How Finland managed to virtually end homelessness

[Chico Loco]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I also believe that government intervention would be better to address the homelessness issue in the US; we need to stop depending on charity/non-profits for social services and we definitely need to stop using the capitalist model to "solve" the homelessness crisis (and stop commodifying education, and medical care, etc...).

Problem, not "issue."

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The problem with these people isn't a lack of a house - it's that they're low-IQ and/or addicts who self-medicate with alcohol and drugs. How is the problem "solved" by giving these people free hotel rooms and making it legal for them to do drugs all day and night?

No description in the OP's article is given for what the formerly homeless people are doing with their time. Are they working?

Except rates of homelessness vary greatly even within countries based on economic conditions and government policies. If it was just an issue of IQ or individual inferiority there'd be a direct relationship between between IQ and homelessness rates which would have little to no variance over time.

But you bring up an important point. Classism and stigma toward the poor and unhoused is still a major problem that hampers any real progress on the issue.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by TWAK

They are at least out of sight, which seems to be American's main concern with homeless and it's better than doing nothing. The issue in the US is complaining about homelessness then not wanting to pay for it or have low-income developments/shelters in their city. CA is in a legal fight with Elk Grove at the moment for refusing to allow a low-income project even though the residents complain about the homeless in Sacramento.

If they are drug addicted or "low-IQ" who the hell will hire them or want them around their business?

It's not just an aesthetic consideration from coddled people uncomfortable with seeing those less fortunate than them.

It's becoming a serious quality of life and safety issue in many places.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's not just an aesthetic consideration from coddled people uncomfortable with seeing those less fortunate than them.

It's high up on the list of reasons, especially if they live nowhere near where it happens.

It's becoming a serious quality of life and safety issue in many places.

For whom? It's not inherent that low-income housing would do that, nor shelters, although it certainly does happen.
The gist is Americans don't want to see or pay for it; just complain and consider that the focus is from other states (who have their own homeless issues) against California.
Just recently I saw that Dallas is a huge contributor to homelessness, but people in that metro would rather talk about California.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by TWAK

It's high up on the list of reasons, especially if they live nowhere near where it happens.


For whom? It's not inherent that low-income housing would do that, nor shelters, although it certainly does happen.
The gist is Americans don't want to see or pay for it; just complain and consider that the focus is from other states (who have their own homeless issues) against California.
Just recently I saw that Dallas is a huge contributor to homelessness, but people in that metro would rather talk about California.

Can't speak for Dallas but I'm in Houston at the moment and homeless here is also an issue but no where near the scale as it is in the Bay Area. Both the city and the state are more hostile to homeless encampments where as virtually every town on either side of the Bay has tent cities. Even my employer has a 'no tow' policy on all of their properties because people live in their cars in their parking lots.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by JManc

Can't speak for Dallas but I'm in Houston at the moment and homeless here is also an issue but no where near the scale as it is in the Bay Area. Both the city and the state are more hostile to homeless encampments where as virtually every town on either side of the Bay has tent cities. Even my employer has a 'no tow' policy on all of their properties because people live in their cars in their parking lots.

I won't downplay the terrible homeless problem in San Francisco, and much of the blame falls there. But one of the reasons for SF's homeless mess is a restrictive ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holding that, under the Eighth Amendment, it is cruel and unusual for a city to criminalize sleeping in public parks and on public sidewalks by those who have no alternative shelter. SF hasn't been able to muster a sufficient number of beds to clear out the camps. Texas isn't under that court's jurisdiction, though. Houston can roust anybody they want, whenever they want.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by TWAK

It's high up on the list of reasons, especially if they live nowhere near where it happens.


For whom? It's not inherent that low-income housing would do that, nor shelters, although it certainly does happen.
The gist is Americans don't want to see or pay for it; just complain and consider that the focus is from other states (who have their own homeless issues) against California.
Just recently I saw that Dallas is a huge contributor to homelessness, but people in that metro would rather talk about California.

Sorry, my comment was more about the homeless on the streets than it was about social housing.

I am very much in favour of social housing to get the homeless off the streets.

