Apple Pledges More Than $400 Million Towards Affordable Housing Initiatives in California This Year

[MacRumors]

Apple today announced that it is allocating more than $400 million toward affordable housing projects and homeowner assistance programs in California this year, as part of the company's multiyear $2.5 billion commitment to combat the housing crisis in the state.

Apple says the funding will support thousands of Californians with first-time homebuyer assistance or new affordable housing units.

In November 2019, Apple committed $2.5 billion to combat the housing crisis in California across a series of initiatives over several years, including:

• A $1 billion affordable housing investment fund with the state of California.
• A $1 billion first-time homebuyer mortgage assistance fund, with increased funding opportunities for essential services personnel, school employees, and veterans.
• $300 million in Apple-owned land made available for affordable housing.
• A $150 million Bay Area housing fund, in public-private partnership with Housing Trust Silicon Valley.
• $50 million to support Destination: Home's efforts to address homelessness in Silicon Valley.

"As cities and states have been forced to pause many of their long-term affordable housing investments amidst the current public health crisis, Apple is proud to continue moving forward with our comprehensive plan to combat the housing crisis in California," said Kristina Raspe, Apple's vice president for Global Real Estate and Facilities.

Article Link: Apple Pledges More Than $400 Million Towards Affordable Housing Initiatives in California This Year

 

[CausticSoda]

This is an ideal job for Jony Ive. Build them thinner.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

Guess I must’ve arrived too early, I was expecting this comment section to already be filled with “Tim Crook is ruining this company.”
And “Apple’s becoming a part of the radical left.”
“Steve wouldn’t have wasted Apple’s money on BS like this.”
And my personal favorite... “ maybe they should keep business and politics separate.”

 

[smallcoffee]

I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't like the idea of corporations trying to solve public policy problems. Where is the state of California in this?

There are also a few issues that come to light that aren't being addressed by this action:

• Continued construction of suburb-style developments versus walkable towns and villages
• Influx of residents to California as a desirable location to live
• Lack of effective public policies in the state of California to address these issues (Prop-13, etc.)

 

[planteater]

Guess I must’ve arrived too early, I was expecting this comment section to already be filled with “Tim Crook is ruining this company.”
And “Apple’s becoming a part of the radical left.”
“Steve wouldn’t have wasted Apple’s money on BS like this.”
And my personal favorite... “ maybe they should keep business and politics separate.”

Congratulations, that makes you the first then.

 

[Btaylor_prod]

[/QUOTE]

If I was a young college graduate these houses would be quite appealing.

 

[Xack]

There’s all that land in the middle of the spaceship that could be used...

 

[dogslobber]

As a shareholder, how does this initiative maximize shareholder value? I get it can create goodwill in the human sense but can it create such in the financial sense?

 

[AlifTheUnseen]

While I appreciate that global companies such as Apple contibute to fight global and local problems, such efforts should mainly be financed by public money, which should come from fair taxes. The distribution of the money should be decided upon by fair, transparent and democracy-approved processes, set up by parliaments, controlled by judges and a free press and not be decided by the Apple leadership council.

What is the tax / net income rate for Apple?

 

[TiggrToo]

As a shareholder, how does this initiative maximize shareholder value? I get it can create goodwill in the human sense but can it create such in the financial sense?

Does it have to?

 

[x-evil-x]

If I was a young college graduate these houses would be quite appealing.
[/QUOTE]
these look appealing to me at almost 40... Much better than a typical apartment. Doubt they will be anything like this these look expensive.

 

[GeoStructural]

This is an ideal job for Jony Ive. Build them thinner.

Only one electric plug for the entire house. The courage.
[automerge]1594644441[/automerge]

If I was a young college graduate these houses would be quite appealing.

these look appealing to me at almost 40... Much better than a typical apartment. Doubt they will be anything like this these look expensive.
[/QUOTE]

In many parts of this country there is this rotten belief that if you don’t have a huge front yard and underutilized space you are somehow a loser. I live in Texas and many people here hate the densification efforts in Austin. So many people is against public transportation as well. It is incredible.

 

[sofila]

I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't like the idea of corporations trying to solve public policy problems. Where is the state of California in this?

There are also a few issues that come to light that aren't being addressed by this action:

• Continued construction of suburb-style developments versus walkable towns and villages
• Influx of residents to California as a desirable location to live
• Lack of effective public policies in the state of California to address these issues (Prop-13, etc.)

out of curiosity: you live in California, maybe you were born there, surely you or some of your ancestors arrived from outside ... but now you don't want others to come?

 

[dogslobber]

Does it have to?

Legally, yes.

 

[Stella]

As a shareholder, how does this initiative maximize shareholder value? I get it can create goodwill in the human sense but can it create such in the financial sense?

Your a shareholder and don't like it? Then raise it as an issue at the next Apple AGM.

 

[Lesser Evets]

It's a good time to do it... I mean... predictors say the housing market is either going into an implosion any time soon or inflation will rocket and house prices stagnate to level out the bubble. The housing situation is similar to the 2008 bust conditions. Apple can back out and look like a king because their withdraw won't be publicized. KUDOS, APPLE! Well played!

