Support SF BayView
Donate or Subscribe to SF Bay View
Follow Us Twitter Facebook

Nonprofit housers mourn demise of redevelopment agencies

January 11, 2012

by Lynda Carson

Oakland – In a significant win for students and schools throughout California, a court ruling on Dec. 29 gives support to the state’s ability to grab funds from local redevelopment agencies to fund the current state budget, with a billion dollars of that funding going towards schools and public safety, according to Gov. Jerry Brown.

In November 2007, as Just Cause Oakland rallied around this billboard, member Felisha Lee said, “We need more money for housing and less for developers’ pocketbooks. And that’s what we’re fighting for.” – Photo: Favianna Rodriguez
The unanimous California Supreme Court ruling in support of a state law passed last summer to abolish redevelopment agencies throughout California has so-called nonprofit housing developers in mourning, as more than 400 redevelopment agencies will close their doors after Feb. 1, 2012, as a result of the court ruling.

So-called nonprofit affordable housing developers promote their projects as being beneficial to the poor while seeking subsidies from redevelopment agencies for their projects, when in reality their projects discriminate against the poor with minimum income requirements.

This means that future neighborhood gentrification projects involving nonprofit housing developers in Oakland that would have displaced the poor may now be placed on hold. Additionally, Oakland’s Victory Court plan for an Oakland A’s Stadium is no longer a viable option, since it also depended on the Oakland Redevelopment Agency for funding, so the threat of displacing many low-income residents and small businesses has been diminished.

As public housing projects for the poor continue to be underfunded resulting in blighted conditions and over 120,000 demolished public housing units in recent years, the so-called affordable housing industry thrives and has developed hundreds of so-called affordable housing projects throughout California that discriminate against the poor with their minimum income requirements, and are funded by local redevelopment agencies (RDAs).

In the latest press release on the Affordable Housing Finance website, the affordable housing industry is astounded and shocked that the state Supreme Court ruled that the state can abolish more than 400 RDAs in a move that could thwart affordable housing development across California. Shamus Roller, executive director of Housing California, said, “Today was a huge blow for anyone in California that struggles to pay rent or lives in unsafe conditions.”

Shamus Roller failed to mention that many so-called affordable housing projects have been displacing the poor from their homes in California or that so-called affordable housing developments discriminate against the poor with their minimum income requirements.

For instance, in Oakland several 501c3 charity nonprofit housing developers including Bridge Housing and the East Bay Asian Local Development Corp. (EBALDC) have already been involved in gentrification projects that have displaced hundreds of low-income families from their longtime public housing. Future so-called affordable housing gentrification projects that displace public housing residents may not be as easy to finance without the assistance of redevelopment agency funding in Oakland and elsewhere.

Currently in Berkeley, families in 75 public housing townhomes face displacement in a so-called affordable housing scheme involving some out of state billionaires who want to buy and privatize Berkeley’s public housing.

As another example, in recent years over $60 million in affordable housing funds originally meant to assist the poor was instead diverted to fund Oakland’s Uptown Project as a subsidy to build 2,000 luxury housing units for Forest City Enterprises and its billionaire owners, including 900 condominiums and 1,200 luxury apartments as envisioned in the original $500 million development plan.

Forest City Enterprises stands to make a fortune from the wealthy people who are interested in moving to downtown Oakland as part of Jerry Brown’s 10 K Plan designed when he was mayor of Oakland to displace the poor from downtown Oakland in an effort to replace them with wealthy shoppers living in those luxury condominiums.

The Oakland city deal to subsidize the luxury condos for Forest City Enterprises with the $60 million in affordable housing funds had the full blessing of the local nonprofit housing developers that belonged to the East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO). Many poor people and local businesses in the area were displaced by the Uptown Project.

Affordable housing projects discriminate against the poor

So-called affordable housing projects being run and operated by 501c3 charity nonprofit housing developers have minimum income requirements that discriminate against the poor, unless the poor have a Section 8 voucher or an equivalent subsidy from some other housing program. That’s in sharp contrast with public housing, where people with no income at all, including the elderly and disabled, are allowed to reside, as most public housing projects have no minimum income requirements.

As local public housing faces more budget cuts from the federal government and is shutting down or being sold off to billionaires and wealthy 501c3 charity nonprofit housing developers, public housing is rapidly being converted into privatized so-called affordable housing – affordable housing that discriminates against the poor.

