Helsinki’s Radical Solution to Homelessness

[Long Dark Blues]

I think this would be a good idea with some sort of regular maintenance and upkeep on the property and land as a condition.

If the land and house is government owned, will residents feel pride in the property and community? If not, will they care to do the maintenance required to keep the property and land livable and useable?

 

[IGotAHugePeckah]

Put the fucking bums to work.

 

[Otto!]

As good as it sounds, it would not work as well with a homeless population that is in large part dealing with addiction and mental health issues. Those who can function on their own would definitely benefit from this. The issue then becomes where do you draw the line? If you”re someone juggling 3 jobs to pay rent and groceries, and you see someone provided with free housing, pretty sure it would be tempting to game the system.

 

[oldshadow]

We already do that, it’s called government housing, section 8 or the projects.

Yep that has been a great success. The people just love and take such good care of their “free” homes and their neighbors.

And now you are going to add plenty of truly batshit crazy people that will not follow any rule to that.

We would be better of judging a hell of a lot more of them a danger to themselves or others (which they are) and force committing them. Which would require more money in mental health, which is fine.

 

[IIIIIIII]

Don't get excited

i was thinking more like a giant hole in the snow, and we dump them all in.

 

[Islam Imamate]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...tah-struggles-with-homelessness-idUSKCN1P41EQ

Eeeehhhhhh... it's struggling now.

From your link

“The only thing I’ve ever seen that really worked in terms of reducing the number of people on the street was the Housing First policy,” said Glenn Bailey, who directs Crossroads Urban Center, a Salt Lake City food pantry.

“The mistake we made was stopping.”

State officials cite a combination of factors for the backwards slide, including rising land and housing costs in booming U.S. cities, stagnant wage growth, and a nationwide opioid epidemic.

So the problem seems that the funding, and the political will necessary to maintain it, has dried up. If the city owned more public housing for middle income residents, maybe even luxury housing, it could be profiting off of the increased cost of housing and use those proceeds to help fund low income housing and housing first initiative. Just a thought to consider at least.

 

[panamaican]

The more I like capitalism, the more I appreciate these types of ideas as the societal counterbalance. I think this would work just fine here in the U.S. As the article points out, the key is that the homes are unconditional.

One of the biggest hurdles for the homeless to reintegrate into society is that without a mailing address they're frozen out of a lot of normal opportunities. Think about how many job applications ask for your address. Your state ID usually requires it. There are numerous areas where just having a steady address would be very helpful.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

I guess I'm for "housing first". Just don't make the housing too nice, otherwise the government might incentivize sloth. Some people are going to be bums whether the government provides them housing or not. Might as well give these people four walls and a roof, running water, and food.

 

[deviake]

Finland is the only EU country where homelessness is falling. Its secret? Giving people homes as soon as they need them – unconditionally.
tl;dr Capital of Finland reduced its homeless problem through a Housing First policy where the homeless are given access to homes unconditionally. The city government uses its ownership of land, housing units, and a construction company as well as zoning laws to facilitate this approach.




I have heard of the Housing First approach to the homeless problem but this was an interesting article that went a little more in depth into a specific Housing First initiative that seems to be fruitful. Other countries have shown interest in the approach, from France to Australia, but I'd like to see something of the sort tried in American cities.

I'm glad I checked the forum, I was just about to post this.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Here's another good for you guys on the subject of actually taking resources offered to you.

My fiancé works in a prison here in California and teaches a transitions program to inmates to help them re-adjust to the real world once they get out and put them in touch resources and jobs. You know what the number one comment is to her when she's trying to get this guys in touch with felon friendly employers?

"Fuck that, when I get out, I'm just going to collect social security" Considering many of these inmates in for drug offences, you can imagine how far that gets them.

A parole agent told me once that a lot of guys getting out of prison become voluntarily homeless so the state cannot tell them where to parole to and cannot be tracked by their agents. Imagine not wanting to have to meet with your parole agent and have to conform to the terms of your release that you're willing to live on the street.

Anecdotal stories are pretty worthless. I know a guy who..., therefore all guys ... There are always going to be hard cases.

Yes, the situation is more complicated than people not having homes. It’s going to take a dedicated, multi-faceted approach to solve this problem and the interrelated problems plaguing this country. Sadly, I have strong doubts that this country, its leaders and its citizens, have the compassion and moral fortitude to look beyond their own immediate self interests.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Maybe a US politician will propose a Housing for All Who Want It plan.

 

[Shoemaker]

This story reminds me of the guy who was building tiny homes for the homeless in LA... until the city started repossessing them.

