Apple Puts $400 Million Toward Affordable Housing (axios.com) 99
Apple announced Monday that it is allocating $400 million toward affordable housing and homeowner assistance programs in California this year, as part of the $2.5 billion commitment announced in November. From a report: The housing crisis has worsened in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, forcing states and cities to pause spending on affordable housing projects. Big Tech's wealth has been blamed by some for driving up housing prices in the San Francisco Bay Area and making it unaffordable for teachers, firefighters and other workers who support the region. Apple, along with Facebook, Google and Microsoft, committed a collective $5 billion to support affordable housing initiatives, but it ran into the reality that money alone can't solve the problem without changes to zoning and financing restrictions.
Build it in Apple Park (Score:3)
So in Cupertino ... (Score:2)
...that's about 400, 2 bedroom, 800 Sq Ft homes.
thatched roof cottages for iSerfs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know what they should do? Build a high-speed train from the places in CA people don't want to live to the places near where they work. That way workers could live in the middle of the state and commute to near Silicon Valley or Los Angeles on a very expensive train every day.
Re: (Score:2)
The state of California is currently working exceedingly hard on that, starting at the legislative level.
Re: (Score:2)
You beat me to it.
How environmental of you (Score:1)
f you look there is big piece of land in the middle of the spaceship that is being wasted.
"Wasted" being or course a bunch of trees and other plant life... No need for anything natural anywhere I guess!
To paraphrase the Matrix:
We don't know who struck first, us or them. We do know that it was us who scorched the ground, so we could build more housing units.
Re: (Score:2)
Build a new town far from the campus for remote workers.
Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Raze the old Apple campus, and build TONS of apartments. Pumping more money in to subsidize housing, without increasing the amount of housing, simply raises the price of housing.
As many have realized, zoning becomes a problem quickly, especially in California. Many communities in California allow residents to object to housing plans. As new housing puts downward pressure on housing prices, almost always, existing homeowners object to *any* new development.
Mod Up Please (Score:4, Insightful)
Mod up please.
I'm as Left wing as any Californian but our state's housing problems aren't just going to magically go away just by building a bit of low income housing (shit, at Silicon Valley land prices that $400 mil would likely just build 400 houses which is nothing). Many areas of our state are in the midst of a major housing shortage, the only solution to that is for our effected local communities to allow more housing to be built which in many cases means allowing developers to build upwards.
If left to the free market Silicon Valley would be populated by a ton of residential high-rises and families would actually be able to afford to live there. And if you don't want to live in apartments like that, go live in the burbs like everywhere else.
This ties into a lot of other issues too. Care about global warming? Let's get those idling cars of commuters off the freeway by letting people be able to afford to live near work. Care about the working class? Let's build enough housing so that half or more of their income doesn't have to go keeping a roof over their head. Care about homelessness and crime? Build enough homes for people to live in.
Re:Mod Up Please (Score:4, Insightful)
You think it's bad now, wait until the moratorium on evictions expires, and the extra unemployment money goes away. Rents will plummet, and nobody will able to afford them anyway.
California is going to get the unique experience of seeing 30-50% vacancies on rentals while simultaneously seeing an order of magnitude increase in homelessness.
And very few of the sheeple out here will remember this come November. Governor Nuisance is more popular than ever among the people whose lives he's destroyed.
Re: (Score:2)
This ties into a lot of other issues too. Care about global warming? Let's get those idling cars of commuters off the freeway by letting people be able to afford to live near work. Care about the working class? Let's build enough housing so that half or more of their income doesn't have to go keeping a roof over their head. Care about homelessness and crime? Build enough homes for people to live in.
The issue isn't the ability of tech workers to afford housing near their jobs, it's about the contractors that work to clean their offices, the folks that work in the sandwich shops and stores that need the ability to afford housing close to work.
In NJ they require builders to include Low Income Housing in their development plans, the problem is the low income housing doesn't necessarily need to be in the same neighborhood or even the same part of the state. It's called the Mount Laurel decision, and it res
Housing Market (Score:3)
Unfortunately, the housing market is all connected. If you want builders to build inexpensive housing, you need to let them build expensive apartments until there isn't a demand for them. Then they will build moderately priced apartments until there isn't a demand for them. Then they'll build inexpensive apartments.