EDIT:

This is social housing near where I live:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/69...mjb?authuser=0

It is literally a five-minute walk across a park from this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4994...192?authuser=0

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by JManc

Can't speak for Dallas but I'm in Houston at the moment and homeless here is also an issue but no where near the scale as it is in the Bay Area. Both the city and the state are more hostile to homeless encampments where as virtually every town on either side of the Bay has tent cities. Even my employer has a 'no tow' policy on all of their properties because people live in their cars in their parking lots.

Me niether, I got it from this article that has political stuff so I won't discuss it here beyond the basics. craigs took care of the other part and what I mentioned before was these "new age" (that's what I'm calling them) homeless take up way more room. It's also understandable that the most populated state would have the most homeless, then couple that with the weather, the laws and attitude towards them (it's shifting though, for sure), and the high cost of living will all contribute to it. I think our rate is actually lower than NY, but not too sure on that.

Five cities and the state of California are getting tailored support from the federal government to reduce homelessness under a new initiative the White House described to USA TODAY.

The administration is sending a federal official into each community for up to two years to help cut red tape and better access federal programs, according to a plan that will be unveiled Thursday.

The cities – Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Seattle – along with California are home to half of the nation’s homeless population.

Yahoo!

Originally Posted by Acajack

Sorry, my comment was more about the homeless on the streets than it was about social housing.

I am very much in favour of social housing to get the homeless off the streets.

EDIT:

This is social housing near where I live:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/69...mjb?authuser=0

It is literally a five-minute walk across a park from this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4994...192?authuser=0

There's a lot of NIMBY opposition to this kind of stuff, but yeah straight up people living on the street results in multiple problems (for them and residents).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by TWAK

Me niether, I got it from this article that has political stuff so I won't discuss it here beyond the basics. craigs took care of the other part and what I mentioned before was these "new age" (that's what I'm calling them) homeless take up way more room. It's also understandable that the most populated state would have the most homeless, then couple that with the weather, the laws and attitude towards them (it's shifting though, for sure), and the high cost of living will all contribute to it. I think our rate is actually lower than NY, but not too sure on that.

Yahoo!

There's a lot of NIMBY opposition to this kind of stuff, but yeah straight up people living on the street results in multiple problems (for them and residents).

Social housing has been historically been very poorly executed in a lot of places and as a result there is a lot of fear and loathing in reaction to it.

Ideally you need to find the sweet spot where it's spread out fairly evenly so as to not to create large, concentrated pockets of poverty and the nastiness that goes along with it.

Easier said than done and even in places where the balance has been achieved, it's always a challenge to maintain as things can go off the rails quickly even due to the smallest of factors - like the elimination of a youth program or something. (I've seen it.)

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by JManc

The problem with a lot of homeless is that they are either mentally ill or refuse to live a structured existence; in lieu of housing, they'd have to adhere to some ground rules. I'm not sure how Finland dealt with these factors.

I would imagine that Finland has better mental healthcare than America does. While I don't doubt some of Finland's homeless have mental issues, the homeless problem Finland faced was probably less hampered by the burden of a segment of the population living on the streets with a whole other problem putting a barrier between them and normalcy. Having good mental healthcare that actually follows through and sees to it that people are getting treated and cared for would remove that obstacle, at least to an extent. The rest are probably people who really are down on their luck, have physical disabilities, drug problems, and then the slackers. One thing I've noticed on this issue that seems universal is people's refusal to get help and to give it. You have the people on the street, some of whom that are ok with that and resist help, and then the general public who doesn't want to help them. But then the general public is also annoyed by the problem of having to see these people every day. I think addressing the mental health problem first would go a long way, but there also needs to be an attitude change from both the people on the street, which you'll have if they actually have a road to normalcy, and by the public that needs to realize that some compromise will have to happen to get them off the street, including tax dollars.

This problem has been around forever, but it's gotten worse, of course. I also see the lack of empathy that people have for others as a big obstacle to solving it. Look at how we butt heads over politics and have come to hate each other because of it. It's hard to solve a problem like homelessness which takes a certain common decency and respect and dedication to others to reverse.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I would imagine that Finland has better mental healthcare than America does. While I don't doubt some of Finland's homeless have mental issues, the homeless problem Finland faced was probably less hampered by the burden of a segment of the population living on the streets with a whole other problem putting a barrier between them and normalcy. Having good mental healthcare that actually follows through and sees to it that people are getting treated and cared for would remove that obstacle, at least to an extent. The rest are probably people who really are down on their luck, have physical disabilities, drug problems, and then the slackers. One thing I've noticed on this issue that seems universal is people's refusal to get help and to give it. You have the people on the street, some of whom that are ok with that and resist help, and then the general public who doesn't want to help them. But then the general public is also annoyed by the problem of having to see these people every day. I think addressing the mental health problem first would go a long way, but there also needs to be an attitude change from both the people on the street, which you'll have if they actually have a road to normalcy, and by the public that needs to realize that some compromise will have to happen to get them off the street, including tax dollars.

