related: Utah did it: https://www.cc.com/video/lntv3q/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-homeless-homed https://www.cc.com/video/lntv3q/the-daily-show-with-jon-stew... Worldwide approaches: https://community.solutions/ https://community.solutions/
elzbardico 3y ago
It is cheaper in Finland. In the US, the government avoid the costs of homelessness by not having public health care.
hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
Hey, I live there! Emigrated from the good old US of A two years ago. I want to point out one upstream reason why this is possible which isn't really talked about enough: On the margin, Finland has been better at providing actual numbers of rental units than any of the major cities I lived in in the US (Boston, NYC, Chicago). I live in one of those hundred-story virtually unadorned 'concrete suburbs' on the edge of town and the fact my rent is closer to 10% than 50% of my income is astonishing to me. I paid more for a single subletted room in the States than I ever have for rent here. Astonishing, and I hope to fight tooth and nail to keep the housing and especially apartment supply healthy in the years to come. N.B.: Rent in Helsinki is still kind of nuts for now, partly because it's the first stop for most of us foreigners. I don't live there, pretty much for that reason: A 10% increase in take home pay doesn't mean anything is it's eaten twice over by rent. But if you can learn Finnish well enough to live and work elsewhere, the laws of supply and demand suddenly tilt much more in your favor. steeples hands
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  You live in a hundred story building?
  - jandrewrogers 3y ago
    I assume they meant a hundred units. The tallest buildings in Finland don't even reach 40 stories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_F...
- weberer 3y ago
  Where do you live? I'm paying much more in Helsinki for a 1 bedroom apartment than I ever did in Philadelphia.
  - hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
    A tiny town in Pirkanmaa; previous to that, an even tinier town in Pohjois-Pohjanmaa. God bless tiny towns and remote work.
baobabKoodaa 3y ago
The headline "Finland ends homelessness" is not true, as seen from the content of the article. I wish people would stop spreading this misinformation. There is homelessness in Finland - it has not been "ended" - and not everyone will be provided a home just because a law says something. This article reflects a long-running propaganda campaign by the Finnish state to minimize the prevalence and suffering of homelessness.
cameldrv 3y ago
Finland much colder than say, the west coast of the U.S. The incentive to follow the rules to keep your apartment so that you don't freeze to death is high.
getarofilter 3y ago
[dead]

193 points by ColinWright 3y ago

yuppie_scum 3y ago

2020

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

I wonder how they tackle a few problems such as I've observed around here: (1) People are comfortable on the streets, they enjoy the freedom, or they are at least accustomed to it, and paying rent/bills seems anathema to them. (2) People are severely disabled by mental illness or addiction, and simply can't manage a household by themselves. Or they never learned how and they fail dramatically. This may be the 20% contingent who are moving back in with friends/family. (3) People are naturally generous/irresponsible with belongings and income that they will spontaneously share the windfall with everyone they know. So your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types, and poor housekeeping skills definitely become operative here. Homes like this ultimately run into big trouble, like massive drug raids, fires, prostitution or something. Not fun. Around here, the brass ring of housing is Section 8, and Section 8 has strict rules about guests and inspections and income paperwork every year. If you're not abiding by the rules then you're out on your ear. I don't know how many people wash out, but my case managers have inundated me with certificates and kudos for being one of their best, longest-term clients. Housing First type approaches is great, and I'm glad to hear that they've "ended homelessness", even though that seems to sort of be contradicted by the 20% figure that was constantly cited in the article.

