
Housing is a human right: How Finland is eradicating homelessness - pseudolus
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-for-january-26-2020-1.5429251/housing-is-a-human-right-how-finland-is-eradicating-homelessness-1.5437402
======
yters
Rights used to mean human capabilities that government should not obstruct,
because the government was not the source of said capability, and therefore
had no authority to control the capability.

Now rights seems to mean things the government is responsible for giving to
the citizen, which turns the formulation on its head to imply that the
government is the source of human rights.

Seems to be a dangerous trend, however humanitarian its portrayal may be.

~~~
zozbot234
Private property in land is pretty much the definition of a government-created
privilege, so the government does plenty of "obstructing" when it comes to
people's right to shelter. The governments which originally granted those
monopoly rights on land many centuries ago had no inherent authority to do
so-- although they may have had authority to _lease_ the use of that land for
some limited time, under fair and non-discriminatory rules. (This is how land
is managed e.g. in Hong Kong and Singapore, and the system works quite well.)

~~~
Mediterraneo10
> Private property in land is pretty much the definition of a government-
> created privilege

Though I welcome citations to prove the matter one way or the other, I suspect
that the 18th-century Lockean concept of natural rights which informed the
founders of the USA, saw ownership of private property as a right and not a
government-created privilege. That is, if one claimed land on what was seen as
terra nullius, or if a person’s family had owned the lank back to time
immemorial, then the land was rightfully theirs regardless of government
recognition or not. State recognition in the form of deeds would only have
represented something useful for dispute resolution, and did not imply that
the state was granting any rights.

~~~
zozbot234
Locke _specifically_ cautioned that ownership in land could only be justified
so long as there was _" enough, and as good, left in common for others"_.
Clearly, this is no longer the case today; indeed, the monetary value of that
monopoly right precisely shows the extent to which the use of land has become
scarce.

~~~
yters
An artificial scarcity created by the fact the government controls most of the
land...

We should be demanding the government cede control of the land, instead of
pleading for the government to give us a smidgen of what it does not
rightfully possess!

~~~
charlesu
And private investors wouldn't immediately buy up as much land as possible as
they did with single family homes during the housing crisis?

Everyone needs a place to live and land is a finite resource. Plus, foreign
investors love to use real estate to park money. Government doesn't seem to be
the problem here. People will pay what they have to to avoid being homeless.
At the same time, developers will build what's most profitable: luxury
housing. The market won't fix the problem, so we the people, by way of
government, should.

~~~
yters
Well, don't let foreign investors buy up all our land. Government should cede
control of the land, and let its citizens stake out plots.

~~~
learc83
And then we've just kicked the can down to the road a generation or so.
Whatever problems you think more privately owned land will solve today, will
just be waiting for us tomorrow.

------
newfeatureok
Housing is the perfect example to illustrate the flaws of how democracy is put
into practice in many (but not all) Western societies. There are at least two
big issues:

1\. Those who have housing are less transient and as a result have
(increasing) influence over local politics in aggregate.

2\. Said local politicians then take their constituents will upstream,
resulting in the (re)enforcement of policies that benefit the existing
property owners. Mainly this manifests itself in anti-growth policies. Not
just in housing, but really any sort of change that can be seen as disruptive
to the existing population even if it's good generally. This can mean housing,
public transportation, roads, and more!

The solution to these issues is to nationalize rules regarding housing, but
because of (2) it's unlikely to ever happen.

I wonder what will need to happen before the minority (not speaking about race
or ethnicity, but in terms of voter participation) finally are empowered,
given many times the minority voting population actually makes up the majority
of eligible voters.

I guarantee you that if 100% voter participation was enforced and macro votes
could override micro votes (i.e. a state vote could overturn a local rule)
most issues would go away.

~~~
nathancahill
Landownership being the foundation of American politics is it's original sin.

~~~
antupis
I think even landownership is not a problem, the problem is that people think
about housing as an investment and not a tool(eg car).

~~~
easytiger
Given the need for extensive labour and planning to construct most dwellings,
how do you propose doing a built property from retaining value?

------
wffurr
What a total disaster the threads on articles about homelessness turn into. No
wonder most of the developed world has a serious homeless problem when people
are so completely lacking in both empathy and insight.

Straw men about "rights" and "coercion" abound, while there's very little
acknowledgement of the scale of human suffering that can be solved by just
_providing housing_ instead of half-heartedly funding shelters, halfway
houses, ERs, etc.; the usual leaky uncoordinated sieve of a "safety net" that
exists in most countries.

How about instead a Y Combinator applicant that takes the idea in the article
of cost-benefit analysis in terms of public service usage and scales it up
across cities, states, and nations?

"Keeping people homeless, instead of providing homes for them, is always more
expensive for the society. In Finland we have some scientific evaluations of
the cost of this program. When a homeless person gets a permanent home, even
with support, the cost savings for the society are at least 15,000 Euros per
one person per one year. And the cost savings come from different use of
different services.

In this study, they looked at the services that homeless people used when they
were without a home. They calculated every possible thing: emergency
healthcare, police, justice system, etc. They then compared that cost to when
people get proper housing. And this was the result. I'm quite sure this kind
of cost analysis can also be found for Canada."

~~~
jbob2000
Providing housing is not the solution.

A previous partner of mine worked as a social worker for an organization that
did "housing first". She would house homeless individuals in apartments,
advocated on their behalf to the landlord, get them some basic furniture, and
helped them get financial assistance to afford rent and food. That part was
easy.

The biggest problem she faced was that people would leave their homes. She
would come by a few days after housing them and they weren't around. She'd
call them up only to discover they'd taken the train over to the next town and
spent the night on the streets there. One lady complained that she thought the
apartment was too small and preferred to be outdoors. She housed a family of 4
who were sleeping in their car, only to find that they crossed the border a
few days later because the father thought that there were better opportunities
there.

Homelessness is not about "not having a home". It is a mindset and lifestyle
that people develop over many years.

The best solution is to try to stop the incoming generation from developing
this lifestyle - get 'em while they're young. Keep troubled kids in school at
all costs. Double down on drug and addiction education. Police the shit out of
poor neighborhoods. And then provide some health and wellness support for
those who choose this lifestyle. Because that's all you can do.

~~~
throwaway7392
This conflicts with the very article posted in this thread though, backed by
empirical data vs your anecdotes.

~~~
jbob2000
Perhaps. The experiences came to me from someone new to the profession, who
was probably given all the troublesome cases so the established employees
could have an easy ride with the ones who were interested in changing their
lives around.

------
vfc1
Especially with the increase of automation and the reduction of the number of
jobs, I think it's a must.

It's 2020, it just doesn't make sense to still have people living on the
streets, like animals.

As most people are not financially independent, homelessness could literally
happen to any of us. All it takes is a rough period in your live, you get laid
off, a bad divorce, someone in your family passes away that used to contribute
to the expenses and now you can't pay the rent, a war veteran that could not
adapt to society.

A car breaks down and you can't go to your minimal pay job anymore, you get
laid off and can't pay the rent.

To anyone who thinks otherwise and thinks homeless people just don't want to
work, I recommend the channel Invisible People -
[https://www.youtube.com/user/invisiblepeopletv](https://www.youtube.com/user/invisiblepeopletv)

~~~
easytiger
How do you stop someone going outside and sitting down on the streets?

~~~
lhopki01
Well some places criminalize being homeless.

~~~
easytiger
So if someone came and plopped themselves and the entrance to your house on
the pavement, you'd want there to be no recourse to ask them to go away.

Vagrancy, loitering etc have always had cause to be enforceable offenses for
200 years for a reason

------
ChrisMarshallNY
Good show, Finland.

I have some fairly extensive experience with the types of folks that end up
homeless.

I'm extremely grateful that it's never happened to me; but I'm quite aware
that it's always a a possibility.

------
coder1001
Does this apply to all residents or just Finnish citizens?

It would only work if all residents are covered, right?