The wealthy 501c3 charity nonprofit housing developers are trying to promote their so-called affordable housing as a good investment for cities and have successfully hoodwinked society into believing that affordable housing is good for the poor.

Minimum income requirements for the poor

At Los Medanos Village in Pittsburg, Calif., Resources for Community Development (RCD), a local Berkeley 501c3 charity nonprofit housing developer, discriminates against the poor at this affordable housing project and others it has developed but advertises that there are no “minimum income requirements” for the poor people who have Section 8 vouchers.

On Oct. 14, 2010, Director Donna J. Gambrell of the CDFI (Community Development Financial Institutions) Fund, an agency of the U.S. Treasury that helps banks finance “affordable” housing, presented a $5 million Capital Magnet Fund award to Costa Mesa-based Western Community Housing President Graham Espley-Jones, as Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Don Graves and Congresswoman Barbara Lee look on. Federal tax funds enrich housing developers that most often use them to house those who could afford market rates while the poor are evicted into homelessness. – Photo: U.S. Treasury Department
Local Oakland 501c3 charity nonprofit housing developer EBALDC demands that poor people on a fixed income such as social security or a pension must earn at least 1.6 times the amount of monthly rent being charged in their so-called affordable housing projects. Those with other income must earn two times the monthly rent, but there is no minimum income requirement for those with Section 8 vouchers or similar subsidies.

Another 501c3 charity nonprofit housing developer called EAH in Marin County demands that a single person who wants to move into its so-called affordable housing development called Farley Place must earn a minimum of $31,000, though it advertises that there is no minimum income requirement for poor people with Section 8 vouchers.

Bridge Housing Corp. is one of California’s largest so-called nonprofit housing developers. During 2010, at its housing project called Ironhorse Central Station, Bridge Housing demanded that a single tenant must have a minimum income of $15,326 to $18,750 annually. In another instance, in Tier 5 of the same project, Bridge was demanding that applicants have a minimum income of $26,091 to $31,250.

During 2008, the John Stewart Co. was involved in a major lawsuit filed by the residents of the California Hotel in Oakland after John Stewart and Oakland Community Housing, Inc. (OCHI), threatened to unlawfully cut off their water and utilities in an attempt to unlawfully evict the poor from the historic hotel and force them from their homes.

A judge had to grant a restraining order to stop these two so-called 501c3 charity nonprofit housing organizations from unlawfully dumping the poor onto the cold streets of Oakland. At the California Hotel, OCHI wanted to dump the poor so it could replace them with higher income tenants who would be subsidized by the City of Oakland and some homeless programs.

As the wealthy so-called 501c3 charity nonprofit housing developers mourn the loss of local redevelopment funding to finance their so-called affordable housing schemes, the executives in the nonprofit housing industry continue to grab excessive salaries and wage compensation for themselves. They are living in luxury, despite all the major budget cuts occurring in the federal housing programs during recent years, including the latest loss of funding for their projects from local redevelopment agencies.

The poverty industry in the East Bay

As federal and state budget cuts devastate programs that are meant to assist the poor, it should be noted that at the same time the incomes of the poor, elderly and disabled plummet, the compensation of executives in the so-called 501c3 charity nonprofit housing sector has skyrocketed to obscene levels.

The more the housing programs being operated by the nonprofits are being shredded by federal and state budget cuts, the more the executives have been grabbing for themselves and the higher the rents are becoming for the low-income renters! In this obscene situation, the executives should roll back their salaries to levels below $80,000 a year as a way to lower the rents being charged to the poor.

Nonprofit executives’ salaries and other compensation

In Oakland, 990 tax filings – required of nonprofits – reveal that executive compensation has been rapidly rising, including that of key employees of the Oakland-based nonprofit, East Bay Asian Local Development Corp. EBALDC claims that its mission is to develop affordable housing and community facilities, including integrated services focused on tenants and neighborhood residents, with an emphasis on Asian and Pacific Islander communities and the diverse low income populations of the East Bay.

Forest City’s The Uptown, heavily tax-subsidized through the Oakland Redevelopment Agency to populate the city’s “uptown” with rich people, is definitely not affordable to anyone else.
Records show that in 2009, EBALDC Executive Director Lynette Jung Lee earned $140,536, including her salary and an additional $5,942 in other compensation from EBALDC. In contrast, during the previous fiscal year, EBALDC paid Lee $87,265 plus other compensation of $3,055, meaning that in 2009 her compensation skyrocketed by more than $50,000 in a single year. Since then, Lee has retired and been replaced by Jeremy Liu as the executive director of EBALDC.