wkat4242 3y ago
Finland is a very different society than the US. It's mostly rural (megacities like in the US don't exist) and very very cold in winter (and even summer isn't the best). Welfare is high. People don't live on the street because they want to. The mental illness is a bigger issue but here in Europe most countries have pretty decent healthcare for everyone (even the ones without money) so they don't have to be dumped on the street. Those people usually live their lives in institutions or assisted group living homes depending on their level of capability. Drug abuse is probably the biggest cause of homelessness here but it's not that common compared to the US. Alcohol abuse is but it's treated similar to mental illness with decent care.
- linuxdude314 3y ago
  In the US, this all comes down to the Reagan era decision to stop funding asylums. The mentally handicapped used to receive treatment, now they are forced onto the street.
  - ransackdev 3y ago
    > The mentally handicapped used to receive treatment I think you meant to say “used to be locked up”
    - jojobas 3y ago
      Provided with shelter? Check. There's only so much you can do, no brain debugger+hot patcher invented yet.
      - gattilorenz 3y ago
        It’s not a binary choice between living on the street and mandatory internment in something that resembles a prison, which is what I suspect was happening earlier. Other countries solve it by having protected communities, with more or less supervision and independence depending on the condition.
        jlawson 3y ago
        What do those communities look like for people whose "condition" is the worst? The ones who won't accept treatment but desperately need it, and are a danger to themselves and others.
    - raverbashing 3y ago
      It's hard for some to accept that yes, some people do need in-patient mental care and possibly for an extended period of time "prayer" or "social support" or whatever isn't a substitute for IV anti-psychotics Yes there was abuse, and yes that should have been curbed.
linuxdude314 3y ago
Are you bragging about your long term section 8 housing status?
- School-Cotton 3y ago
  It's hard to believe that's what you took away from that comment.
  - ransackdev 3y ago
    I have nothing against welfare, I ate as a kid because of food stamps, but he has a point. Personal ambition and goals aside, wouldn’t the goal be to support you until you’re able to fully support yourself, so that those funds can be used to help another person in need so they can get to a better place in life as well?
    - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
      That's a goal for many participants, yes. In my case, I have a disability, I work part-time, and my parents support me too, and Section 8 still pays some rent because I'm not able to cover it all, even after that. And my situation has reached maximum improvement. There's a Family Self-Sufficiency program which is great. They provide resources for education and employment and stuff, and they escrow some funds which are usually awarded when you "graduate" from the program. Graduation entails raising income so far that your benefits cease and you are officially self-sufficient. They've recounted many success stories over the years. Mostly younger folks who hit a rough patch, but then got through college for a degree and then a great full-time job. I'm in the program, but I don't expect to ever graduate or see my escrowed funds. The FSS program is actually run by HUD as a funnel for first-time homebuyers. They encourage you to use the escrow as a down payment on a house. I will certainly say that as my income has increased and benefit decreased, that has undoubtedly freed up funds to help many other people, so I do my part by keeping income as high as humanly possible. I don't know about corruption. They do want people in the program to stay that way, of course. It's mandatory to report income, so every time I report an increase, my benefit goes down, and certainly I could be assured that if I blew the lid off that, my benefit would go away, and I'd be done with the program. I haven't encountered anyone enticing me to lie or conceal anything. YMMV, of course, because these programs are all run at the municipal level, so corruption in some places isn't going to translate to corruption all over.
risyachka 3y ago
#3 is not a problem at all as it can be trivially enforced. #2 its hard to imagine someone being more comfortable on the street that in a housing provided by the gov. They don't pay bill/rent there so no anathema here.And when they start having income - pretty sure most will gladly pay rent/bills to not lose their comfort as people get used to comfort very very quickly.
- spondyl 3y ago
  > #2 its hard to imagine someone being more comfortable on the street that in a housing provided by the gov First off, the following is all anecdotal based on some articles I read a few years back now so take it with a grain of salt. New York had a program to house the homeless in hotels after running the numbers and concluding it would be cheaper to do so in the long run compared to the medical expenses and so on incurred. As part of that, I believe somewhere between 5 - 10% of people would persistently return to the streets despite having shelter provided. Most homeless are people in a dark period of their lives and get back on their feet with some aid to break the bootstrapping problem. A small portion however are considered to always end up there despite any help for whatever reason whether it's mental illness, drug use and so on. Of course, I'm not citing any links and I'm probably misremembering so I'd encourage you to do some more searching if you're interested. It seems like the NYC Hotel program was disestablished recently too.
- alt227 3y ago
  #3 is in fact a massive problem and the reason 90% of shelters shut down. Most of the homeless people I have ever spoken to avoid government welfare centers and homeless shelters purely because they attract the type of people who take advantage of the genuinely vulnerable people who are looking for help. They say that they feel much safer out on the street and that their stuff is much less likely to be stolen than in a shelter. I have known more than one person who has been involved in setting up a charity and shelter for the homeless with the best of intentions, only for it to close a year later due to violence and drug reelated crime.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    Sounds like a difference between providing shelters for some vs. individual homes for all.
noelwelsh 3y ago
I think "ending homelessness" is a great slogan, and in politics the voting public generally don't go for nuance. What is reasonable and achievable is reducing homelessness to those who want to live on the streets. Alternatively, everyone who wants to live in an house has access to one. This is, I imagine, the real goal of the program.
- ransackdev 3y ago
  Being a nomad is not the same as being homeless. Go to downtown SF and I guarantee you zero of those people have chosen to live on the streets.
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    What is "choice"? Almost everyone living on the streets is there because of a series of choices which they made, usually over a long time frame. Perhaps at the time they were not entirely voluntary choices, or conscious choices, but cumulatively they have chosen a certain pathway that led them to losing their income, job, belongings, and housing. Even an abused wife who's been dumped out by her husband, well, she did choose that husband. Obviously there is nobody who rises from a warm bed one morning, says "screw all this!" sells all they have and goes to rough it on the streets (except, perhaps, for Saint Francis of Assisi, but he found something productive to do.) I spent a lot of time Downtown hanging out with minors, and one day my good friend who's a dad confided to me something surprising. He said "Most of these kids aren't homeless or runaways, you know. Most of them are from wealthy neighborhoods and have good parents, but they come out here just to mingle." So it was like Future Runaways of America out there. And make no mistake, the area has a huge effort of outreach to runaways and homeless minors. Once someone winds up on the streets, more choices are offered. Those choices can either drive a person deeply into a hole from which they will never recover and never get off the streets, or they could just keep them going while they can stabilize and find needed services, and begin a process to get off the streets. Many people will pursue the former. Even if they pursue the latter course, they may not make it. And then you have people who realize, hey, this life is ok for me. I guess I don't mind it so much, and it's not worth trying to get housed. So they stay as-is for the rest of their lives.
Mizoguchi 3y ago
I heard Section 8 is also plagged by corruption (directly by a friend with acquittances in the program in the DC metro area). From what I understood and remember, many people working in the program are watching after their careers in goverment. There are various bands for compensation and benefits that are tied to performance metrics. One of the metrics for managers running Section 8 is level of occupancy, so what ends up happening is once you bring people into the program and fill all of your spots you leave them there even after their situation has improved and they are technically no longer qualified for housing benefits, this way you can report full occupancy year after year which helps your performance. Obviously those in need of housing are left out.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  > One of the metrics for managers running Section 8 is level of occupancy I do not understand why managers would be incentivized to keep people in who shouldn't be in. Because there is a huge demand on the front end! People are clamoring for vouchers! I was on a waiting list for at least two years. The waiting lists only open at designated times, and for short periods. The number of people who qualify is enormous, and there are various factors in qualifying for how quickly your number comes up. When I attended an orientation (which was 10 Black men/women and White me) the word was that vacancies were very low, and a lot of participants were having trouble just finding housing that would accept the voucher. I was an outlier because I was merely transferring programs, and had already secured housing of my choice. I suppose it could go either way. Are people having trouble finding vacancies because of corrupt managers? Or something else? Anyway, if demand is that far above supply, I don't see any reason why Section 8 couldn't maximize its occupancy year over year no matter, what their turnover rate.