I'm seeing that play out in a small downtown area near me. Over the last five years, a half-dozen *really* high end apartment buildings went up. The last two haven't sold out half the units, and
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the only solution to that is for our effected local communities to allow more housing to be built which in many cases means allowing developers to build upwards
Not just this, but people who buy property with zero intent to living in the place being purchased should be ended. Housing should not be an investment vehicle except for those who actually are going to live in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait.. are you honestly saying that the solution to an inefficient housing market would be further regulations that will make it even less efficient? And you got modded up?
What part of CA do you live in?
Re: (Score:2)
Well why wouldn't that work? Regulations do not always create inefficiencies. Believe it or not sometimes they actually solve problems.
We are currently experiencing overwhelming demand relative to our supply and eliminating investment buying would certainly reduce some of that demand.
Don't get me wrong, we do need more homes built too but I don't see why their suggestion wouldn't help.
Re: (Score:2)
at Silicon Valley land prices that $400 mil would likely just build 400 houses which is nothing
I came here to "joke" about exactly this ("soooo, Apple's going to build 400 houses?"), but I see you beat me to it.
I will add that even at median California prices, not Silicon Valley specifically, that's still only like 800 houses.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, drop in the frick'n bucket
Re: (Score:2)
There was also a bit in there about how they (and Google, MS, Facebook) ran into the real problem you identified - Zoning. You can't build enough housing in the Bay Area for all the people who want to live there.
I say they should just pick a horn and jump on i
Re:Solution (Score:4, Interesting)
2019 called, and they want their solution back. How about more remote work, or work centers outside of already overcrowded areas? Dispersing people into lower-density areas might even help lessen the cultural divide between urban and non-urban.
Everywhere (Score:2)
You need more housing *everywhere* in the area. Build in the city and suburbs.
Re: (Score:2)
You assume there is an inventory of available, undeveloped (or otherwise unused) land around SF, LA, and Silicon Valley - all the available land is out near the new High-speed rail line connecting nowhere you want to be to another place you don't want to go.
OP (Score:2)
Well, as I said, there's a fairly large campus that Apple recently abandoned.
Re: (Score:2)
2019 called
Can you tell them really, really sorry?
And if they take us back, we promise we won't laugh at the old Gypsy woman this time?
Re: (Score:2)
As many have realized, zoning becomes a problem quickly, especially in California. Many communities in California allow residents to object to housing plans. As new housing puts downward pressure on housing prices, almost always, existing homeowners object to *any* new development.
How about a compensation scheme coupled with increased housing construction? Take what people's houses are worth now, take their expected value (which would presumably be lower) once new housing is built and available, and give the current homeowners the difference. You can even sweeten the deal by taking historical growth trends into account in that payment (so if for example, if it will take 10 years to build out the new housing starting in 2025, take the average house value growth of the area from 2015
Re: (Score:2)
What? Who exactly will pay the current homeowners off to buy their vote/silence on new construction?
The Government?
The Builder?
The new homeowner?
You do, of course, realize that those added bribes, I mean expenses, will make new construction even MORE expensive, right?
Re: (Score:2)
What? Who exactly will pay the current homeowners off to buy their vote/silence on new construction?
The Government?
The Builder?
The new homeowner?
You do, of course, realize that those added bribes, I mean expenses, will make new construction even MORE expensive, right?
The government. Like I said, it's essentially eminent domain, except they aren't taking the land itself for communal good, they're taking the value of your property. It's better than traditional eminent domain really, because they get to keep their property and still get a payout, while removing an obstacle to development of affordable housing.
Re: (Score:2)
The government doesn't pay for anything.
Taxpayers do.
But as i'm sure it's been mentioned like a jillion times in this thread; part of CA's problem with a housing crunch is down to regulations (zoning is just one component of that). Some distortion brought on by government interference is good. Else we'd have a blighted landscape filled with shacks in the Hooverville style -- but if you go too far, you wind up with exactly what you see in CA. More government interference in the housing market is not going
Re: (Score:2)
You snot-nosed little libertarian. It's OUR government. We (allegedly) own it. You're trying to pretend that it's something imposed, like an occupying force... and that business would Solve Everything.
