Homeless encampment grows on Apple property in Silicon Valley | Hacker News Reader

Homeless encampment grows on Apple property in Silicon Valley

mercurynews.com

52 pointsbluedino100 comments

"Clearing the camp likely will be difficult both logistically — it’s more challenging to remove structures and vehicles that don’t run than tents — and ethically — there are few places for the displaced residents to go."

This might be an unpopular opinion, but since when did kicking "a sprawling camp of dozens of people, a maze of broken-down vehicles and a massive amount of trash" off of your private property become unethical? I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in that kind of "ethical" world.

The problem is in the part you quoted - when you get them off your property, they don't stop existing. Where do you want them to go to?

The property owner should not be responsible for answering that question.

The property owner in question has evaded paying billions of dollars in taxes, taxes that could have gone to fix the systemic issues in America that perpetuate homelessness.

Think different indeed.

But Apple does it legally so its ok. And I am sure the hopeless can pull themselves by their bootstraps. If they cant eat bread, why don't they eat cake?? If you are homeless just buy a house! Its that simple. /s

Jezz, I am reading through the comments here and i am not sure if i am on HN or subreddit for edy teens with the shallowest and one-dimentional view of the world.

I do like how we think owning property is like a natural right that just exists.

Apple only owns that property because our social contract says they can, that social contract can be broken if we feel like they're abusing that "right".

Some people having millions of times more than they could possibky need while these people don't have the basics is the cause of the problem.

Property owners are human members of society

They’re not above participating in solving human problems

You want to live in a bubble, go off grid

None of us get up and contribute to society to spare anyone else dealing with it’s problems

Just because that’s the way laws are written doesn’t mean biology gives a shit

I exist and I'm not camping in your front yard. Isn't that crazy how that works?

Somehow the laws of physics don't break when I leave your lawn.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."

- Anatole France

Sure you’ve identified the problem but the problem is not the responsibility of the owner of said private property.

So if someone dying of thirst lands at my doorstep, yes, it’s not my responsibility to give them a glass of water.

Whether it’s my responsibility or not has absolutely no bearing on whether it’s ethical for me to not give them a glass of water. Maybe it is ethical to send them away thirsty. But that would be based on a lot more than whether it’s my responsibility or not.

Being ethical isn’t limited to doing just what one is responsible for.

In fact, often they can be in conflict.

I think most of us would give the dying person a glass of water. Would we also give them food? Clothes? A place to sleep? Money? Job training? It's hard to determine the bounds of our ethical obligations. I don't see a clear answer.

Personally, I think Apple does indeed have an ethical dilemma here caused by government specifically, and society broadly, failing in their responsibility towards habilitating the homeless and the mentally ill.

You not solving their/society's problem doesn't make it unethical.

You think Apple should take actions that lead to a bunch of people dying, but without ethically being responsible for the result. That's not really how it works. It's a shitty situation but we can still hold people accountable for how they decide to react to it.

Nope. I think the government should take action. It should build housing for the homeless and move them out of Apples parking lot.

What other solution is there?

Apple is working on it... kinda? https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/11/apple-commits-two-poi... I'm not saying that initiative is bad in itself, but Apple has historically fought tax assessments according to https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/silicon-valley-companies-lik... and that money could have improved things over time instead of forcing a crisis now. They also expanded their offices and built a new headquarters in a place with little housing. https://48hills.org/2015/11/another-16000-apple-workers-look... So they actively made it difficult for the "the government" to work, e.g. deny office expansion that could not be staffed with available housing, or pay for housing expansion.

The second article kind of makes it clear that there are two governments at work here, and they are at odds.

San Fran approves office space, but no housing. Thus people live in San Jose (ironically where apple was founded originally).

That said… I don’t really see how this relates to homelessness in San Fran as according to the article Apple workers don’t live their anyways.

It’s a bit of a reach to say Apple is to blame for building an office building in the commercial district of the hottest tech city on the west coast after getting government approval.

The SF government ought to either approve more housing, or reduce economic pressure by refusing office spaces. That it does neither is a systemic failure.

Maybe if they'd paid their fair share in taxes, they'd feel less guilty about the ethics. As it stands, they're not exactly helping society fix these problems.