silvestrov 3y ago
> 2) People are severely disabled by mental illness or addiction, and simply can't manage a household by themselves This is reduced a lot by early intervention, i.e. always provide housing and always provide free healthcare. It is so much easier to handle being "slightly mentally ill" when you can trust 100% that you will always have housing, healthcare and enough money for food, clothes and other necessities. If you can do 90%, then government can provide you with last 10% by paying rent automatically and having a social worker visit once a week. This fixes problems early compared to you becoming homeless. There is a lot of steps between "fully functional middle class person" and "mental institution".
- BbzzbB 3y ago
  Let's be real here, some people can't even do 10% let alone 90%. And than some people are severely mentally ill or addicted, not "slightly". I don't think GP is saying they're not doing a good job, but that "ending homelessness" sounds like a euphemism.
  - silvestrov 3y ago
    If you can "fix" 95% of people by providing housing, then handling the remaining 5% is much easier. These problems do not scale linearly. It is also surprising how much drug addicts and mentally ill can do when the basics has been taken care of.
    - nonethewiser 3y ago
      First, it may not be 95 and 5 percent. Second, thats not whats asserted by “Finland ends homelessness.” The assertion is that homelessness doesn’t exist there. So it seems like these cases are unaccounted for.
      - true_religion 3y ago
        I feel it’s like how employment statistics don’t include people not looking for work… if all the people who want housing get it, then homelessness has been eliminated. Someone who has a house but chooses not to live in it isn’t homeless.
bertil 3y ago
I definitely want to echo wkat4242’s answers: - Most of your concerns are already taken care of by healthcare, notably psychiatry that is free and well funded (people who work there would disagree, but everyone who needs to see a doctor will), social services (same), unemployment and professional training programs. - It’s below freezing most of the year. There cannot be any rough sleeping: either you are inside, or people pick up your frozen body in the morning. If you end up too drunk to go home (which happens alarmingly often: substance abuse is a huge problem, more than anywhere else) hospitals have drunk tanks and Police officers or ambulances will be more than happy to drive you there before you hurt yourself or others. They are not uncomfortable, just… “easy to clean” and in an odd pink colour. You get coffee in the morning. What that program actually did was admit that shelters were not working and replaced them with individual flats. Finns’ staunch individualism probably explain that more than anything. (It also explains the substance abuse… anyway.) - I’m not sure that how rural Finland is super relevant, but it is true: the country was going through rural exodus (what happened in the UK in early 19th century) _this decade_; it doesn’t really mean there’s a village life that disappeared (people don’t talk to their neighbours) but it has contributed to a big real estate boom. Outside of two streets in downtown Helsinki, there isn’t a building that wasn’t built recently—as in, with internet. Therefore, having slats for homeless people is actually a small fraction of the new homes. The second key thing about Finns (after their lack of social appetite) is their passion for design. Key people in the country: famous people, CEOs, etc. are designers, the way famous people in France, Germany, China, Japan and Korea are engineers and lawyers in the UK and US. > your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types, and poor housekeeping skills definitely become operative here That’s the thing: all flats are well designed and minimalistic. There isn’t much you can damage. This might change as the real estate portfolio ages, but it’s not a major concern now–not compared to having to step over a frozen body in the morning. The 20% is because, even if the program is summarised as “give them a home”, they are not signing title documents on day 1. They likely need help, so while they are de facto occupants with full rights to develop their sense of belonging, on paper they still have a status that roughly translates to ‘homeless’ and formally, they rent for a minimal amount and hardly any eviction clauses.
vidarh 3y ago
> People are comfortable on the streets, they enjoy the freedom This is the significant distinction between providing crappy shelter and providing a home. A lot of shelter spaces come with a lot of strings, and the first step to fixing the issues is to accept that you need to cut many or most of the strings - if a significant proportion of homeless prefer homelessness to the help you're offering, perhaps the "help" isn't all that helpful. If you want to get people off the street, you need to provide a similar level of freedom in the housing you provide as what it replaces. > (3) People are naturally generous/irresponsible with belongings and income that they will spontaneously share the windfall with everyone they know. So your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types Is it worse having them in a house than on the streets? And how much of a problem is this going to be when everyone involved have their own shelter? It's only a windfall if you provide it to a few rather than everyone who needs housing.