Yeah. And notice how the Invisible Hand solved the problem of PPE shortages, and there haven't been any shortages since April.
The current homeowners? How many of them are fucking house-flippers, who buy it as "an investment", and expect to make a mint, rather than live there?
Re: (Score:3)
Raze the old Apple campus, and build TONS of apartments. Pumping more money in to subsidize housing, without increasing the amount of housing, simply raises the price of housing.
As many have realized, zoning becomes a problem quickly, especially in California. Many communities in California allow residents to object to housing plans. As new housing puts downward pressure on housing prices, almost always, existing homeowners object to *any* new development.
Sorry.
The "Old" Apple Campus is still very-much in use by Apple. The spaceship is just now the main Apple Campus.
Re:Solution (Score:4, Insightful)
The $400 million could be better spent helping people in dire need rather that helping people pay mortgages on their million dollar houses. Because that is all that will happen here. More housing, more people, increased home values, increased speculation, increased refinancing.
The only way to solve this is let the market work. Let people move to other areas where they can afford housing. There is nothing in the US constitution that says we have to provide housing, much less Subsidized housing to rich people.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a San Francisco. problem and it will not be solved by more housing, any more than traffic is solved by more freeways.
The only way to solve this is let the market work.
When housing prices are through the roof, that's the market telling you to BUILD MORE HOUSING. Build apartments. Lots and lots of apartments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the houses were not selling, the price would drop
If super-wealthy investors weren't buying the houses to rent them out to the ordinary people who can't afford them, they houses wouldn't be selling at those prices.
The existence of rent distorts the market and raises the cost of buying housing, in very much the same way that things like Air B'n'B raise the cost of ordinary rental housing.
Re: (Score:2)
In Texas certain groups wants to live in Austin as it is not as urban and scary as the rest of the state. If you are renting you are doing pretty well, as you likely make a third more than state average yet you rent is only a quarter high. But if you want to buy you are out of luck because the prices are double. More houses wonâ(TM)t matter because the point is to k
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Raze the old Apple campus, and build TONS of apartments.
Google tried to do this (well, not using the old Apple campus; using other property owned by Google) and was firmly shut down by the zoning commission. You cannot build high-density housing in the Bay Area; the old guard won't allow it.
Actually, Google has been threatening to do one thing that might work: Build high-density housing on Moffett Field, which Google has leased from the federal government for 99 years (or somesuch). Since it's not part of any of the local cities, they have no say. OTOH, if Go
Re:Why is apple pissing away money? (Score:4, Interesting)
Its about income not subsidies (Score:2)
Hire more people. Pay everyone more. Wages have been all but stagnant for 40 years. Wages are the issue, not housing subsidies. People need to make a bigger share of corporate earnings.
Re: (Score:2)
Then buy stock in the corporation. And have them send you dividends on a quarterly basis.
No, don't "play the market" - that way lies madness and death. But invest your excess cash in things that'll be paying you dividends forever (well, you till you die, but the kids can inherit the stocks and get the dividends....).
Re: (Score:3)
invest your excess cash
What excess cash, when most people live paycheck to paycheck?
I invest like half of my income into index funds that are starting to pay well now that they've grown, but I also make about twice the median income, more than 75% of Americans, and live in a tiny trailer in a run down mobile home to minimize costs, so that I can do that (all in the hopes of someday being able to afford to live in a real house without that forcing even me to live check-to-check).
Most people cant' do that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And land prices have risen way higher than inflation or wages.
Land prices by the way are the reason why houses cost way more in San Francisco than in for example Detroit.
Increase salaries, and house prices will go up even more.
Re: (Score:2)
Access to easy credit is what drives up the cost of everything. If everyone had to pay cash things would be different. Cheap credit drives up prices - they want to boil it all down to $X/month and steer you away from the details of how badly you are getting screwed.
$400M, huh? (Score:2)
What was it, last year? the year before? Apple reportedly had $78 BILLION in CASH. They couldn't afford to spend, say, $4B of it on housing for housing the people who run their buildings?
Re: (Score:2)
Try $192.8 billion [cnbc.com] cash on hand.
