In the last round of California Proposition 1C infill infrastructure grants, which voters approved in 2006, “San Francisco developers won seven state grants worth $96 million” versus one grant for $5 million the last time around.  From J.K. Dineen:

The biggest Bay Area recipient was the John Stewart Co., which received the maximum $30 million to help bankroll the ambitious 750-unit mixed-income housing development called Hunters View, a project that includes the rebuilding of a 267-unit dilapidated public housing complex. The money will pay for everything from grading to utilities to a new street grid. Work will start early next year on the $300 million development, which will be built in phases.

The Emerald Fund, which is raising money to build 308 units of rental housing in Rincon Hill, received $11 million, much of which will go toward a park the developer agreed to build. The developer did not receive another $11 million transit-oriented development Prop 1C grant it had applied for, but Emerald Fund President Oz Erickson said he is hopeful that money will come through after a 90 day evaluation period. Erickson said that they have a strong case for the public benefits 333 Harrison will provide.

The Martin Building Company also received a grant for the development of 179 units at 2235 Third Street while Avant Housing’s bid for $5.7 million to kick-start development of 194 units at 1880 Mission Street was turned down.

9 thoughts on “San Francisco Developers Land $96 Million In Infill Grants”
  1. Will these grants be paid in the form of IOU’s, as the State of California is preparing to do to those it owes monies? And when was this 1C passed? Can we put on the ballot a new Proposition that will issue grants to other worthy individuals?
    [Editor’s Note: 2006.]

  2. Does anyone believe building additional housing will help stabilize declining real estate prices?

  3. Californians have one thing in common with New Yorkers: they both love to approve bond measures. Bond measures always sound so much more formal and virtuous that just saying “let’s borrow money that our grandchildren will pay back.”

  4. The problem is that the California budget got solidly locked up by tax protesters in the 1970s, so for now the only reliable way to spend real money on anything is through bond measures. A reasonable budget process and legislature could handle this sort of thing directly, but low tax crusaders prefer spending being handled this way instead.

  5. Darn, it’s those pesky low-tax types that caused all the problems. Funny how NYS is following CA right over the budget abyss, what with pesky low-tax types being notably absent from that state for four decades.
    CA General Fund spending increased 25% from 04-05 to 08-09. Even if you don’t trust the Tax Foundation or not, CA ranks in the top quarter of the country for per capita and business tax burdens. But if you think the CA legislature would do a much better job if it could only fish more revenue streams, a taxpayer-supported developer has a condo he wants to sell you.

  6. It is a real coup for John Stewart Co’s to score the max funding for Hunters View rebuild, because it is one of the less transit oriented development sites in SF. Yes, there is a bus that winds its way through, but it is not like the project is on top of BART or a major bus line.
    However, I’m not really complaining, because redevelopment of Hunters View will unlock that whole area, making Hunters Point Shipyard redevleopment much more achievable. That whole area is incredibly beautiful, and totally blighted.

  7. Flaneur, it’s on top of the hill near Innes and Hunters Point shipyard. A bit of a hike from 3rd Street, but not so far that you can’t argue that it’s “transit oriented” toward 3rd Street. You can really argue that case for anything in San Francisco, however.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *