Apple to spend millions on outreach, relocation for homeless living on its San Jose land

AppleInsider

Apple on Friday announced an initiative that will address a growing homeless community living on a tract of the company's undeveloped land in San Jose.

The program will be funded by millions of dollars pulled from Apple's $2.5 billion pledge to fight California's housing shortage, reports The Mercury News.

Apple said it will spend the money on outreach and relocation projects for the between 35 and 70 people living on its property at the corner of North First Street and Component Drive in North San Jose, the report said.

"Apple has long been focused on helping to combat the housing crisis across California and working with partners to support at-risk communities and provide new affordable units," Apple said in a statement. "In San Jose, we have been closely coordinating with local partners for several months to identify housing alternatives and support for families who will be transitioning away from the Component Drive site."

Outreach began this week and is being conducted by Milipitas-based non-profit HomeFirst. The group is sending social workers to interview community members and will work to find residents temporary and permanent housing, said HomeFirst CEO Rene Ramirez. Healthcare services and financial counseling will also be provided.

"We are excited to be partnering with Apple in developing a service model that places people first, and that goes above and beyond traditional encampment interventions," Ramirez said in a statement.

Apple earlier this week said it plans to build long-term affordable housing on a section of the plot.

The encampment on Apple's San Jose land, located near the Mineta San Jose International Airport, has reportedly grown in recent months after the City of San Jose performed an "enhanced cleanup" of neighboring areas. Residents on the plot live in wooden structures and mobile homes, and share space with an estimated 200 tons of hazardous trash and debris.

A fire broke out on the roughly 55-acre property this week, consuming about five acres of vegetation and an RV.

Read on AppleInsider

montyburns

Stick that up your butt Mr Epic Games… where are your community initiatives????

sflocal

"Millions" for 35-70 people?  Go figure.

The people throwing money at the homeless problem must be the same running the San Francisco money-pit as well.

MrBunside

sflocal said:

"Millions" for 35-70 people?  Go figure.

The people throwing money at the homeless problem must be the same running the San Francisco money-pit as well.

What else should they throw?

Brandonw

sflocal said:

"Millions" for 35-70 people?  Go figure.

The people throwing money at the homeless problem must be the same running the San Francisco money-pit as well.

That’s only $28-$57k per person to be relocated into housing. 

I just googled and a pretty “rough” 879 sq ft 1 bedroom in San Jose is renting for $1900 a month. 

mpantone

sflocal said:

"Millions" for 35-70 people?  Go figure.

The people throwing money at the homeless problem must be the same running the San Francisco money-pit as well.

One thing for certain: you don't know squat about SF Bay Area real estate.

Small properties (like 1 bedroom condos) in much of Santa Clara County run around $700-800 per square foot. Even a small rental unit -- like a 400 sq. ft. studio (which don't really exist) -- for two years would probably run around $1200 per month.

Much of the "reasonably" priced real estate in the area dates from the housing boom of the late Sixties and early Seventies, mostly apartments and condo conversions, maybe ranging from a low $500/sq. ft. in the less expensive neighborhoods to $1000/sq. ft. in upscale neighborhoods like Palo Alto (their public school system drives up the price).

The article specifically states that Apple is also including some funding for healthcare (super expensive) and financial help.

It's not like they are going to relocate these people to Flint, Michigan and dumping them in tenements.

So yeah, "millions" for 35-70 people isn't so far fetched. But you don't know anything about cost of living in the SF Bay Area, specifically Santa Clara County, that is for sure.

sflocal

mpantone said:

sflocal said:

"Millions" for 35-70 people?  Go figure.

The people throwing money at the homeless problem must be the same running the San Francisco money-pit as well.

One thing for certain: you don't know squat about SF Bay Area real estate.

Small properties (like 1 bedroom condos) in much of Santa Clara County run around $700-800 per square foot. Even a small rental unit -- like a 400 sq. ft. studio (which don't really exist) -- for two years would probably run around $1200 per month.

Much of the "reasonably" priced real estate in the area dates from the housing boom of the late Sixties and early Seventies, mostly apartments and condo conversions, maybe ranging from a low $500/sq. ft. in the less expensive neighborhoods to $1000/sq. ft. in upscale neighborhoods like Palo Alto (their public school system drives up the price).