Re: (Score:2)
wow, with a warchest like that they could help gentrify huge swaths of Detroit.
Covid financial issues will fuel higher hous costs (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They'll try, but with 30-50% vacancies, they'll learn. There are 20 million people facing eviction by the end of the year.
For those who rent, and have a stable income and a decent credit rating, next year is going to be paradise. For everyone else, the lucky ones will be still have a car to live in, and the rest will be having knife fights over the best cardboard boxes.
Define "Affordable" . . . (Score:3)
. . . I know people, after getting HIRED by Apple (or one of their subs. . ), who could only afford renting a single bedroom in a shared home. . . .from being homeowners where they came from.
Thanks to the 'rona, we ****KNOW**** that telecommuting works. Put the money into getting rid of massive office projects, in favor of home work and small regional facilities. . .
Re: Define "Affordable" . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, no, we really don't know how many people are actually getting anything done from home. We know they're getting paid.
Has efficiency gone up? Down? Sideways? Unknown.
At my company only 2/3rds reported that working from home was working for them. The other third reported they wanted to be at work. (Note this is a satisfaction survey. Not an "are you getting shit done?" survey)
There is no data and results will vary by company and job function.
Re: (Score:2)
Has efficiency gone up? Down? Sideways? Unknown.
I don't know about where you work, but where I work, they have been keeping track of productivity as best as possible. I can't really get into details (for what should be obvious reasons), but at least where I work, they've found the productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic has actually gone up. They're fairly sure that this has more to do with people having less to do outside of work than work from home being flat-out better, but at least as far they can tell, work is proceeding as normally as possible.
So
Re: Define "Affordable" . . . (Score:3)
Sure, we're tracking, too. Based on checkins, line of code, and so on we're told everything is just peachy. However, our 2 companies do not represent the economy as a whole.
And then long term as old pre-covid projects wrap up how well will new ones go? What about the creative side where people aren't able to communicate and brain storm as easily?
And then how about bringing new people into the org? Training? Meeting your coworkers? Esprit de corp?
Long term we still have no idea if long term mass work f
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no, we really don't know how many people are actually getting anything done from home...There is no data and results will vary by company and job function.
I read an interesting 2013 study which found remote work to be 13% more productive for their company and job function. Again as you say results will vary. "Bloom’s data suggests a staff could become much more productive while working from home long term – but it’s not so straightforward. In the Ctrip experiment, there were caveats as to who could take part in the first place. Participants had to meet three requirements: have no kids, have a room that wasn’t their bedroom and have qua
HR will take a while to update... (Score:2)
For decades most HR having been hiring on the basis that people will be working from the office. I don't have a lot of respect for most HR functions but I have to assume that so far they have not spent any time optimising at all hiring for people that can remote work.
But it seems inevitable that the HR group think will evolve to factor in remote work more and more. Questions about home office environment, familiarity with Slack/Teams, email handling, self time management, etc, will become more important.
Hav
Re: (Score:2)
No commute time = more than an hour of annoyance saved every day - I can start 15 mins earlier and finish 15 mins later and still have more personal time than when commuting.
The kids are at daycare so no problem there.
My study is separate, and I've now configured my USB hub
Where does all this money go?? (Score:2, Troll)
I think it commendable 8for Apple and other companies to try and help with affordable housing, which helps communities be better places...
Or it would, if anything were actually done.
When was the last time any of this affordable housing money ever amounted to anything real?
I wish there was WAY more reporting not on who is giving money to efforts like these, but what happens to this giant pool of money.
Is it going to build a giant array of apartments just outside the city with great bus service?
Or is it going
Re: Where does all this money go?? (Score:2)
Where does the money go? Buddy, it takes a LOT of money to virtue signal and run a "non-profit" we-do-stuff-for-the-poor organization.
Helping the poor doesn't come free!
Re: (Score:2)
Housing is a business more than a public policy. As long as housing is a business and dominated by speculative investment money, there will be a systemic bias to maintain elevated levels of housing demand which props up prices and investment return.
AFAICT, the only way to gain "affordable" housing is to inflate the supply side of the housing market to drive down rental prices. This is difficult to do when you're reliant on the private sector to build housing as they will slow building housing units if it
Why I like Steve Jobs -- Tim Cook is Disappointing (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't agree with Steve Jobs on everything but I do definitely agree with this.