For reference: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/401776-apple-argued-it...

Apple builds tens of millions of products every year that increase productivity. They're not indebted to society, let alone to the US where they are providing billions in salaries and capital appreciation income.

Of course they are, without society enfircing property rights then anyone could do the same. They also owe (as everyone does) society for even being in a state where they can exist and operate. They depend on society exstentially. It's not like they paid for infrastructure, business ecosyatem, the conditions for consumers to consume, etc. Without societ they'd be nothing at all.

Society gets high quality products that enhance productivity, and enormous tax revenue that more than makes up for any public services that could conceivably contribute to their productivity, so of course they're not indebted to society.

>>Without societ they'd be nothing at all.

Society constitutes them as well, so they are also contributing to the existence of this society, which means they are giving as much as they're receiving.

You seem to have forgotten that we buy that from Apple. On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher.

> Society constitutes them as well, so they are also contributing to the existence of this society, which means they are giving as much as they're receiving.

Society can exist without them but they cannot exist without society. That's a difference you're missing.

>>You seem to have forgotten that we buy that from Apple. On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher.

Yes we buy it because the money we pay is worth less to us than the product that they provide us in the exchange. That is what trade results in: both parties benefiting.

Put another way, they are not indebted on account of benefiting from this trade, given they are contributing something of even greater value in exchange for that benefit, and have no more obligation toward society, on account of engaging in large volumes of mutually beneficial trade, than any one else.

>> On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher.

That funding is for public research that is freely given away. You can't release scientific knowledge into the public domain and then claim those who benefit from it are indebted. That would be a false pretense of "public domain".

Moreover, the tax revenue generated by Apple, its US-based suppliers and its employees, allows for significant amounts of funding for public research that benefits society at large.

>>Society can exist without them but they cannot exist without society.

That applies to every constituent of society. We cannot say that every single individual owes to society more than it is owed on that account, or else it would mean some non-existent element of society should receive payment on the collective debt of the constituents of society.

Apple is part of this society, and has a responsibility (not to mention a direct interest) in helping to solve, or at the very least to not make worse, its society's problems.

The same goes for you, by the way.

Go to being a responsible person. Some of these people are mentally ill. Many others are just content to live a minimal existence, getting high, and not following any of the rules that normal people do. I see no reason to offer them support in that lifestyle.

This is irrelevant. SF has very low supply of housing and very high homelessness compared to other places. It could happen to basically anybody. One person in the article physically built her own house and then was kicked out by her ex-boyfriend. That person sounds way more responsible than I am, and I'm not homeless.

https://www.independent.co.uk/extras/lifestyle/silicon-valle...

Well, it became unethical after everyone who had huge budgets bought up all the property, displacing everyone who couldn't. In a sense, it's a question of the ethics of owning property being inherently displacing. If there is only private property that nobody wants others on, and public property that isn't housing and nobody wants others on, then you're kind of both screwed and you're subject to the consequences of the system that let you have those things in the first place.

I'd rephrase this in what I think is a more succinct way. It's unethical because you're profiting off of displacement, in a system that allows you to do so, then being mad when the displaced don't care about the system that doesn't care about them, and so they take it back by setting up on your doorstep. Whatcha gunna do rich boi!?

Probably just internal employee pushback against doing such a thing, likely because the homelessness problem is well-known and they honestly don't have a place to go. Plus, when they're on Apple property, all it does is make it not look like utopia on earth; assuming they keep to themselves and don't impede traffic nor destroy property it doesn't affect Apple operations.

>they honestly don't have a place to go

Do most homeless originate from the city that they habitate?

At least regarding San Diego, 79% in a survey reported they did become homeless within San Diego.

https://www.rtfhsd.org/wp-content/uploads/WeAllCount.pdf#pag...

Well it’s California, and a hot button issue that many blame corporations for. Once the woke crowd gets involved it could mean chaos at Apple; damages, employee walkouts, press etc. You’re absolutely right but Apple won’t act unless they are confident they can control the narrative.

Surprised they haven’t offered to teach them how to code, or some other virtue signaling

It's unethical in the same place where building large apartment complexes on private land is also illegal. They have to have somewhere to go and people don't want their view blocked by a building.