To have increased Lee’s salary by $50,000 means that at least 1,000 low-income households in the EBALDC empire may have had to contribute at least $50 of their rent payments just to cover that additional cost.

During 2009, EBALDC Human Resources Director La Netha Oliver earned $80,221 plus an additional $8,184, but in fiscal year 2008 she earned only $68,547 plus $1,227 in other compensation, meaning that her pay increased by around $18,000 in a year.

EBALDC Real Estate Development Director Carlos Castellanos earned $91,280 in salary plus $11,228 in other compensation in 2009, but in in the previous year, he earned only $71,865 plus $2,415, meaning that his wages jumped by about $28,000 in a year.

In 2009, EBALDC Chief Financial Officer Don Piyathaisere earned $98,265 in salary plus $8,472 in other compensation, whereas in 2008 he earned $91,138 plus $2,236, an increase in one year of more than $12,000. Since then, Piyathaisere has been replaced by Peter Sopka.

EBALDC Chief Operations Officer Mary Hennessy is raking in $129,220 plus $8,134 in other compensation, and the income of EBALDC Director of Economic Development Charise Fong has risen in 2009 to $81,828 in salary plus $308 from $69,751 plus $2,099 in 2008, an extra $10,000 in a year.

In strong contrast to the huge leaps in salaries and compensation for the top staff at EBALDC, records reveal that during fiscal year 2007, Lynette Jung Lee was the top wage earner at EBALDC, pulling in $87,156 in salaray with no extra compensation.

More East Bay poverty industry statistics

Eden Housing, Inc.: From July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009, Executive Director Linda Mandolini was paid $162,393 in salary plus $14,368 in other compensation and worked only 28 hours per week. Chief Operating Officer Jan E. Peters was paid $136,500 plus $13,177. CFO Terese McNamee was paid $133,743 plus $6,167. Director of Development Andrea Papanastassiou was paid $131,455 plus $6,618 in other compensation.

Satellite Housing: From Oct. 1, 2008, through Sept. 30, 2009, Executive Director Ryan Chao was paid $163,893 plus $6,377 in other compensation. The previous year, Executive Director Arion Chao had been paid $167,000, Director of Finance Joyce Boyd was paid $81,760, Miriam Benavides was paid $85,000, Director of Property Management Analisa Anthony was paid $87,550, Director of Housing Development Dori Kojima was paid $92,000 and Director of Residential Services Patricia Osage was paid $80,000.

Resources for Community Development (RCD): From July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009, Executive Director Dan Sawsilak was paid $112,900 in salary plus $9,814 in other compensation, and Finance Director Peter Poon was paid $69,505 plus $1,362. The previous year, Senior Project Manager Deni Adaniya was paid $90,000, Asset Manager Eric Knect was paid $73,438, Controller Kate McKean was paid $70,825, Director of Fund Development Elizabeth Eckstein was paid $68,542 and Finance Director Peter Poon was paid $65,840.

Affordable Housing Associates (AHA): From July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010, Executive Director Susan Friedland was paid $116,660, Finance Manager Leland Chin was paid $76,514, Construction Manager Teresa Clarke was paid $84,413, Director of Development Kevin Zwick was paid $84,460, Project Manager Eve Stewart was paid $67,000 and Director of Property Management Angela Cavanaugh was paid $68,000.

EAH Inc. (EAH Housing), Marin County: From July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010, Stephen Lucas was paid $182,197 in salary plus $6,951 in other compensation, Peggy Franklin was paid $331,371 plus $12,460, Matt Steinle was paid $162,410 plus $9,453, Mary Murtagh was paid $254,030 plus $10,733, Laura Hall was paid $186,136 plus $6,951, Kevin Carney was paid $135,667 plus $6,951, Cathy Macy was paid $132,931 plus $6,951 and Alvin Bonnet was paid $122,471 plus $8,669 in other compensation.

Bridge Housing, San Francisco: From Jan. 1, 2008 through Dec. 31, 2009, Carol Galante was paid $203,860, Lydia Tan was paid $316,611, Susan Johnson was paid $255,001, D. Valentine was paid $231,615, Ann Silverberg was paid $173,319, Rebecca Hiebasko was paid $271,683, Brad Wiblin was paid $212,823, Tom Earley was paid $224,432, Corinne Morrison was paid $178,312, Thomas Casey was paid $163,939, James Valva, husband of Susan Johnson, was paid $165,097, Kim Nash-Patchen was paid $157,054, and Elizabeth Nahas-Wilson, daughter of director Ron Nahas, was paid $127,979 plus $29,075 in other compensation.