The US wants you to stop being homeless - but on their terms. I haven’t seen 1 US city that is actually serious about its homeless problem - California to Maine. It’s all about minimizing the impact on the not-homeless.

 

[tramendous]

You can't solve homelessness just by throwing homes at the problem.

you'd be surprised.

 

[Shoemaker]

You can't solve homelessness just by throwing homes at the problem.

That depends on the reason for homelessness. If the reason is an artificial shortage of homes in an area that demands more housing - throwing more homes at the problem will solve it.

 

[Shoemaker]

The more I like capitalism, the more I appreciate these types of ideas as the societal counterbalance. I think this would work just fine here in the U.S. As the article points out, the key is that the homes are unconditional.

One of the biggest hurdles for the homeless to reintegrate into society is that without a mailing address they're frozen out of a lot of normal opportunities. Think about how many job applications ask for your address. Your state ID usually requires it. There are numerous areas where just having a steady address would be very helpful.

This is a big reason why ID shouldn’t equal voting rights. People without a consistent address deserve to vote - even if I don’t like what they’ll vote for.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I like how everything that Europe does that works, we came up with first.

It's as if no one here has ever heard of a project, or section 8 housing.

Free college? Yep, states used to fund the college's.

You guys get credit for UHC, we didn't come up with that one.

 

[panamaican]

I like how everything that Europe does that works, we came up with first.

It's as if no one here has ever heard of a project, or section 8 housing.

Free college? Yep, states used to fund the college's.

You guys get credit for UHC, we didn't come up with that one.

It's in the implementation that the differences arise.

This is actually a great example of that. Helsinki makes sure that the housing sectors aren't segregated by economic class so that they have fully integrated communities. Every community has a mix of low income public housing, middle income and high income housing.

In the U.S., that was the original plan. Except here, private interests were able to successfully force all of the low income housing into limited geographic areas, which is what created the projects and ghettos. This matters because it impacts things like school funding, access to grocery stores, all sorts of little things that seem insignificant but directly impact quality of life. Additionally, if this had been implemented as intended, you couldn't create poor communities by just moving out of them because every community would be a mix.

If the U.S. had implemented their plan and stood up against private money, we would have had a different set of outcomes.

So, the difference between them and us is that they implemented the plan in the way that best serves the goal. We modify the plan in the way that best serves the biggest pockets. It's a very intriguing difference in implementation.

 

[Cole train]

It's in the implementation that the differences arise.

This is actually a great example of that. Helsinki makes sure that the housing sectors aren't segregated by economic class so that they have fully integrated communities. Every community has a mix of low income public housing, middle income and high income housing.

In the U.S., that was the original plan. Except here, private interests were able to successfully force all of the low income housing into limited geographic areas, which is what created the projects and ghettos. This matters because it impacts things like school funding, access to grocery stores, all sorts of little things that seem insignificant but directly impact quality of life. Additionally, if this had been implemented as intended, you couldn't create poor communities by just moving out of them because every community would be a mix.

If the U.S. had implemented their plan and stood up against private money, we would have had a different set of outcomes.

So, the difference between them and us is that they implemented the plan in the way that best serves the goal. We modify the plan in the way that best serves the biggest pockets. It's a very intriguing difference in implementation.

Umm not quite

We have a very clear difference in poor middle and rich neighbourhoods.

Homeless guys go to poor as does anyone who wants an apartment from social services

Heres an apartment building that was full of druggies and alcos btw


Pretty basic "poor people" building around here

 

[panamaican]

Umm not quite

We have a very clear difference in poor middle and rich neighbourhoods.

Homeless guys go to poor as does anyone who wants an apartment from social services

Heres an apartment building that was full of druggies and alcos btw


Pretty basic "poor people" building around here

I was going from this quote in the OP:

In each new district, the city maintains a strict housing mix to limit social segregation: 25 percent social housing, 30 percent subsidised purchase, and 45 percent private sector. Helsinki also insists on no visible external differences between private and public housing stock, and sets no maximum income ceiling on its social housing tenants.

Is that not true?

 

[Cole train]

I was going from this quote in the OP:

In each new district, the city maintains a strict housing mix to limit social segregation: 25 percent social housing, 30 percent subsidised purchase, and 45 percent private sector. Helsinki also insists on no visible external differences between private and public housing stock, and sets no maximum income ceiling on its social housing tenants.

Is that not true?

Aaah okay i was watching the community part in your post

kinda true kinda not ;they do it sneakily

Like they usually put the poor/social service guys on the other side of the neighbourhood and middle class to other side (rich have their own neighbourhoods)

For example poor on the west side
middle class in east

And a railroad to separe them

they are still in same neighbourhood but still separate