 

[StevieD100]

As a shareholder, how does this initiative maximize shareholder value? I get it can create goodwill in the human sense but can it create such in the financial sense?

Apple's base is California. It is well known that getting homes for workers is stupidly expensive especially in the part of CA where Apple is based. Then there is the part of being a good neighbour and having some civic responsibility.

Add all that up and the move by Apple makes perfect sense to me.
There have been many instances in the past where companies built decent housing for their workers. There are others where companied build slums and charged their workers way too much to live in those slums. That does not even cover the use of 'Scrip' as payment for work done and that scrip could only be redeemed at company stores.
Ok, so these homes won't be directly for Apple Workers but anything that can be done to make their bit of CA more affordable then all the better.

 

[TonyC28]

Legally, yes.

Doesn’t Apple do other charitable things that have no investment benefit?

 

[mike9449]

I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't like the idea of corporations trying to solve public policy problems. Where is the state of California in this?

There are also a few issues that come to light that aren't being addressed by this action:

• Continued construction of suburb-style developments versus walkable towns and villages
• Influx of residents to California as a desirable location to live
• Lack of effective public policies in the state of California to address these issues (Prop-13, etc.)

According to LAO (California's Legislative Analyst's Office), California has had a net loss of taxpayers every year since 1990. It appears that CA is more desirable to those who don't pay income taxes. Sounds like that could be part of the issue. I don't see how throwing money at the problem is going to help in the long run.

But then again, it's not my money or my state...

 

[x-evil-x]

As a shareholder, how does this initiative maximize shareholder value? I get it can create goodwill in the human sense but can it create such in the financial sense?

im taking it you don't trade you just hold and don't understand what companies do that can move a price... If this works Apple stock should go up much more than it already is. I wouldn't worry. Look into big events in a company and their stock price during the events. Could be really good but could also pull it down based on how people react to it.

 

[chucker23n1]

I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't like the idea of corporations trying to solve public policy problems. Where is the state of California in this?

My guess is Tim Cook would prefer a reality in which corporate tax is higher and helps pay for such basic things, but he doesn't live in that reality. (He may also not want to admit it in public.)
[automerge]1594646941[/automerge]

As a shareholder, how does this initiative maximize shareholder value? I get it can create goodwill in the human sense but can it create such in the financial sense?

There's probably a point at which employees just plain can't afford to live in the area any more. Apple is already facing massive attrition issues, and providing housing is one way to counter that.
[automerge]1594647043[/automerge]

Legally, yes.

That's a widespread myth.

 

[mrow]

As a shareholder, how does this initiative maximize shareholder value? I get it can create goodwill in the human sense but can it create such in the financial sense?

Yes, it does. Salaries are a huge expense for Apple, just like any company. Housing in the Bay Area is incredibly expensive, and as a result Apple has to continuously spend more and more on salaries so their employees can afford to live where the company is located. More affordable housing means more stable salaries for the company in the long term.

 

[Slendrman]

I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't like the idea of corporations trying to solve public policy problems. Where is the state of California in this?

There are also a few issues that come to light that aren't being addressed by this action:

• Continued construction of suburb-style developments versus walkable towns and villages
• Influx of residents to California as a desirable location to live
• Lack of effective public policies in the state of California to address these issues (Prop-13, etc.)

I’m sorry but there is nothing desirable about living in California and I did it in Gilroy for 15 years

 

[dogslobber]

Yes, it does. Salaries are a huge expense for Apple, just like any company. Housing in the Bay Area is incredibly expensive, and as a result Apple has to continuously spend more and more on salaries so their employees can afford to live where the company is located. More affordable housing means more stable salaries for the company in the long term.

No. The Proper thing to do is maximize shareholder value through expanding your talent pool. That is out with Calif. and not investing unbelievable amounts in white elephant housing.
[automerge]1594647886[/automerge]

That's a widespread myth.

Is it?

 

[rjohnstone]

The California way. Throw money at the problem instead of dealing with the cause directly.
CA has had a net loss of tax payers over the years, but has increased taxes every year to cover CA’s ever growing budget demands. So the tax burden per resident is becoming untenable.
CA claims to have budget surpluses, but their unfunded liabilities are insane.
Then you have housing costs. CA severely limits construction of new housing. This drives prices of existing houses through the roof. People buying houses via two mortgages is pretty common. Anywhere relatively close to the coast in So Cal and you’re looking at $750k+ for a 1,200 Sqft. 2 bedroom house. Go north and it isn’t any better.
I love going to CA. Used to take 3-4 vacations a year there. It’s like my second home. Pacific Grove is fantastic. But I’ll never live there. Too expensive.
We have a running joke about PG. You can’t buy a 900 Sqft lean-too for less than a million. We’ve met many people that have lived there for decades. Paid $50k-$60k for their houses back in the late 70’s that are now wroth $4-$5 million.
No new construction permits are issued. The land is there, but only remodel permits of existing property are issued and those take a year plus to get approved.
Money alone isn’t going to solve it, and if CA government is involved, most of the money will get directed to some politicians “preferred vendor” or get eaten up by “administrative fees”.