- thechao 3y ago
  My rabbi used to say that "charity with strings is just a bad job"; it's not charity if it's not given unconditionally.
  - throw9away6 3y ago
    If the person you provide charity to uses it to inflict harm on themselves and others is it really charitable?
    - thechao 3y ago
      They’re a person, not a puppet. I think you might be surprised at how little a budget is required for someone to harm themselves; some say it’s free!
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  1) should actually be “some people just want to be homeless.” Including people who could already return to a nice, clean home, but do not. So that remains unexplained.
antegamisou 3y ago
> (1) People are comfortable on the streets, they enjoy the freedom, or they are at least accustomed to it, and paying rent/bills seems anathema to them. This has to be the most peak late stage capitalism shit I've ever read here. It's not a terrible idea to keep a few things to oneself I guess...
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  Have you ever actually studied hobo culture or anything? I mean there have been whole classes of people, let's include the Romani, Bedouins, and Travellers, who love itinerant lifestyles and are, for all intents and purposes, "homeless people" who find a means of supporting themselves that doesn't involve sticking around in one place. They are all, of course, universally reviled by capitalists and communists alike, but whatever.
  - antegamisou 3y ago
    There is no population that actively rejects any form of housing (cardboard boxes excluded) and if there is, they definitely aren't moving to large urban areas en masse. And even if it's the case that they were formerly sheltered but 'decided' to be homeless again, it's probably the shelter provider that didn't do a great job at accommodating them. In any case, cultural opposition to housing is a pretty weak argument to make in order to express despair where your valuable taxpayer money goes to.
MrStonedOne 3y ago
[dead]
waihtis 3y ago
We simply don't have 1) and 2) - 1) nobody fancies freezing to death and 2) mentally ill people like you have do not exist over here. I can think of a maximum of 5 occurences in the past 10 years I've seen someone roaming on the street yelling obscenities, something you see on every block in SF. 3) The state will nurse you happily until death no matter how irresponsible you are. Truth it is has turned into a problem long ago which will be very painful to reverse.
elif 3y ago
(1) is a byproduct of being on the streets for a long time to begin with. people get comfortable in prison too, its just human adaptability. less people on the streets = less people "comfortable" on the streets. (2) that is why the Finnish model requires free counseling. (3) if every person has the same access to a council flat, why would you need to share? This seems to be a problem with the american style limited voucher system.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
usrbinbash 3y ago
> I wonder how they tackle a few problems such as I've observed around here: None of these problems are the majority of homless people. There are always some where special care is needed, or for whom nothing works no matter what level of care.
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  But #2 is why we are having this discussion in the US now.
watwut 3y ago
> (2) People are severely disabled by mental illness or addiction, and simply can't manage a household by themselves. Or they never learned how and they fail dramatically. This may be the 20% contingent who are moving back in with friends/family. > (3) People are naturally generous/irresponsible with belongings and income that they will spontaneously share the windfall with everyone they know. So your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types, and poor housekeeping skills definitely become operative here. Homes like this ultimately run into big trouble, like massive drug raids, fires, prostitution or something. Not fun. Afaik, it is much easier to help these two groups when they do have access to safe and stable housing. Conversely, their issues get much worst when they are homeless. As in, if you intend to help these people, giving them housing is pretty reasonable start. > like massive drug raids, fires, prostitution or something Prostitution is legal in Finland. Second, drug raids is what cops do, not what homeless do. The homeless may do the drug use part, I am just pointing out you picked the phenomenom that is done by somebody else.
dghughes 3y ago