Personal freedom for his employees
Corporate "mission" for Apple
Good products (IMHO) for consumers
None of this namby-pamby, coddling, enabling/controlling, meddling in outside issues and causes.
Since Tim Cook took charge, the inevitable decline in Apple occurred. Since Tim Cook started his "crusade of meddling", the decline has picked up speed.
IMHO there is nothing wrong with Tim Cook having and Personally acting on his belief BUT I strongly believe that there is no reason for a corporation, and a publicly owned corporation at than, to promote positions and ideas outside the scope of its business. And, I perceive that this is the case here.
All power to the corps? (Score:2)
I'm thinking that maybe some system in which corporations like Apple would give part of their earnings to some fund would be a better idea. Maybe people could then vote how they want to spend this money? Like we could have couple of budgets and people would vote if they want to spend more money or public housing or maybe the would rather spend more money on roads or whatever. Not sure if this was done anywhere before but maybe it could work.
Re: All power to the corps? (Score:2)
Hmm, maybe we could do something like have corporations pay taxes. Then we could choose people through our votes to decide how to spend that money...?
Nah it'd never work.
Re: All power to the corps? (Score:2)
I'm with you. I think corps shouldn't pay taxes but ALSO shouldn't have legal rights as people and therefore should not be allowed to get involved in politics. No buying off politicians. No PACs. Nada.
They should pay local taxes for things they actually use like property taxes and city services but income taxes are stupid for corporations.
Re: (Score:1)
You might care when the advertisers diminish, there's less money for Facebook, and Facebook fires a few thousand developers, which results in less services for you to use in Facebook.
Business case or? (Score:2)
Or, and I know this will sound crazy, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple could just pay state taxes. Then, the elected representatives of the people of California could decide how to spend that money. This way, Apple controls the money, and all of the affordable housing non-profits know not to bite the hand that feeds them.
But, yes, spending 0.1% of your cash hoard on a problem you helped create is, technically, better than nothing.
Apple does pay taxes (Score:2, Informative)
Yes it is crazy since Apple does pay state taxes [apple.com].
As the largest taxpayer in the world weâ(TM)ve paid over $35 billion in corporate income taxes over the past three years
How much have you paid in taxes again?
You tax deniers are so predictable, every Apple article you are back here spreading lies...
Re:Apple does pay taxes (Score:5, Informative)
Yes it is crazy since Apple does pay state taxes [apple.com].
A) Actually, they don't. Apple sidesteps state taxes by routing its financials through a small office in Reno, Nevada, where the corporate tax rate is 0% [nytimes.com]. But the 2017 press release you linked—which is nearly all about global profits and taxes—makes no mention of that practice...nor any other mention of state taxes for that matter, so it's rather odd that you tried to use it to support your inaccurate claim that they pay state taxes.
B) Left unmentioned in the press release is that taxes on overseas profits aren't technically due until the money is repatriated to the US, but there are tax loopholes that allow companies to indefinitely delay repatriating those profits. As a result, Apple has been waiting for a sympathetic Congress/President to declare a tax holiday with more favorable tax rates before they repatriate the hundreds of billions of dollars they are currently holding overseas in cash, rather than repatriating them at current tax rates.
C) You highlighted that they are the largest taxpayer in the world, but being the largest taxpayer in the world when you're the most profitable company in the world is neither remarkable nor commendable: it's expected. Nor does it mean you are paying enough; it just means you are paying more than everyone else, all of whom are playing the same game of exploiting tax loopholes to great effect.
D) That said, I have no expectation that profit-driven companies will pay one cent more than they are required to, and—with the possible exception of the allegedly illegal state aid Apple received from Ireland—I believe these companies are operating within the law, so I don't blame them for paying what they are required to, rather than what they should. They're playing the game. Nonetheless, it's clear that these loopholes need to be closed, which Apple itself requested several times in your press release when they called for global tax reforms. It's pretty hard to argue that Apple is currently paying what they should when Apple itself is arguing for tax reforms that would almost certainly result in a significant increase to their own tax bill.
