1. Apple's 'job' is to do what it needs to do to ensure that its business prospers. If the housing 'crisis' in the Bay area is a risk to how it wants to conduct its business, isn't it reasonable that it invests to mitigate that risk? (This is barely different to Apple making large investments in manufacturers, to support them in turn being able to supply what Apple needs to buy from them.)
2. From what I read and see when I visit SF, and also more broadly in the US, the government (be that national, state, or city?) is doing a pretty poor job of tackling housing-related issues - from affordability to homelessness. Can you directly attribute this widespread failure to a lack of funding, due to insufficient taxation of Apple and others?
3. Isn't $2.5bn (+/- new approaches?) to try to combat these issues better than $0, irrespective of where it comes from?
Could you specify what you are implying here?
The keyword here is _loans_.
There's this fantasy that corporations are somehow much more efficient than government, and I haven't found that to be the case. The major difference is that corporate spending isn't transparent to the public, so it's subject to decreased criticism.
> San francisco spent 2 bill on a bus station alone.
I assume you're referring to Salesforces Transit Center[1]. "Bus station" is a misleading way to describe it. It's huge (~235,000 sqft), includes a large public park, and will connect to high-speed rail.
There are public benefits to having a large transit station with green space in a central urban location.
1. Agree
2. Good question
3. I see what you mean but I can't help but think "isn't Facebook's internet better than no internet?" The corporate social responsibility of companies isn't all that great IMO. And even if it is, when you have a new king, oh I mean CEO, that can change. Well, at least the CEO position is based on merit, some of the time, sort of, hopefully.
You don't need money for that. Rather, you may even get more bang for your buck since higher density should be more efficient.
I think Corporate "Tithing" is a good thing and should be encouraged. The Government of California has repeatedly shown that they are slow to develop housing so why should we think this time should be any different?
Similar to someone that votes to decrease assistance programs from the government available to everyone in order to “donate” to their personal causes (or tribes).
Do you think that's an accurate description of how tax rates get set?
> The tax cuts from last year
You mean the set of tax cuts that have never had a positive approval rating[1]. Wouldn't they be a perfect example that actually no, you can't get higher taxes by convincing the majority of people?
[1]:https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_republi...
1) are they getting tax breaks because they are giving money towards affordable housing; or
2) are they getting tax breaks anyway and then choosing to give this money towards affordable housing?
It's a very dysfunctional society to arrive at such a crisis, only to realise that the state is incapable of solving it, enough that a private corporation feels that it is necessary and appropriate to step in.
What are you talking about?
It was the Californian governing body that isn't allowing developers to build new cheap homes and apartments, because of NIMBY.
And at the same time, everyone is talking about the evil tech giants, so they are trying to look good. If they would just be left alone, they might spend their resources on - oh, I dont know - making cheaper and better phones so that more people around them world could afford them?
If California allow Apple and other companies to step in, take control and solve the various crises, that is a vast step backward for democracy as you loose your ability to hold the those with power accountable. For now companies are aiming to fix housing, fairly benign but in the future will they attempt to tackle education? Crime? Even without jumping straight to private police forces run by companies without accountability, think about how a large donation of grant could influence the police force.
I have read stories of how Steve Jobs was an asshole and blocked handicap parking spaces because he wanted to and the reaction by the authorities was that he brings in jobs so it was acceptable. Even if the story is false it show the power the companies already wield in the area and it can be abused even further.
I for one do NOT welcome corporate overlords.
As a comparison, you have councils (or soviets) deciding for people, how they conduct their economic activity - in this case, not allowing them to build apartments on land they own.
If you are hoping for a top-down control AND it be enlightened for-the-people AND democratically given this control, then you are looking at the wrong governing model. Especially, if you don't believe that top-down won't benefit at some point tiny interest groups.