Lynda Carson may be reached at tenantsrule@yahoo.com.

 

5 thoughts on “Nonprofit housers mourn demise of redevelopment agencies

  1. Matt P

    It would have been good if the author had actually learned something about the costs of operating rental housing before writing this article. The projects she's referring to offer rents well below what the market generally charges. Because subsidies are not as deep as public housing, however, rents cannot be based on what the poorest can afford, because it simply won't cover the costs of keeping the homes in good condition. It only makes sense to figure out whether a prospective tenant can afford a particular rent – otherwise you're setting them up to fail, at a high cost to everyone involved, including the tenant.

    The elimination of the redevelopment agencies will lead to less affordable housing, period. More people will be forced to live in rundown apartments. How is that a good thing?

    Reply
  2. Jay

    They develop 'Affordable Housing' – not free housing. Its as simple as that. Also, the salary information for bridge housing is presented for two years – compare to other info for one year. Was that a attempt to mislead?

    Reply
  3. Lynda Carson

    A Few Local Bay Area Nonprofit "501c3 Charity" Housing Developers That Have Become Wealthy From Taxpayer Subsidies, By Exploiting The Poor!

    I stand by my story…

    See the dollar figures for the assets of these so-called 501c3 charity nonprofit housing developers, as they grow year, by year, by year, by year…

    The following so-called affordable housing developers all got greedy when they decided to get rich by imposing minimum income requirements, that discriminate against the poor at their so-called affordable housing projects.

    These policies create more homelessness…

    Meanwhile, the executives of the 501c3 charity nonprofit developers are living in luxury and eating like KINGS due to the excessive salaries and wage compensation they are grabbing for themselves, especially during recent years of major budget cuts to the nations housing programs.

    This is an obscene situation.

    Lynda Carson
    tenantsrule@yahoo.com

    See the assets listed below…

    ORGANIZATION NAME

    STATE

    YEAR

    TOTAL ASSETS

    FORM

    PAGES

    EIN

    >>>>>>>>>>
    Satellite Housing — assets listed per year

    Organization — Satellite Housing
    State — CA
    Year — 2010
    Assets — $23,555,246
    Form — 990
    Pages — 32
    EIN # — 94-3031375

    Satellite Housing
    CA
    2009
    $16,650,486
    990
    31
    94-3031375

    Satellite Housing
    CA
    2008
    $6,886,913
    990
    21
    94-3031375

    Satellite Housing
    CA
    2007
    $7,951,688
    990
    22
    94-3031375

    Satellite Housing Inc.
    CA
    2006
    $4,053,992
    990
    32
    94-3031375

    Satellite Housing Inc.
    CA
    2005
    $5,233,768
    990
    27
    94-3031375

    Satellite Housing Inc.
    CA
    2004
    $4,570,417
    990
    23
    94-3031375

    Satellite Housing Inc.
    CA
    2003
    $973,239
    990
    18
    94-3031375

    Satellite Housing Inc.
    CA
    2002
    $876,592
    990
    16
    94-3031375

    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    EAH Inc. — assets listed per year

    EAH Inc.
    CA
    2007
    $35,520,987
    990
    33
    94-1699153

    EAH Inc.
    CA
    2006
    $28,765,993
    990
    20
    94-1699153

    EAH Inc.
    CA
    2005
    $26,199,813
    990
    18
    94-1699153

    EAH Inc.
    CA
    2004
    $21,182,683
    990
    18
    94-1699153

    EAH Inc.
    CA
    2003
    $16,797,414
    990
    17
    94-1699153

    EAH Inc.
    CA
    2002
    $14,215,595
    990
    16
    94-1699153

    EAH, Inc.
    CA
    2010
    $39,915,814
    990
    37
    94-1699153

    EAH, Inc.
    CA
    2009
    $36,587,149
    990
    31
    94-1699153

    EAH, Inc.
    CA
    2008
    $64,557,825
    990
    31
    94-1699153

    Reply
  4. Lynda Carson

    A Few Local Bay Area Nonprofit "501c3 Charity" Housing Developers That Have Become Wealthy From Taxpayer Subsidies, By Exploiting The Poor!

    I stand by my story…

    See the dollar figures for the assets of these so-called 501c3 charity nonprofit housing developers, as they grow year, by year, by year, by year…

    The following so-called affordable housing developers all got greedy when they decided to get rich by imposing minimum income requirements, that discriminate against the poor at their so-called affordable housing projects.