#3 There is a well-known group of "homeless" people here who beg around my small town. Aggressive towards mainly little old ladies leaving church, a bank, or drug store. The all sit on blue milk crates and have signs claiming no food, no home etc. but you see them being dropped off and picked up by a car each day. They beg while browsing the Web on your mobile phone isn't convincing of their plight. And you see them in local clubs too living it up with piles of cash. Supposedly homeless but I guess some could be and just a temp sharing of a room or couch in a rundown apartment. They continually smash things in it like the sink and walls, doors, etc (I know this because I know someone who knows the company who maintains the building). Laws prevent eviction if it's cold outside. I'd say many people would be all for homes to assist homeless rather than parks and sidewalks covered in tents. But I'd say they everyone doesn't because they feel we are all being conned. Which prevents the majority of homeless from getting help. >Section 8 has strict rules about guests and inspections and income paperwork every year. Sounds good but I've seen how many people who live on the street have become wise to gaming the system. It's a skill they learn to survive so I can't imagine a clueless civil servant here knowing how to spot that. One woman I knew was frighteningly good at it. She had six kids from five or six different men most dead from drugs, she continually stole from stores, but always got sympathy when she turned on the tears. She had a full-time job for most of the time government housing since she had kids. I just checked court records and see she was pregnant yet again by some scumbag two years before she died.
- mikem170 3y ago
  You just listed some bad andecdotes. A half empty glass. What about contrary data? What about all the people living paycheck to paycheck who just lost their job? What about people fleeing a bad domestic situation? What about the single mom living with her two kids in a car? What about the divorcees paying child support who can only afford to live in their car? What about people struggling with disabilities and no support network? What about the person in the section 8 apartment nearby doesn't bother anybody? Realistically there are all kinds of homeless people out there. Some can be easily helped. Some can handle the responsibilities imposed by the modern world. Some can't. Demonizing them all isn't fair.
jmyeet 3y ago
> People are comfortable on the streets Ugh, I don't know if you're American or not but this is such an American take. It springs from the idea that homeless people prefer the streets to, say, a shelter without examining why that might be true. Shelters are dangerous [1]. They also often come with forced indoctrination and/or highly restrictive curfews and the high risk of your things being stolen. None of these things are a factor if you give people permanent shelter. There might be people who have lived on the streets so long they have serious mental health issues or it's greatly exacerbated existing mental health issues. In either case, isn't it better to remove people from the streets before this happens? Also, this is the minority. Why would we not give permanent housing to the majority who have simply been priced out of the housing market because of a few with mental health issues because or (or worsened by) their homeless situation? > People are severely disabled by mental illness or addiction Again, this can be paraphrased as "we can't give people housing because some of them can't manage housing because of the issues created by not having housing". Just think about that for a second. You don't seem the majority of homeless people. Why? Because they're at the first or second stage of homeless, which is couchsurfing (or other temporary accomodation) or living in their car, respectively. Addiction often comes after becoming homeless. Why? Self-medication in a desperate situation. > So your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types This is NIMBY propaganda. If everyone has shelter, why is there a reason to one house to become a flop house for "shady types"? Basically, this argument boils down to "we can't give anyone shelter because we can't give everyone shelter". It's a deflection tactic. Don't fall for it. The real problem here is that Americans (in particular) view poverty and homelessness as a moral failure and personal failing. It's not. It's the result of the profit motive for a basic human necessity. It can be remarkably cheap to make a substantial difference for homeless people [2]. [1]: https://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-choose-the-streets-over-shelters https://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-c... [2]: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-leaf-project-results-1.5752714 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-leaf-pro...
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
>> 1) People are comfortable on the streets Finnish winter takes care of that item
sampo 3y ago
> paying rent/bills seems anathema to them Social services can pay rent and utility bills directly, so the person receiving rent assistance does not have the option to forget to pay the bills. > People are severely disabled by mental illness or addiction People with mental illness are typically assigned to an assisted living care home, or mental health institution, involuntarily. This is common in Europe. I understand, in America, involuntary institutionalization is pretty much a taboo.