All of which is to say, it's a rather odd choice on your part to claim that Apple is paying what they should pay by linking to a page where Apple is effectively asking legislators worldwide to fix the broken system so that they can pay the taxes they agree they should be paying without putting them at a competitive disadvantage. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they want the system fixed because it's to society's benefit. That their lower-margin competitors may have tremendous difficulty adjusting to a large increase in taxes is just icing on the cake.
Re: (Score:3)
Normally, I'm not a big fan of large corporations doing things governments should be doing, but I've lived in California for 40 years, and honestly, I'd trust the average drug dealing street gang to spend my tax dollars more sensibly than the elected officials in this state. At least the drug gang will be honest about spending on hookers and blow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a shareholder, I'd rather have the cash given to me as dividends if Apple can't think of anything better to do with it. Let me and other shareholders decide what charitable causes we want to support.
Stop wasting money (Score:1)
All the trillions we've spent trying to make housing more affordable would have been farther better spent on keeping the population down. With all the housing in existence, if we could lop off a two billion or so people, housing would become fantastically affordable.
Even better, instead of the cookie-cutter steaming piles going up, people would be able to personalize their home to give it some personality as well as not live six feet from their neighbor.
Considering this would only cost a fraction of what we
one vital word was missing from headline (Score:2)
Apple Puts $400 Million Toward Affordable Glass Housing
Did you see what their new office was made of?
TFS mentions the real problem: zoning (Score:3, Insightful)
Zoning is the real issue. Let builders build, let landlords rent. Increase supply, and prices will drop. Economics 101.
Of course, current owners don't want prices to drop, and that undoubtedly includes most local politicians.
build more affordable housing (Score:2)
The answer is unbelievably simple, and also nearly impossible to implement: reduce zoning restrictions to allow more construction of affordable housing. The problem is that every home owner, land owner and real estate investor benefits from jacked-up, inflated, distorted housing prices.
A lot of liberals are super-guilty of this....... they're cons
WFH (Score:2)
Or Apple could just hire remote workers OUTSIDE of California.
end homelessness in america (Score:2)
https://www.americanprogress.o... [americanprogress.org]
In complete hypocritical behavior, Nancy Pelosi ripped up Donald Trumps State of the Union speech this past February,
https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
While simultaneously rubber stamping Trump's $738B defense bill - which includes a $21B increase over 2019. Let that sink in, For less than the cost of a ONE YEAR increase in defense spending, we could end homelessness in the United States. That doesn't enrich the
It doesn't address the core problem (Score:2)
There are two core factors in the runup in real estate and education costs:
1) The conversion of private debt (mortgages [howstuffworks.com] and student loans [investopedia.com]) into government backed securities.
2) The suppression of interest rates (aka "financial repression [forbes.com]").
This creates a huge demand for this debt/income stream, especially in a suppressed interest rate environment.
Government also provides the money to loan to people in mortgages and education debt:
* For mortgages: providing huge insured loans is the big thing that drives up h
Affordable housing (Score:1)
Unaffordable ... (Score:2)
Teachers: Don't need those for a population of DINK software developers.
Firefighters: San Francisco could use another fire. That's the only way the painted ladies are coming down and getting replaced with high rises.
Other workers: Street cleaners and cops. SF is too far gone to think about cleaning the streets anymore. And we're defunding the police.
There. No more problem.
Affordable housing is just more houses (Score:1)
Apple announce $400m advertisement campaign (Score:3)
Or maybe "bribery" campaign would be closer to it.
Just pay your fucking taxes and let us decide what to do with it, you bloody parasites.
$5 Billion Collectively (Score:2)
There ought to be... (Score:2)
...a statewide law that forces large housing developers to make a certain percentage (perhaps 1 or 2%) of all new housing units they build affordable. Similarly, all cities and towns should insist that new multi-unit developments provide a certain number of low income units.
I live in a California city of ~90,000, which has been successful in getting hundreds of affordable housing units (most require annual income of under $50k or so) built just in the last 10 years, with ground broken on another one that wi
Throw Money At It? (Score:2)
it ran into the reality that money alone can't solve the problem [...]
Sure it can. Give me money. I'll buy a house with it. :^D