This problem has been around forever, but it's gotten worse, of course. I also see the lack of empathy that people have for others as a big obstacle to solving it. Look at how we butt heads over politics and have come to hate each other because of it. It's hard to solve a problem like homelessness which takes a certain common decency and respect and dedication to others to reverse.

Again, going back to my previous comments, it's not lack of mental health care or empathy, it's the politics of involuntary long term commitment. Decades ago, patients could be held against their will in less than ideal conditions for years which led to deinstitutionalization during the Reagan era. We went from one extreme to the other...in typical American fashion.

I don't think you can hold people for a psych eval longer than 30 days which is not enough for someone with profound mental illness (Axis I and II disorders). Most times it's a 48 hour hold. After that, a patient can sign usually themselves out.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by JManc

Again, going back to my previous comments, it's not lack of mental health care or empathy, it's the politics of involuntary long term commitment. Decades ago, patients could be held against their will in less than ideal conditions for years which led to deinstitutionalization during the Reagan era. We went from one extreme to the other...in typical American fashion.

I don't think you can hold people for a psych eval longer than 30 days which is not enough for someone with profound mental illness (Axis I and II disorders). Most times it's a 48 hour hold. After that, a patient can sign usually themselves out.

CA had something going in the legislature for the mental health courts and what they could do, but I haven't heard anything of it for a while. Then there's the people, for whatever reason, who want to live on the street in their tent. There would have to be involuntary homing as well, since some wouldn't qualify for mental health. Maybe they are addicted to drugs, but that is something that requires a higher level of care than just housing.
The US had a bad track record of "government housing" so that doesn't help its reputation currently.
-CA did an audit and I'm pretty sure that the state has housed something like 500k, but that sounds way too high so I'll have to go look for it.

[mrnyc]

hippy finland has 5M souls. you can find many, many 5M people areas all around the usa that do not suffer from homeless issues very much, if at all. so while whatever they are doing is well worth a look, some perspective is in order. for another example, the usa had 2M refugees enter illegally last year and of course housing is an issue, so thats about half of finland in itself in one year.

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

NYC has a right to shelter but not guaranteed housing. That said, you don't see tent cities in NYC. You might see some vagrants sleeping on the subway every now and then, but it is nothing like what's happening on the West Coast.

You sometimes see them under the overpasses like along the LIE every now and again, but as a fellow NYer I agree we're blessed not to have the huge encampments like LA/SF. Plus, we have too much pedestrian traffic for people to set up shop like that anyway.

Food for thought: Here in NYC we have had since the 1990s a program of putting people up in budget hotels but that recently has been scaled down due to a series of horrifiying crime incidents. Before that, welfare hotels were a thing from WWII to the 1980s.
The point being is that there is at least here a history of the indigant having "housing" but not really solving the underlying personal issues driving the situation. This doesn't mean I don't support Finland's solution, because from a pragmatic perspective I'd rather pay for someone to stay in a hotel like room that be in the streets, but like all things it's not a cure all.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Qubert

You sometimes see them under the overpasses like along the LIE every now and again, but as a fellow NYer I agree we're blessed not to have the huge encampments like LA/SF. Plus, we have too much pedestrian traffic for people to set up shop like that anyway.

Food for thought: Here in NYC we have had since the 1990s a program of putting people up in budget hotels but that recently has been scaled down due to a series of horrifiying crime incidents. Before that, welfare hotels were a thing from WWII to the 1980s.
The point being is that there is at least here a history of the indigant having "housing" but not really solving the underlying personal issues driving the situation. This doesn't mean I don't support Finland's solution, because from a pragmatic perspective I'd rather pay for someone to stay in a hotel like room that be in the streets, but like all things it's not a cure all.

If that homeless bill of rights thing passes, get ready. I hope not, but I feel like it's coming for NYC