The article specifically states that Apple is also including some funding for healthcare (super expensive) and financial help.

It's not like they are going to relocate these people to Flint, Michigan and dumping them in tenements.

So yeah, "millions" for 35-70 people isn't so far fetched. But you don't know anything about cost of living in the SF Bay Area, specifically Santa Clara County, that is for sure.

Of course you think I wouldn't know, except that I was born in San Francisco, live in San Francisco, and own property here in San Francisco.  I see the issues and plights of the homeless folks here in my city, and right outside my own home.  I know and see the real estate prices in the Bay Area.  Thanks for regurgitating what we here have known for decades.  Yes, it's expensive on the peninsula.  So?

My city of San Francisco has a 2021 budget of $1.1Billion earmarked for the homeless program for roughly 8,000 homeless people.  Just prior to the $1B mark, we've been spending about $750m of SF TAX MONEY every year for about a decade, then about $500m/yr for the decade before that, then $250m/year for decades before that, only for administrative costs to balloon, and the problem is only getting worse. 

If you think those millions of dollars for 35-70 people is "about right", then maybe you should throw your own money at the problem because many of us are fed up with it.  I shouldn't  have to pay some of the highest taxes in California to fund what should be a federal-level issue.  Every state should be contributing to this.

Those millions that Apple will pay is a rounding digit on their P&L statement, and will do absolutely nothing to resolve it because the status quo continues.

Show us your obvious solution Einstein.

Rayz2016

sflocal said:

mpantone said:

sflocal said:

"Millions" for 35-70 people?  Go figure.

The people throwing money at the homeless problem must be the same running the San Francisco money-pit as well.

One thing for certain: you don't know squat about SF Bay Area real estate.

Small properties (like 1 bedroom condos) in much of Santa Clara County run around $700-800 per square foot. Even a small rental unit -- like a 400 sq. ft. studio (which don't really exist) -- for two years would probably run around $1200 per month.

Much of the "reasonably" priced real estate in the area dates from the housing boom of the late Sixties and early Seventies, mostly apartments and condo conversions, maybe ranging from a low $500/sq. ft. in the less expensive neighborhoods to $1000/sq. ft. in upscale neighborhoods like Palo Alto (their public school system drives up the price).

The article specifically states that Apple is also including some funding for healthcare (super expensive) and financial help.

It's not like they are going to relocate these people to Flint, Michigan and dumping them in tenements.

So yeah, "millions" for 35-70 people isn't so far fetched. But you don't know anything about cost of living in the SF Bay Area, specifically Santa Clara County, that is for sure.

Of course you think I wouldn't know, except that I was born in San Francisco, live in San Francisco, and own property here in San Francisco.  I see the issues and plights of the homeless folks here in my city, and right outside my own home.  I know and see the real estate prices in the Bay Area.  Thanks for regurgitating what we here have known for decades.  Yes, it's expensive on the peninsula.  So?

My city of San Francisco has a 2021 budget of $1.1Billion earmarked for the homeless program for roughly 8,000 homeless people.  Just prior to the $1B mark, we've been spending about $750m of SF TAX MONEY every year for about a decade, then about $500m/yr for the decade before that, then $250m/year for decades before that, only for administrative costs to balloon, and the problem is only getting worse. 

If you think those millions of dollars for 35-70 people is "about right", then maybe you should throw your own money at the problem because many of us are fed up with it.  I shouldn't  have to pay some of the highest taxes in California to fund what should be a federal-level issue.  Every state should be contributing to this.

Those millions that Apple will pay is a rounding digit on their P&L statement, and will do absolutely nothing to resolve it because the status quo continues.

Show us your obvious solution Einstein.

Well, you’re the one who said it won’t work, so show us yours. 

Or are you saying they should do nothing?

jdw

On the one hand, helping the homeless is a great idea because these people aren't merely "homeless," they are Americans -- people like you who need help.  But on the other hand, what is to prevent other homeless people from moving back onto the land after the current residents are moved off?  Mere fencing won't cut it.

The bigger problem is the problem that most needs fixing; namely, the lack of affordable housing FOR EVERYONE in the state.  It is simply outrageous what some people are expected to pay for monthly rent in that state.  It is totally and utterly unacceptable.  Until that gets fixed, all these other matters are but tiny bandages on an huge gaping wound.

