Skip to main content

View Diary: It's Official! Developers Are Staying Away from Berkeley Post Office Purchase. Because. Activism. (32 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Declare eminent domain (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ebby, jpmassar, blueoasis, gooderservice

    and call it yours!
    (Hey, if rich developers can do it...?)

    •  We don't want to own it. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina, mrsgoo, Odysseus, Creosote, JVolvo

      We want it to stay a Post Office.

      Eminent domain could be invoked if Berkeley wanted it, but you still have to pay fair market value for the property.

      •  Didn't see this comment before, the trouble is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG, jpmassar

        ---it's a horrible Post Office.  The worst I have ever used.  I'd rather take BART to the Civic Center / Oakland Federal Bldg than to try to use the Downtown Berkeley facility.

        Yes, I think the building should be saved.  But it's useful life as a PO was over years ago.

        Why not have a small storefront style office?  There are a number of offices like that now in Berkeley.  The only reason to go to the current downtown office is to kill a few hours waiting with a bunch of masochists.

        Without massive renovations, I can't imagine what it could be used for though.  I really doubt another community theater is going to be feasible.

        •  It'd be a nice building for movie theatres (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jpmassar, Be Skeptical, JVolvo

          ... if only the building didn't need expensive renovations before it could be re-purposed, and if only there weren't already multiplex theatres two blocks away.

        •  That's so weird. (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mrsgoo, AoT, marina, gooderservice, Creosote, JVolvo

          Why do you think going to a different location would get you better service?

          The problem with service has nothing to do with the location.  It's the number of tellers available for the number of people needing service.

          That problem has nothing to do with the building.  The fact that lots of people come to that location in spite of their not being decent service suggests just the opposite - that it is a very desirable location for a Post Office and that service should be improved, not that it should be abandoned.

          •  Poor service, lack of staff (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Odysseus, Creosote

            couldn't possibly have anything to do with cutbacks of government employees, of course.

          •  No, it's not just the staffing levels (0+ / 0-)

            It's the staff themselves, unless they have cleaned house since my last experience.  It's not the Postal Service in general, it's this post office.  Admittedly, I now use it a only few times a year--I don't even live in Berkeley anymore.  But the bad service is not a recent phenomenon.  It was like that 5 years ago and 10 years ago and 15 years ago.

            Sure , the exterior is nice.  But inside--dark, dank, constricted space, no place to endure the interminable waits.  It's very poorly laid out for customers.  Unless you're 24 maybe and have a couple of power drinks I recommend going elsewhere.  

            The fact that so many people go to the building suggests they  don't have a lot of options.  Use one of the larger empty storefronts on Shattuck and you would double the foot traffic.  Sadly perhaps, but that would be a whole lot cheaper than fixing what is wrong with the current site.

            If you want to save the USPS, make it about the customers, not about an old building.

    •  It belongs to the Federal Government (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT, marina, Odysseus

      you got a legal theory about how the City of Berkeley can declare eminent domain against a higher level of government?

      To the extent that local governments have gotten away with this tactic (thank you New London v Kelo) it has been in the interest of "highest and best use" and not as in Berkeley the other way around.

      Rich developers get away with it because the law is biased towards more intense uses and not against.

      SocSec dot.Defender at - founder DK Social Security Defenders Group

      by Bruce Webb on Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 11:03:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site