When? Always. Good luck finding a popular ethical system where it's moral to have millions of times more than you need while others have nothing and then turn then away: Christianity, Islam, Utilitarianism, Buddhism...

There is an entire industry of government funded NGOs who work with the homeless, who rely on these kinds of precepts, like evicting squatters being unethical, being accepted, for their funding. They're the ones who place enormous pressure on others to adopt this extreme compassion worldview.

I could not conceive of a more poetic example of silicon valley dystopia than the richest entity in the history of the world stymied to come up with a solution to help 35 people suffering on it's throne room doorstep.

What a terrible joke silicon valley has become.

I read this, and my first thought was "what are they supposed to do? buy houses for all these people? Yea, Apple could afford it, but then they'll be sending the message that if you want Apple to buy you a house, all you have to do is pitch a tent on their lawn".

And then it reminded me of a quote from The West Wing, after Toby uses the president's name to pull some strings for a random homeless person he happened to run into:

> President Bartlet: "Toby, if we start pulling strings like this, you don't think every homeless veteran will come out of the woodwork?"

> Toby: "I can only hope, sir."

I know that "solving" homelessness isn't really as simple as just having the wealthiest company on the planet buy homes for people, but... it could be a start.

Isn't that what Amazon did? Week they did buy homes, but they provide a homeless shelter

Meanwhile, San Jose is gearing up to clear a much larger camp at West Hedding and Spring streets, near the San Jose airport. That clean-up, which comes at the behest of the Federal Aviation Administration, could displace more than 200 people — some of whom might move to the Apple camp or other nearby camps.

You could pluck that right out of some dystopian future novel. I think we live in those worlds now actually - it's just unevenly distributed.

The double-speak of "clean-up" in these articles is just the cherry on top.

A lot of South Bay residents are still unaware of how many homeless people are living here. If you want to see the real extent of the problem go for a bike ride along any of our creek trails. Some areas are packed full of tents and makeshift shelters.

If you're in a position to donate some money I know HomeFirst Services does good work.

https://www.homefirstscc.org/

This is tangential, but I’ve always thought that disused office space would make an okay crash pad if I ended up homeless. Parking lots make scouting easy, and nondestructive entry is easy on most lower-security offices. Put on a hard hat, like 10 bucks at Home Depot, walk right in and out. If things get hot, hop to another office building.

I knew someone who worked at a particular office which had a computer lab as the IT person. This lab had a server room that served as an office and had just enough room to squeeze in a sleeping bag.

This person lived in that space for 6 years. I’m not sure if their boss ever figured it out or simply remained willfully ignorant.

Cupertino has one of the worst jobs to housing imbalances in SV. This is inevitable if there’s a shortage of homes.

I was wondering when this would happen. There's been a steady sprawl of camps on all the highway exits/entrances by 280 and 85 in all the bush and trees that grow there. Cupertino seemed to keep it more or less contained and off the sidewalks, but that was about 2 years ago. When you ride on the high double decker buses you can see all the camps not visible at car height level that line the freeways. It's nuts.

Wait the article is actually talking about a San Jose location, the homeless camp is even visible via satellite view: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Component+Dr,+San+Jose,+CA...

can't even read the article, so many popups

Its easy to be a saint in paradise

I wonder how long before the doughnut gets taken over or burnt down.

Homeless people don't work from home.

Apple should house these poor people at HQ. With employees working from home they should have a lot of office space that could be converted into rooms for the homeless. I'm sure there are fitness facilities they could use for basic hygiene and plenty of cafeterias that could feed them.

Poe’s law strikes again.

Btw Amazon actually did this, they have space for 200 a night right in one of their hq buildings in downtown Seattle called Mary’s place.

Respectfully—I knew they were joking, but it wasn’t funny and it doesn’t add anything to the discussion.

They could ease the housing pressure there by going permanent WFH, but I doubt they'll even do that.

Imagine being this clueless about how cafeterias work when the employees aren’t in the office.

Imagine being so dumb to think some aren't open since there are a handful of employees there or opening a few since there would be homeless there.

When there’s a “handful of employees there” cafeterias aren’t open and you’re lucky to have the staff keeping the coffee pots going. Have you not been to “the office” even once over the last 18 months?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com