Shall it be City policy to encourage timely development of a mixed-use project in the Bayview on Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard, including a new 49ers stadium or a non-stadium alternative; shall the City be authorized to transfer park land in Candlestick Point for non-recreational use if the land is replaced with new public parks or open spaces of at least equal size and the transfer meets the measure’s policy objectives; and shall Propositions D and F, approved by the voters in June 1997, be repealed?

Proposition G lays out guidelines the developer must follow to meet the conditions to develop the Candlestick Point and Bayview Hunters Point area. The proposition is asking for the public’s approval to move forward on completing the agreement with the developer funding the ballot measure, Lennar Corp.

Lennar Corp. is based out of Miami and has close ties with the City. They are currently in agreement to develop parts of Treasure Island and have already begun development on a piece of the naval shipyard in the same area referenced in the ballot measure.

There have been complaints made in regards to the Lennar’s conduct during construction and in the firm itself. The complaints ranged from Lennar’s complete disregard of the environmental issues which threatened the local community to the accusation of racism in the workplace and in their intent during planning.

The proposition proposes:

• The integrated development should produce tangible community benefits for the Bayview and the City.
• The integrated development should reunify the Project Site with the Bayview and should protect the character of the Bayview for its existing residents.
• The integrated development should include substantial new housing in a mix of rental and for-sale units, both affordable and market-rate, and encourage the rebuilding
  of Alice Griffith Housing.
• The integrated development should incorporate environmental
  sustainability concepts and practices.
• The integrated development should encourage the 49ers—an important source of civic pride—to remain in San Francisco by providing a world-class site for a new waterfront stadium and supporting infrastructure
• The integrated development should be fiscally prudent,
  with or without a new stadium

The keyword in each of these promises is “should” which means if none of these things happen than that is okay too.

With the amount of loopholes added into the legal text and the fact that the City is gifting the land to the development agency, Proposition G would be a tough pill to swallow. The proposition is a golden egg for any development agency.

The above would be arguments against Proposition G.

The arguments in favor of Proposition G are just as tangible.

After the closure of the naval shipyards in 1974 and the abandonment of the property in 1986, the area have sat vacant for a number of years. Development of the area would create much needed jobs and housing for many in or out of the City. The benefits would include:

• over 300 acres of public park and public open space improvements
• about 8,500 and 10,000 residential housing units across the Project Site, including a mix of rental and for-sale units, both affordable and market-rate
• about 600,000 square feet of regional retail on Candlestick Point and about 100,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail on the Shipyard Property
• about 2,000,000 square feet of green office, science and technology, biotechnology or digital media office, research and development and industrial uses on the Shipyard Property and about 150,000 square feet on Candlestick Point
• if practical, a site for an arena or other public performance venue
• a new stadium for the 49ers or more office/housing/park space

The passing of the proposition does not mean it is a done deal. The city and the environmental board must also sign off on the deal with the development agency before actual development could begin so there is a failsafe in place.

So, a vote of Yes means a thumbs up on this proposed plan for development.

A vote of No means a thumbs down on this proposed plan for development.

I am not actually sure if passing this proposition would mean anything. Say the proposition fails in the ballot. What stops the City from completing the deal with the development agency under a whole new set of guidelines and starting development without public approval?