ArchStanton

mpantone said:

sflocal said:

"Millions" for 35-70 people?  Go figure.

The people throwing money at the homeless problem must be the same running the San Francisco money-pit as well.

One thing for certain: you don't know squat about SF Bay Area real estate.

Small properties (like 1 bedroom condos) in much of Santa Clara County run around $700-800 per square foot. Even a small rental unit -- like a 400 sq. ft. studio (which don't really exist) -- for two years would probably run around $1200 per month.

Much of the "reasonably" priced real estate in the area dates from the housing boom of the late Sixties and early Seventies, mostly apartments and condo conversions, maybe ranging from a low $500/sq. ft. in the less expensive neighborhoods to $1000/sq. ft. in upscale neighborhoods like Palo Alto (their public school system drives up the price).

The article specifically states that Apple is also including some funding for healthcare (super expensive) and financial help.

It's not like they are going to relocate these people to Flint, Michigan and dumping them in tenements.

So yeah, "millions" for 35-70 people isn't so far fetched. But you don't know anything about cost of living in the SF Bay Area, specifically Santa Clara County, that is for sure.

I do know about it. From Gilroy up to Brisbane over to Pleasanton and down to Santa Clara County. Apple may be paying for it but this isn't an Apple problem, no serious person would actually think that. This is a city and county government problem.  And you could quadruple the amount you'd relish Apple to pay directly to this and it is going to substantially change anything. And that is a story repeated for many years now. Never mind the pervasive underpinning issues, even 50% LTV equity real property primary residence  in the Bay Area will require a cost to sustain and maintain that people without very substantial gainful employment will be unable to meet. And the response has been to put more money into the same thing, a feel good headline, while factually the problem has gotten worse (the laughably smug speak of this not being Flint Michigan aside). 

Apple and Google and Intel etc finding a few private and actual solvers of this problem to provide substantial donation is the only thing that may alleviate the real problem. Otherwise this is just window dressing that pushes the issue down the road while smug people felt swell because Apple paid more and got a headline.  

rotateleftbyte

At least they aren't sending in the police to arrest the homeless unlike LA County. 

OTOH, the USA could have millions more people homeless when the eviction moratorium runs out. 

socaltrojandude

I've lived in the Bay Area and I am familiar with this area as well as the other huge homeless encampment south of downtown San Jose near Coyote Creek they used to call 'The Jungle'. I moved out of the area two years ago but I believe the neighbors living nearby finally pushed law enforcement to eventually disband 'The Jungle'. I assume most of the 500 people who lived there moved over to this area owned by Apple.

What outsiders don't know or seem to understand is most of these people are not local Bay Area residents. Like most of the homeless throughout California they have migrated to CA due to the comfortable conditions year round and the large supply of wealthy do gooders willing to keep them alive. There is also a healthy supply of cheap crystal meth and other drugs flowing through the area.

Please don't tell me these are just poor unfortunates who have lost their jobs and have no family to help get them on their feet and how horrible it is to struggle finding a way to live in the notoriously unaffordable Bay Area housing markets! This is pure bullshit.

The Bay Area is expensive to live in if you choose to try living in say Atherton or in the City of SF or Tiburon or Orinda/LaFayette or any other pricey rich neighborhood!
But there are plenty of 'shithole' places like Richmond, Vallejo, most of City of Oakland, many areas of San Jose or my former neighborhood, Hayward. You can easily find apartments for under $1,500 and even less if you have roommates. Nobody FORCES these people to stay living where they are. They do so because its familiar to them and they know how to maintain the cycle of 'shakedown people for money/go spend it on cheap drugs' where they are. Hell, I've seen some homeless get on the BART and commute to their freeway off ramp or chosen spot on the sidewalk. They ride the train with the rest of the commuters carrying their cardboard signs!

