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
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.
> 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.
> 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".
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.
- 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.
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.
#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.
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.
#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.
(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.
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.
> (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.
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.
> 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.
> (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...
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].
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
[+] [-] hiAndrewQuinn|2 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] NoZebra120vClip|2 years ago|reply
(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.
[+] [-] vidarh|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] silvestrov|2 years ago|reply
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".
[+] [-] wkat4242|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] bertil|2 years ago|reply
- 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.
[+] [-] waihtis|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] dghughes|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] noelwelsh|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] risyachka|2 years ago|reply
#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.
[+] [-] elif|2 years ago|reply
(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.
[+] [-] sampo|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] watwut|2 years ago|reply
> (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.
[+] [-] Mizoguchi|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] usrbinbash|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK|2 years ago|reply
Finnish winter takes care of that item
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] antegamisou|2 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] jmyeet|2 years ago|reply
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-c...
[2]: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-leaf-pro...
[+] [-] MrStonedOne|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] linuxdude314|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jl6|2 years ago|reply
https://www.ara.fi/en-US/Materials/Homelessness_reports/Home...
[+] [-] isykt|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] pydry|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] isbwkisbakadqv|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imadierich|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] skeletal88|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nabla9|2 years ago|reply
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|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] FpUser|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EGreg|2 years ago|reply
Utah did it: https://www.cc.com/video/lntv3q/the-daily-show-with-jon-stew...
Worldwide approaches: https://community.solutions/
[+] [-] FpUser|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] user3939382|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ethagknight|2 years ago|reply
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|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cameldrv|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] elzbardico|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baobabKoodaa|2 years ago|reply
This article reflects a long-running propaganda campaign by the Finnish state to minimize the prevalence and suffering of homelessness.
[+] [-] yuppie_scum|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] getarofilter|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] imadierich|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 29athrowaway|2 years ago|reply
Now add 326 million more, larger territory, a bunch of administrative agencies of government and see what happens.
[+] [-] rr808|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nicoco|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slashdev|2 years ago|reply