Apple's homeless relocation project still hasn't found homes for everyone
Apple has spent millions supporting people moved from a homeless encampment on its property, but with nine months of support drying up, many haven't yet found permanent housing.
Following months of discussions in 2021, Apple evicted 56 people from a homeless encampment on 55 acres of Apple's land in September. Dozens of the displaced people were given lodgings in a motel for nine months, as well as assistance to find new homes.
Almost nine months later and with a deadline looming for the people, many are still unable to find a permanent home. Of the group housed in the San Jose motel, only eight were successfully moved on into a permanent home, FLTimes reports that more than three times as many people have yet to be rehomed.
"We know (the motel) worked quite efficiently for some program participants, and more time is needed for others," said Lori Smith, CMO of nonprofit HomeFirst, which runs the program funded by Apple. "Each person has their journey into homelessness, and each will have their path out - and rarely will they look the same."
Apple said it had "been working with partners across the state to support at-risk communities and provide new affordable units."
However, the project had obstacles in the form of a lack of appropriate affordable housing, managing the histories and medical needs of the participants, and other restrictions.
HomeFirst intended to find placements before the end of the motel program, but as of 16 May, 25 people were still at the motel. Those who were still there at the time of the deadline would be offered emergency shelter beds instead.
Those who did leave moved into a mix of permanent or transitional housing, including tiny homes and apartments, as well as with family members. More than a quarter of participants were connected to healthcare, or had Social Security or other benefits, with nearly all added to housing waitlists.
Ten were made to leave the program, due to either breaking the rules or after being arrested.
Though the program has cost Apple millions to operate so far, and helped a group of homeless people for nine months, it is still facing criticism for ending the program.
Activist Shaunn Cartwright complained that Apple had offered stability with a motel room, but then took that stability away. Pointing out how the residents benefited in terms of their physical and mental health, Cartwright insisted Apple should extend the program.
"If they end up on the streets, that is entirely Apple's fault. That is Apple's shame," Cartwright declared.
The plight of two unplaced participants are highlighted in the report. In the case of 65-year-old Bertha Iglesias, her plans are to move back into a trailer, and park on a street near her mother's house.
Richard Bebee was told by the program that he could get into permanent housing through the program, leading him to sell his truck and try and get a commercial driver's license. However, he was unable to raise the money to get the training and to take the test.
The 50-year-old Bebee was offered a place in a tiny home, but he decided not to take the opportunity.
HomeFirst CEO Andrea Urton underlined the critical role of Apple in funding the project, but there's only so far the program can go. Citing a shortage of permanent housing in the area, as well as how participants don't necessarily meet the criteria to be placed in housing, Urton admits "that is all we can do: provide service, support, encouragement, and allow them to make their own decisions."
Read on AppleInsider
Following months of discussions in 2021, Apple evicted 56 people from a homeless encampment on 55 acres of Apple's land in September. Dozens of the displaced people were given lodgings in a motel for nine months, as well as assistance to find new homes.
Almost nine months later and with a deadline looming for the people, many are still unable to find a permanent home. Of the group housed in the San Jose motel, only eight were successfully moved on into a permanent home, FLTimes reports that more than three times as many people have yet to be rehomed.
"We know (the motel) worked quite efficiently for some program participants, and more time is needed for others," said Lori Smith, CMO of nonprofit HomeFirst, which runs the program funded by Apple. "Each person has their journey into homelessness, and each will have their path out - and rarely will they look the same."
Apple said it had "been working with partners across the state to support at-risk communities and provide new affordable units."
However, the project had obstacles in the form of a lack of appropriate affordable housing, managing the histories and medical needs of the participants, and other restrictions.
HomeFirst intended to find placements before the end of the motel program, but as of 16 May, 25 people were still at the motel. Those who were still there at the time of the deadline would be offered emergency shelter beds instead.
Those who did leave moved into a mix of permanent or transitional housing, including tiny homes and apartments, as well as with family members. More than a quarter of participants were connected to healthcare, or had Social Security or other benefits, with nearly all added to housing waitlists.
Ten were made to leave the program, due to either breaking the rules or after being arrested.
Though the program has cost Apple millions to operate so far, and helped a group of homeless people for nine months, it is still facing criticism for ending the program.
Activist Shaunn Cartwright complained that Apple had offered stability with a motel room, but then took that stability away. Pointing out how the residents benefited in terms of their physical and mental health, Cartwright insisted Apple should extend the program.
"If they end up on the streets, that is entirely Apple's fault. That is Apple's shame," Cartwright declared.
The plight of two unplaced participants are highlighted in the report. In the case of 65-year-old Bertha Iglesias, her plans are to move back into a trailer, and park on a street near her mother's house.
Richard Bebee was told by the program that he could get into permanent housing through the program, leading him to sell his truck and try and get a commercial driver's license. However, he was unable to raise the money to get the training and to take the test.
The 50-year-old Bebee was offered a place in a tiny home, but he decided not to take the opportunity.