Yes, most of these folks are grifters, addicts or mentally ill. Don't believe me? Take a stroll around City Hall in downtown SF. I spent two years getting off the BART at Civic Center station and I can assure you it has only gotten worse. Ever want to watch a grown woman hike up her skirt and squat on a sidewalk to take a shit while you sit at the McDonalds counter eating your lunch? Or how bout stepping over the sleeping nude body of a grown man covered in filth and blood on your way to that important meeting! Welcome to SF! Or try enjoying a stroll through Golden Gate Park...not without having someone shake you down for drugs, money, sex, etc. That is the state of SF today and sadly when I left the civic leaders were still trying to decide how to make it easier to allow more homeless to set up tents for camping on public sidewalks.

Apple didn't cause this problem, they inherited it when they bought this property. It hasn't been developed yet so it became the 'new Jungle' I don't know what magic wand Apple thinks they can wave at this problem. Nobody else has been able to solve it. But for 'millions of dollars' you would think it would be easier to just hire a social worker to work one on one with these 500 people (at last count!) and get them into housing/detox/cleaned up. Then find them a job in a more affordable area outside of California!

retrogusto

Another thing Apple and others are doing to help the housing problem there is to decentralize operations, although much more could certainly be done in that respect, especially given what we’ve seen in remote-work productivity over the past 18 months. One of the biggest reasons that the area has become so outrageously expensive is that so many big successful tech companies are based there, so lots of well-paid people live and work within a relatively small area, and new companies want to set up there because of the local talent pool. Stanford is probably at the root of it all, as a supplier of talented graduates. 

fred1

jdw said:

On the one hand, helping the homeless is a great idea because these people aren't merely "homeless," they are Americans -- people like you who need help.  But on the other hand, what is to prevent other homeless people from moving back onto the land after the current residents are moved off?  Mere fencing won't cut it.

The bigger problem is the problem that most needs fixing; namely, the lack of affordable housing FOR EVERYONE in the state.  It is simply outrageous what some people are expected to pay for monthly rent in that state.  It is totally and utterly unacceptable.  Until that gets fixed, all these other matters are but tiny bandages on an huge gaping wound.

I agree with you. And I’ll add to this the age-old argument that it’s not fair for people who don’t have children to have to help pay for schools. The rebuttal, of course, is that the kids grow up and make contributions to society that benefit everyone, but who’s to say that this isn’t true of the homeless if they’re given the breaks they need?

GeorgeBMac

Apple is doing this right!   (well hopefully!  there are no guarantees that even the best laid plans will work well)

But they aren't just throwing money at a problem to get rid of a nuisance.   According to the story:

"Outreach began this week and is being conducted by Milipitas-based non-profit HomeFirst. The group is sending social workers to interview community members...."

Homelessnes is a multi-faceted, complex problem where one solution does not fit all:

-- Many homeless are there for mental health reasons -- they can't hold on to a place to stay.

-- Many homeless are there because of drug use

and

-- In this area, many are homeless because, even though they have a job, they simply can't afford a home in this area.  As others have pointed out, housing there is incredibly expensive.

So yeh, they are starting with Social Workers talking to each individual case.

GOOD JOB APPLE!

GeorgeBMac

fred1 said:

jdw said:

On the one hand, helping the homeless is a great idea because these people aren't merely "homeless," they are Americans -- people like you who need help.  But on the other hand, what is to prevent other homeless people from moving back onto the land after the current residents are moved off?  Mere fencing won't cut it.

The bigger problem is the problem that most needs fixing; namely, the lack of affordable housing FOR EVERYONE in the state.  It is simply outrageous what some people are expected to pay for monthly rent in that state.  It is totally and utterly unacceptable.  Until that gets fixed, all these other matters are but tiny bandages on an huge gaping wound.

I agree with you. And I’ll add to this the age-old argument that it’s not fair for people who don’t have children to have to help pay for schools. The rebuttal, of course, is that the kids grow up and make contributions to society that benefit everyone, but who’s to say that this isn’t true of the homeless if they’re given the breaks they need?

It's often been said:

"A society is judged by how it treats its weak and its old" 

AppleZulu

fred1 said:

jdw said:

On the one hand, helping the homeless is a great idea because these people aren't merely "homeless," they are Americans -- people like you who need help.  But on the other hand, what is to prevent other homeless people from moving back onto the land after the current residents are moved off?  Mere fencing won't cut it.