    These policies create more homelessness…

    Meanwhile, the executives of the 501c3 charity nonprofit developers are living in luxury and eating like KINGS due to the excessive salaries and wage compensation they are grabbing for themselves, especially during recent years of major budget cuts to the nations housing programs.

    This is an obscene situation.

    Lynda Carson
    tenantsrule@yahoo.com

    See the assets listed below…

    ORGANIZATION NAME

    STATE

    YEAR

    TOTAL ASSETS

    FORM

    PAGES

    EIN

    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    Eden Housing — assets listed per year year

    Eden Housing, Inc.
    CA
    2010
    $61,629,726
    990
    36
    23-1716750

    Eden Housing, Inc.
    CA
    2009
    $53,680,522
    990
    38
    23-1716750

    Eden Housing, Inc.
    CA
    2008
    $49,798,674
    990
    63
    23-1716750

    Eden Housing, Inc.
    CA
    2007
    $45,528,108
    990
    54
    23-1716750

    Eden Housing, Inc.
    CA
    2006
    $37,285,541
    990
    38
    23-1716750

    Eden Housing, Inc.
    CA
    2005
    $30,311,175
    990
    30
    23-1716750

    Eden Housing, Inc.
    CA
    2004
    $26,957,315
    990
    28
    23-1716750

    Eden Housing, Inc.
    CA
    2003
    $28,293,335
    990
    28
    23-1716750

    Eden Housing, Inc.
    CA
    2002
    $27,120,841
    990
    24
    23-1716750

    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation — assets listed per year

    East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation
    CA
    2009
    $82,745
    990
    35
    51-0171851

    East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation
    CA
    2009
    $76,221,267
    990
    33
    51-0171851

    East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation
    CA
    2008
    $77,492,652
    990
    32
    51-0171851

    East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation
    CA
    2007
    $64,743,467
    990
    32
    51-0171851

    East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation
    CA
    2006
    $48,054,887
    990
    23
    51-0171851

    East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation
    CA
    2005
    $31,225,585
    990
    22
    51-0171851

    East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation
    CA
    2004
    $26,378,533
    990
    26
    51-0171851

    East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation
    CA
    2003
    $24,300,417
    990A
    29
    51-0171851

    East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation
    CA
    2003
    $24,300,417
    990
    30
    51-0171851

    East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation
    CA
    2002
    $23,876,277
    990
    25
    51-0171851

    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    Resources for Community Development — assets listed per year

    Resources for Community Development
    CA
    2010
    $34,309,316
    990
    54
    94-2952466

    Resources for Community Development
    CA
    2009
    $32,657,293
    990
    61
    94-2952466

    Resources for Community Development
    CA
    2008
    $28,868,689
    990
    48
    94-2952466

    Resources for Community Development
    CA
    2007
    $25,704,423
    990
    53
    94-2952466

    Reply
  5. Lynda Carson

    A Few Local Bay Area Nonprofit "501c3 Charity" Housing Developers That Have Become Wealthy From Taxpayer Subsidies, By Exploiting The Poor!

    I stand by my story…

    See the dollar figures for the assets of these so-called 501c3 charity nonprofit housing developers, as they grow year, by year, by year, by year…

    The following so-called affordable housing developers all got greedy when they decided to get rich by imposing minimum income requirements, that discriminate against the poor at their so-called affordable housing projects.

    These policies create more homelessness…

    Meanwhile, the executives of the 501c3 charity nonprofit developers are living in luxury and eating like KINGS due to the excessive salaries and wage compensation they are grabbing for themselves, especially during recent years of major budget cuts to the nations housing programs.

    This is an obscene situation.

    Lynda Carson
    tenantsrule@yahoo.com

    See the assets listed below…

    ORGANIZATION NAME

    STATE

    YEAR

    TOTAL ASSETS

    FORM

    PAGES

    EIN

    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    Affordable Housing Associates — assets listed per year

    Affordable Housing Associates
    CA
    2010
    $19,387,157
    990
    34
    94-3186770

    Affordable Housing Associates
    CA
    2009
    $19,772,314
    990
    28
    94-3186770

    Affordable Housing Associates
    CA
    2008
    $16,786,160
    990
    21
    94-3186770

    Affordable Housing Associates
    CA
    2007
    $14,585,104
    990
    21
    94-3186770