jl6 3y ago

The trend looks good but “ends homelessness” is premature: https://www.ara.fi/en-US/Materials/Homelessness_reports/Homelessness_in_Finland_2022(65349) https://www.ara.fi/en-US/Materials/Homelessness_reports/Home...

isykt 3y ago

The US will never end homelessness because the small town people who have never see a homeless person outside of a TV show want to lock them all up and throw away the key and the people who live in large cities want to spend endless amounts of bond money on programs that give drug addicts $100,000 parking spaces. It’s the same reason we’ll never “cure cancer.” Cancer isn’t one thing, it’s many things, and it interacts with a complex system. The US is not even one complex system, it’s hundreds of them.

imadierich 3y ago
[dead]
isbwkisbakadqv 3y ago
What do you mean by the “$100k parking spaces” bit?
- isykt 3y ago
  https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sf-rv-safe-parking-homeless-18130612.php#:~:text=San%20Francisco%20ran%20a%20site,model%20as%20an%20interim%20intervention https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sf-rv-safe-parking-ho....
pydry 3y ago
>people who live in large cities want to spend endless amounts of bond money on programs that give drug addicts $100,000 parking spaces People who live there != people who own property People who own property want to be seen to be pro more homelessness but if they want higher asset prices and higher rents then they need to fight for non solutions to homelessness.
- isykt 3y ago
  It doesn’t really matter if the people who live there own property, the US doesn’t require property ownership to vote.

skeletal88 3y ago

If you are homeless in Finland then you will freeze to death in the winter when it is -10-20 degrees.

FpUser 3y ago
In Canada it is the same in the winter yet there way too many of homeless
nabla9 3y ago
Homeless = no permanent residence. Homeless people can get shelter for night. Municipalities and the state have an obligation to provide a warm place to sleep, and every individual, regardless of their place of residence, has the right to have it. But that's not a home. Most homeless stay at relatives or friends (60%). Some stay in institutions, like hospitals or shelters for victims of domestic violence. Then there are homeless dormitories, but they are so full of alcoholics and drug users that many people prefer to sleep outside in tent or something. Most homelessness is just temporary, but there was still 1,133 long term homeless people in Finland December 2022. If you are a person without problems managing your life, you get your home typically in few days or weeks.
jeffbee 3y ago
Despite the latitude, weather in coastal Helsinki is milder than inland American cities at lower latitudes. There are thousands of homeless individuals in Minnesota and the danger of freezing to death in that state is rather higher. In any case, sleeping out of doors is only a minor fraction of the homeless. People forced to sleep in shelters, or to couch surf, are also homeless. The federal United States government defines the term to mean those "who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence" and then goes on in detail.

ethagknight 3y ago

Reading the article, it occurred to me that in Memphis TN, a) we have substantial govt housing facilities that are decent, b) We also still have a big big homeless problem, and c) we have abundant (like 10s of thousands) of cheap homes that nobody wants. I bet we aren't doing enough to "graduate" people out of our govt housing facilities, where doing enough is a combo of giving people houses and property that the government owns (via tax auction) and then enforcing stricter compliance with rules and limits in government housing. People live 30+ years in rent free high rises designed for a short term housing stabilization solution!

jeffbee 3y ago
The all-transactions housing price index in Memphis has more than doubled in the last decade, while the number of employed persons has expanded by 10% to an all-time high. It’s a simple housing problem. Memphis lacks the housing necessary to make its market function.
- ethagknight 3y ago
  Blunt analysis, the danger of data without on the ground insight. Significant portion of housing in Memphis is transacting in the 5-figure range, many houses in the 20-40k range. We could easily triple our "all transaction index" and still have wildly affordable housing. I have purchased a half dozen homes in a Neighborhood Housing Stabilization-focused non profit, fixed them up, and try to sell them at cost. Nobody wants them, the govt sponsored options are a much "better" deal, at least for the short sighted. We also lose "employed persons" because so many are on some form of non-working status.
  - jeffbee 3y ago
    The absolute value of the home is irrelevant. The price of homes doubled in the same period of time that the household income expanded by only 20%. You can see why that amounts to a housing crisis.
    - 3y ago