The bigger problem is the problem that most needs fixing; namely, the lack of affordable housing FOR EVERYONE in the state.  It is simply outrageous what some people are expected to pay for monthly rent in that state.  It is totally and utterly unacceptable.  Until that gets fixed, all these other matters are but tiny bandages on an huge gaping wound.

I agree with you. And I’ll add to this the age-old argument that it’s not fair for people who don’t have children to have to help pay for schools. The rebuttal, of course, is that the kids grow up and make contributions to society that benefit everyone, but who’s to say that this isn’t true of the homeless if they’re given the breaks they need?

The most rudimentary social contract for living in anything that resembles civilization requires us to pay for and support things that we don't personally use, or more likely, don't think we use. You literally can't leave (or stay in) your home for five minutes without benefitting from the results of other people's children receiving a public education. Likewise, we would all benefit significantly if people were provided the help they need to not be homeless. The costs of not dealing with it proactively are far greater than the costs of going upstream and doing things like supporting mental health and addiction treatment and assuring people are paid wages that cover the basic cost of living.

auxio

GeorgeBMac said:

fred1 said:

jdw said:

On the one hand, helping the homeless is a great idea because these people aren't merely "homeless," they are Americans -- people like you who need help.  But on the other hand, what is to prevent other homeless people from moving back onto the land after the current residents are moved off?  Mere fencing won't cut it.

The bigger problem is the problem that most needs fixing; namely, the lack of affordable housing FOR EVERYONE in the state.  It is simply outrageous what some people are expected to pay for monthly rent in that state.  It is totally and utterly unacceptable.  Until that gets fixed, all these other matters are but tiny bandages on an huge gaping wound.

I agree with you. And I’ll add to this the age-old argument that it’s not fair for people who don’t have children to have to help pay for schools. The rebuttal, of course, is that the kids grow up and make contributions to society that benefit everyone, but who’s to say that this isn’t true of the homeless if they’re given the breaks they need?

It's often been said:

"A society is judged by how it treats its weak and its old" 

I always say: "the more people we can bring along for the ride, the better the journey will be".  Excluding and isolating people always leads to negative consequences.

As for the problem of affordable housing, a large part of the problem is the fact that houses have become investments instead of just being for living.  Investors create bidding wars which drive the price up well beyond what people simply looking for a place to live would.

harrywinter

This is a good thing.

Though, the 2.5 billion pledge would go much further if Silicon Valley prioritised:

1. Post Office Addresses for people.

2. Stable Jobs for people not in the Silicon Valley bracket.

Hopefully the Silicon Valley exodus will help.

Too often, with companies, and coastal states like California, "homeless support" funds are aimed at removing the "eyesore" not the problem - they help the lucky few, and then the rest are "relocated" to be some other area's "problem".

InspiredCode

sflocal said:

"Millions" for 35-70 people?  Go figure.

The people throwing money at the homeless problem must be the same running the San Francisco money-pit as well.

Although I don’t know the specifics here, this type of charity work usually involves investments. That means the money will generate money and go much further then just helping the 35 to 70 people. Usually this is through property investments that make a profit or at least break even.  More importantly it includes social work which is critical for long term homeless. From the little I know this looks well run.

If you want to talk about real waste, look to the tent camps payed for with tax dollars that cost $5000 per month per tent without services to get them out of homelessness.

InspiredCode

GeorgeBMac said:

Apple is doing this right!   (well hopefully!  there are no guarantees that even the best laid plans will work well)

But they aren't just throwing money at a problem to get rid of a nuisance.   According to the story:

"Outreach began this week and is being conducted by Milipitas-based non-profit HomeFirst. The group is sending social workers to interview community members...."

Homelessnes is a multi-faceted, complex problem where one solution does not fit all:

-- Many homeless are there for mental health reasons -- they can't hold on to a place to stay.

-- Many homeless are there because of drug use

and

-- In this area, many are homeless because, even though they have a job, they simply can't afford a home in this area.  As others have pointed out, housing there is incredibly expensive.

So yeh, they are starting with Social Workers talking to each individual case.

GOOD JOB APPLE!

Exactly. It is also important to de-stigmatize drug use. The failed war on drugs has hurt efforts to help people. Anyone that is long-term homeless likely has drug abuse problems attempting to self-medicate. It is time to offer help, not prosecution.