178 Townsend Design
Approved by the Planning Commission last September, an unpaid tax bill and added sixth floor has the City’s Budget Analyst recommending against the tax break for landmarking deal for Martin Building Company’s development of 166-178 Townsend.

“The Budget analyst recommends disapproval of the requested Mills Act Historical Property contract to provide property tax reductions to the property owner because the property owner currently owes The City $105,126 in past-due delinquent property taxes for fiscal year 2005-06, FY 2008-09 and FY2009-10,” [Budget Analyst Harvey Rose] says in his report.

Not only that, but Rose said as the application [was] pending, the property owner increased the height of the project to add a sixth floor “such that The City’s estimated first year property tax losses from $170,961 to $185,599, an additional loss of $15,638, or 9. 1 percent,” the report says.

As proposed, the development will add 94 luxury rentals, 15,000 square feet of underground parking, and a ground floor restaurant space to the market.
178 Townsend Approved To Become Mixed-Use With 94 Rentals [SocketSite]
Overdue taxes jeopardize historic property deal [San Francisco Examiner]

2 thoughts on “166-178 Townsend Landmarking For Tax Breaks Deal In Trouble”
  1. Barring the unpaid tax bill…(ouch)…it appears that the city will go to any lengths to kill any new development that wants tax breaks in SF. That’s good news for those of us sitting on empty rental units in the hood.
    It will be of interest to see if Emerald fund can pull off their development project at 1st and Harrison. Some how I know there must be a tie in to the Townsend project. Their project is dependent on the new park in front of their building……what a piece of crap location for a new park…Yuck.
    So here is a developer who is willing to take on the risk in this crazy market to do a risky development at best and the city bites off it’s nose to spite it’s face. I can’t wait to hear the noise from the labor conciliar and construction trades.
    Want to bet this gets the go ahead? I thought jobs were going to be front and center….let’s see if they can pull it off. I think they may have some momentum going forward…but just barely.

  2. Am I missing something? Is the increased tax valuation based on the property being worth more NOW because the developer is going to add a floor? Or is this a pre-payment of the property taxes for when the development is finished?

Leave a Reply

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