• prole
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      Public housing was shit, maybe.

      Or are all of the articles like this staged? And all of the data is made up?

      Since its launch in 2008, the number of homeless people in Finland has decreased by roughly 30%,[1] though other reports indicate it could be up to 50%.[7] The number of long-term homeless people has fallen by more than 35%.[3] “Sleeping rough”, the practice of sleeping outside, has been largely eradicated in Helsinki, where only one 50-bed night shelter remains.[3] Analysis of Housing First in Tampere, Finland found that it saved €250,000 in one year.[8] A further study of Finland’s Housing First program found that giving a homeless person a home and support resulted in cost savings for the society of at least €15,000 per person per year, with potentially even higher cost savings in the long term.[7] These cost savings for society are in part a result of reductions in usage of emergency healthcare, police, and the justice system when homeless people are given a home.[9]

      So they look like link 1, and they result in that… Seems great.

      • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Giving homeless people homes != “public housing”

        We do consider having a place to live a human right, but that doesn’t mean the houses are especially good or well maintained compared to commercial options.

        They aren’t always even the cheapest - those can usually be found from private renters who own one or two apartments they rent.