    Affordable Housing Associates
    CA
    2005
    $11,228,655
    990
    21
    94-3186770

    Affordable Housing Associates
    CA
    2004
    $9,352,611
    990
    21
    94-3186770

    Affordable Housing Associates
    CA
    2003
    $11,647,449
    990
    21
    94-3186770

    Affordable Housing Associates
    CA
    2002
    $11,997,195
    990

    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    Bridge Housing – assets listed per year

    Bridge Housing Acquisition Inc.
    CA
    2005
    $13,947,403
    990
    19
    94-3175634

    Bridge Housing Acquisition Inc.
    CA
    2004
    $13,358,797
    990
    19
    94-3175634

    Bridge Housing Acquisition Inc.
    CA
    2003
    $13,525,084
    990
    18
    94-3175634

    Bridge Housing Acquisition Inc.
    CA
    2002
    $13,583,480
    990
    19
    94-3175634

    Bridge Housing Acquisitions Inc.
    CA
    2009
    $20,819,315
    990
    38
    94-3175634

    Bridge Housing Acquisitions Inc.
    CA
    2008
    $20,609,969
    990
    41
    94-3175634

    Bridge Housing Acquisitions Inc.
    CA
    2007
    $14,250,877
    990
    26
    94-3175634

    Bridge Housing Acquisitions Inc.
    CA
    2006
    $14,092,529
    990
    25
    94-3175634

    Bridge Housing Acquisitions Inc.
    CA
    2005
    $14,207,048
    990
    24
    94-3175634

    Bridge Housing Corp.
    CA
    2006
    $60,908,105
    990
    57
    94-2827909

    Bridge Housing Corp.
    CA
    2005
    $51,811,356
    990
    31
    94-2827909

    Bridge Housing Corp.
    CA
    2005
    $40,065,553
    990
    35
    94-2827909

    Bridge Housing Corp.
    CA
    2004
    $35,388,500
    990
    33
    94-2827909

    Bridge Housing Corp.
    CA
    2003
    $32,046,816
    990
    32
    94-2827909

    Bridge Housing Corp.
    CA
    2002
    $31,886,951
    990
    35
    94-2827909

    Bridge Housing Corp. – Southern California
    CA
    2005
    $8,713,326
    990
    22
    94-3233154

    Bridge Housing Corp. – Southern California
    CA
    2004
    $4,734,964
    990
    17
    94-3233154

    Bridge Housing Corp. – Southern California
    CA
    2003
    $4,420,502
    990
    17
    94-3233154

    Bridge Housing Corp. Southern California
    CA
    2006
    $8,585,285
    990
    22
    94-3233154

    Bridge Housing Corp.-Southern California
    CA
    2002
    $4,123,228
    990
    17
    94-3233154

    BRIDGE Housing Corporation
    CA
    2009
    $50,517,098
    990
    43
    94-2827909

    BRIDGE Housing Corporation
    CA
    2008
    $48,533,212
    990
    54
    94-2827909

    BRIDGE Housing Corporation
    CA
    2007
    $49,455,110
    990
    36
    94-2827909

    Bridge Housing Corporation- Southern California
    CA
    2009
    $7,266,072
    990
    35
    94-3233154

    Bridge Housing Corporation- Southern California
    CA
    2008
    $7,260,469
    990
    37
    94-3233154

    Bridge Housing Corporation- Southern California
    CA
    2007
    $7,407,878
    990
    25
    94-3233154

    Bridge Housing Ventures Inc.
    CA
    2008
    $3,821,615
    990
    45
    94-3147882

    Bridge Housing Ventures Inc.
    CA
    2007
    $3,694,515
    990
    27
    94-3147882

    Bridge Housing Ventures Inc.
    CA
    2006
    $2,417,099
    990
    22
    94-3147882

    Bridge Housing Ventures Inc.
    CA
    2005
    $2,865,284
    990
    23
    94-3147882

    Bridge Housing Ventures Inc.
    CA
    2004
    $2,869,987
    990
    18
    94-3147882

    Bridge Housing Ventures Inc.
    CA
    2003
    $2,760,989
    990
    18
    94-3147882

    Bridge Housing Ventures Inc.
    CA
    2002
    $2,961,737
    990
    19
    94-3147882

    Bridge Housing Venturesinc
    CA
    2009
    $6,722,611
    990
    35
    94-3147882

    Reply

Leave a Reply

BayView Classifieds - ads, opportunities, announcements
TOP STORES
RingCentral
Rebtel
Phone.com