HomeFirst CEO Andrea Urton underlined the critical role of Apple in funding the project, but there's only so far the program can go. Citing a shortage of permanent housing in the area, as well as how participants don't necessarily meet the criteria to be placed in housing, Urton admits "that is all we can do: provide service, support, encouragement, and allow them to make their own decisions."
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Doesn't appear that Cartwright appreciates Apple's efforts, his comments certainly would not motivate very many benefactors.
The homeless problem is the government’s to deal with. Apple’s responsibility is to chip in by paying taxes.
Apple is in the business of Electronics and Software. They are NOT Realtors or in the Business of Real Property or in the Business of Starvation. The question you should be asking is This - Why should a company that has nothing to do with welfare, be in welfare?
has tried to find the evicted homeless permanent homes. It’s a tough job since nobody wants homeless living next to them, even if there is a place to house them. It’s a complex problem that involves mental health treatment and drug abuse treatment in order to be an actual cure for homelessness.
No. A place to live is not a human right. A place to live is a commodity that someone else has to provide. Once you start proclaiming things "rights," you inherently argue to take those things from the people who produce them.
Secondly, no. Not "every one of us" is a few missed paychecks away from being homeless. That's absurd. It's not "blaming the homeless" to state that I, by God's grace, would figure out a way to have a place to live if I lost my job. I'd work two jobs. Or three. I'd do whatever I had to do.
As a culture we don't blame the homeless for anything. We excuse it. We ignore it. We allow it. We are letting people due in the streets from drugs, alcohol, mental illness and disease. We allow homeless encampments to take over portions of cities. What we should be doing is getting people treatment. We shouldn't allow homeless camps (e.g. tent cities) because they are bad for everyone, including the people who live there. We need massively expanded drug, alcohol and mental illness inpatient centers. Thousands and thousands more beds in short-term shelters. And yes, we should care for those who cannot care for themselves.
The reality of homelessness is that our policies encourage it. And while Apple may be well-meaning, finding them hotel rooms ins't a long-term solution. Nor is simply building "affordable" housing.
I sincerely hope there is some missing context to this quote; otherwise it seems incredibly ungrateful. Is Apple supposed to be these people's perpetual guardians simply because they once squatted on Apple's land?
Good god!
There are quite a few homeless people who will never go into a shelter or group facility - for them it's a matter of principle. They would also bristle at your assertion that they are "homeless"; for them being outdoors and independent is a plus, not a minus.
I'm not saying that all or heck, even the majority of the homeless have that mindset - there is no one size fits all solution for "homeless". I'm more interested in cautioning you that framing everything through the lens of what looks like "normal" to you is a bit short sighted. Be very careful when making blanket assumptions or assuming you know what's best for everyone in every situation
Indeed. The obvious answer is their original effort allowed them to also signal virtue. The danger is they also stepped out of their core swim lane, and now own more of a situation than they should. I think they could have been far more effective at partnering with non-profits that specialize in helping the homeless (and hopefully smarter non-profits than the one that has that Cartwright dude as a spokesperson); letting them help the people displaced with Apple providing extra financial backing.
The ultimate "you break it, you bought it".
How many millions did Apple spend on these 56 homeless people? If your measure of success is based on outcomes then eight people placed in actual homes is an unconditional fail.
For a fraction of what they spent Apple could have bought 56 mobile homes for these people and placed them in a trailer park. But homelessness was never the problem. It was, and remains, drug addiction and mental illness. Without proper identification of the problem one is doomed to come up with ineffective solutions.
Not even remotely so. A "Right" is something that one is endowed with from birth. It is inalienable. It is natural law. Many of these rights are codified in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (in the U.S.). We have the Right to freedom of speech, freedom of association, religious expression and practice, self-defense, and of privacy, to name a few.
Housing is not a Right. Clothing is not a Right. Food is not a Right. However, that does not mean that we should not use public resources to help people, especially those who are facing addiction, mental health crises, or short-term hardship. Our political debates are often focused on the degree to which public resources (e.g. tax dollars) are used to provide assistance. Opinions will vary, but mine is that we should be addressing the issue of homelessness. It's bad for society as a whole, and certainly bad for those in its grasp. My suggestions relate to how we address the problem. Put simply, the issue isn't just a lack of "affordable housing." It's drugs, alcohol, mental illness and policies that encourage things like massive encampments along sidewalks on on public land.
Regardless, addressing these issues doesn't make housing a Right. I don't have a Right to drive on a paved road every day, but I do...because we have acted through government to provide it. The same argument applies with healthcare. Healthcare is a service, one that others must provide. Given that it's a service (and a commodity), there are only two ways to distribute it: A market price system, or rationing. That's it. Those are the two ways ANY resource can be distributed. So if healthcare is a Right, it must be rationed in some form. If it's not, it is subject to a market price model. The latter has shown to be the best way to create better quality and lower costs for nearly everything.
It's easy to pronounce things "rights." Everyone has the right to broadband! Everyone has the right to a clean, comfortable and safe place to live! Everyone has the right enough food! And to healthcare! And to a job! The problem is that all of those things must be gotten from the fruits of someone else's labor.