FpUser 3y ago

I wish them success. No matter the underlying reason it is really inspiring to see people provided with the basic needs so they can get back on their feet without running downward death spiral.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

imadierich 3y ago

[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

rr808 3y ago

Finland is a very poor comparison to USA. It has a small, largely static population of virtually all white people with lots of cheap land. Of course homelessness isn't a problem.

nicoco 3y ago
Doesn't "lots of land" works for the US too?
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  The US is basically completely out of land where people want to live. Mostly due to exclusionary zoning laws that make apartments illegal.
slashdev 3y ago
Why do you have to bring race into an unrelated discussion?
- lr4444lr 3y ago
  A good faith reading might imply that ethnic, linguistic, and cultural homogeneity makes it easier and more cost effective to predict problems and incentive responses.
  - slashdev 3y ago
    White is hardly homogeneous. Race is a poor proxy for culture and language. I’m not going to assume good faith when it’s not the likely explanation.
    - davidktr 3y ago
      In Finland, ethnicity is fairly homogenous, and so is culture and language. The only exceptions are the Sami people (10,000 in Finland) and Finns of historically Swedish ethnicity. So in that sense, the white people of Finland are very homogenous. I strongly believe that US-based categories of ethnicity do not work well in European contexts. We also try to avoide the term "race", that has a bit of historical baggage over here.

29athrowaway 3y ago

Finland population: 5 million Now add 326 million more, larger territory, a bunch of administrative agencies of government and see what happens.

user3939382 3y ago

If ending homelessness was profitable for Raytheon it would be cleared up overnight. The politicians with the power to solve this issue don’t give a shit.

EGreg 3y ago

Related: Utah did it: https://www.cc.com/video/lntv3q/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-homeless-homed https://www.cc.com/video/lntv3q/the-daily-show-with-jon-stew... Worldwide approaches: https://community.solutions/ https://community.solutions/

elzbardico 3y ago

It is cheaper in Finland. In the US, the government avoid the costs of homelessness by not having public health care.

hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago

Hey, I live there! Emigrated from the good old US of A two years ago. I want to point out one upstream reason why this is possible which isn't really talked about enough: On the margin, Finland has been better at providing actual numbers of rental units than any of the major cities I lived in in the US (Boston, NYC, Chicago). I live in one of those hundred-story virtually unadorned 'concrete suburbs' on the edge of town and the fact my rent is closer to 10% than 50% of my income is astonishing to me. I paid more for a single subletted room in the States than I ever have for rent here. Astonishing, and I hope to fight tooth and nail to keep the housing and especially apartment supply healthy in the years to come. N.B.: Rent in Helsinki is still kind of nuts for now, partly because it's the first stop for most of us foreigners. I don't live there, pretty much for that reason: A 10% increase in take home pay doesn't mean anything is it's eaten twice over by rent. But if you can learn Finnish well enough to live and work elsewhere, the laws of supply and demand suddenly tilt much more in your favor. steeples hands

CyberDildonics 3y ago
You live in a hundred story building?
- jandrewrogers 3y ago
  I assume they meant a hundred units. The tallest buildings in Finland don't even reach 40 stories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_F...
weberer 3y ago
Where do you live? I'm paying much more in Helsinki for a 1 bedroom apartment than I ever did in Philadelphia.
- hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
  A tiny town in Pirkanmaa; previous to that, an even tinier town in Pohjois-Pohjanmaa. God bless tiny towns and remote work.

baobabKoodaa 3y ago

The headline "Finland ends homelessness" is not true, as seen from the content of the article. I wish people would stop spreading this misinformation. There is homelessness in Finland - it has not been "ended" - and not everyone will be provided a home just because a law says something. This article reflects a long-running propaganda campaign by the Finnish state to minimize the prevalence and suffering of homelessness.

cameldrv 3y ago

Finland much colder than say, the west coast of the U.S. The incentive to follow the rules to keep your apartment so that you don't freeze to death is high.

getarofilter 3y ago

[dead]