In New Zealand citizens and residents can get govt support for accomodation,
yet there are crazy numbers of homeless people everywhere!

~~~
2rsf
I can't find a quote but as far as I know it's true across the EU- permanent
residents get the same rights as citizens (except for voting, working for some
government positions etc)

------
hopia
Interestingly, there's been many news articles in the Finnish newspapers
recently about Finnish homeless people living in the forest.

------
ed_balls
>... completely end by 2027

Having a very tiny homeless population is a sign of healthy society. What are
gonna do with some people that are non-violent and don't want to live in the
building X? Are you gonna lock them up?

~~~
wffurr
I'm sure you mean well by posting this comment, especially given the "very
tiny" qualification. However, this is a quite common straw man argument that
homeless people are choosing to be so, rather than finding it the least bad of
their terrible options.

The problem of involuntary homelessness and lack of access to adequate
facilities, health care, mental care, transitional assistance, etc. is so
large that to get hung up on some mythical dystopia where people are forced
into homes is worse than a distraction; it actively aids those who for
whatever reason do believe that for currently homeless people it's a choice or
the result of their own bad decisions or whatever.

I seriously doubt the metrics used by the Finnish government would encompass
such "wanderers by choice" that you're imagining. They are instead talking
about people coming into shelters for assistance and _helping_ them find
stable housing that they can rely on.

------
thomasfl
Private housing is both a basic human need, and the largest asset class.
Private speculation in private property is massive in scandinavian countries.
It is hard to see speculation going away without unpopular state regulations
on the housing market.

For first time buyers of housing in norway, family background has become the
most important factor.

------
easytiger
By having a tiny population, and by being generally rather unattractive for
most immigrants?

------
samdunham
So what does the government do if people are unwilling to build housing? Force
them to at the point of a gun?

~~~
wffurr
Why is that the choice? The government can just _build housing_ by the normal
means, or fund other entities to do so, such as the housing nonprofit
Y-Foundation in the article.

------
thomasfl
Speculation in private housing, is also a human right. Private housing has
become the biggest asset class in the western world.

~~~
gchamonlive
Private housing is cultural, whereas shelter is a necessity. Shelter is
sometimes vital for surviving. I would be surprised to be proven that
speculation in private housing is necessary for survival.

~~~
Nasrudith
A tongue isn't neccessary to survival and yet we would call someone who went
out ripping people's tongues human rights violators among other things. Not
being neccessary is not sufficient to for something to not be a human rights
violation.

I wouldn't call speculation in itself a human right but it emerges from others
like right to trade and ownership. Taxing unoccupied homes would be a way to
address it perfectly respectful of human rights - fixed costs of infastructure
upkeep need to be paid after all.

~~~
aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA
What the

------
ramblerman
These Scandinavian success stories are great, but it bothers me that they are
always held up as some progressive ideal. As if it's even a choice for other
nations.

They have immense advantages, and unique benefits. Norway in particular being
the frontrunner.

Yet in my news feeds it seems middle European progressive parties
(Belgium/France/Germany/Spain) always point to these countries and say "see,
look what happens if we take care of our people". Ignoring not only the money
needed for such an initiative, but the huge demographic differences from
immigration in the last 20-40 years.

I welcome opposing thought here, because it's a matter that genuinely confuses
me, and I'm open to being on the wrong side here.

~~~
AndyMcConachie
What is Finland's advantage? Norway I get, it's oil. But Finland is just a
well managed country without significant natural resources. Most of its
industry is not related to extraction of resources.

~~~
KarlKemp
Considering their mentioning of immigration, I fear (Edit: I was right, see
replies) they see the the nordics‘ advantage as being almost entirely white.

That would not just be boorish, but also wrong: both Sweden and Morway (the
two I just checked) have around 17% foreign-born residents, with more than
half of those from outside the EU.

~~~
ramblerman
Race has nothing to do with it.

Rather the question is, does importing radically different cultures, and low
skilled labor bear a cost on the welfare state.

This is a cost that is probably acceptable, and necessary, but we should keep
an eye on the practical limits.

Norway has far more money to spend, and Finland has far lower foreign cultural
migration, so they don't make fair examples.

