“They don’t trust a free market in Berkeley….They might open too many yogurt stores and the world might end or something horrible might happen — like all the vacancies would go away.”
From a guy who has sat on a lot for 16 years, these are the words of the scoundrel.  The city’s reluctance to sue him for the money is mind-boggling in this economy.  There are a lot of other vacant lots in town overflowing with trash, weeds and vermin (see the block of 6th and Harrison) that are certainly in violation of health ordinances at the least.  The city should collect this money and make the owners clean them up.

A big part of the story here is why a half-a-million dollars legally owed to the city has been left uncollected after 17 years.

I understand and agree with the offer to drop the lien in return for development, but not collecting after the 2004 deadline is fiscally negligent.

(And Mr. Sarachan’s claim that regulations are too burdensome to allow for new development is belied by, well, all of the new development in Berkeley)

Let’s call this what it is: Prop 13 funded blight.
Any would be land barons take note, Ken S. built up his property portfolio during the last real estate bust in the nineties.  For example, 2360 Telegraph Ave, purchased by Ken Sarachan in 1991 for $2.2million.  Current tax basis is $3.074 million with property taxes at ~$50k per year.  He can then take some of the Prop. 13 “gift money” to pay the ~$11k in taxes that is owed on the empty blighted lot.

I was surprised to read that as well.
Even if Worthington isn’t able to force Sarachan to develop the lot, the City ought to force him to pay the $500,000.00 that he’s owed the city ever since he bought the property in 1994.

If it’s possible, they should charge him interest for his negligence in paying what he owes – it’s not like he doesn’t have the money available, seeing as how he was also able to buy the old Cody’s Books location so that he could leave it vacant as well.

Put in a garden.

If any businesses ought to have quotas on them, it’s those.  I don’t know how so many of those Tibetan junk shops stay open.

“After many years of repeated noise problems” I am intrigued by this statement, how exactly does a vacant lot generate noise problems?

I’m not a fan of Eminent Domain but in this case, it makes sense. The property is a blight and public health hazard. Turn the property over to UC in exchange for Peoples Park. UC could build student housing, City of Berkeley would get the park.

Liens don’t work that way.  There can be no collection until the property is sold or changes hands.  If it was a Tax Lien the city could force a sale, but this is more likely a Mechanics Lien since it was placed on the property to collect for services rendered and no sale can be forced for that type of lien. 

That comes across as a little snotty, Bryan.

How does Prop 13 figure in this? He didn’t own the property back when Prop 13 went into effect. His assessment is locked in from the date of purchase in 1994 and cannot go up more than 2% a year. He is not realizing the advantage of the “land barons” that have owned property since the 70s.

The complaint about “noise” from the lot is hilarious. Seems like people are fixated on this one lot when there are so many other problems on Telegraph. The photos of the rats are probably due to the crumbs being tossed there by the photographers The rats probably subsist on the garbage from the many food establishments nearby and I’m sure many live in the nearby park – should the park be developed too? Seems more like a campaign driven by Amoeba, the record store rival across the street.

I think the real goal here is to force the owner to do a deal with the city and one of the many “non-profit” development corporations to do some crackerbox housing project, with floor level retail, unfortunately, that will usually mean the city must finance it and the politicians will reward the “non-profit” campaign contributors.

One real win would be if the owner leased the land to an outdoor garden nursery (kind of like Oakland’s Garden Hortica). All the nursery has to do is landscape the lot and put in a temp office built into a  remodeled shipping container (Garden Hortica’s has a green roof). The rest of the lot can be filled with plants and displays. The city could offer to reduce or excuse the liens, but they get to collect sales and business taxes from the new business.

I would rather the City get the lot so it can collect property taxes and UCB keep the park, which would only cost the City money to maintain it. If UCB takes over the lot, the City would lose out on the property taxes like it does on all UCB properties (see University Villiage as a perfect example).

Ah–maybe this is the place to ask: Can anyone tell me why so many business property owners maintain empty storefronts? Is it to their tax advantage to do so, rather than to rent/lease the property out for less money?

Earlier reports seemed to suggest that the rats are largely the result of a rat-feeding vandal.  Someone had or has been feeding the rats and encouraging them to congregate there.

I think you have the right idea to keep it open space but maybe tidy up a bit.   The space as is is hugely functional.   Even the ragged weeds contribute a bunch of green to an otherwise drab space.  It’s impact on the lighting makes that corner attractive.   During the street festivals, when they set up a stage right next to amoeba, the empty lot helps with accoustics and expands the area for audience.     Spend some time hanging out on that corner some afternoon and it becomes apparent that most of the blight charges and “this is harming business” charges are just dumb.     Your notion about trying to force a corrupt development deal is interesting — I guess I wouldn’t act surprised if it turned out to be true.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/15117406/The-Berkeley-Inn is an interesting memoir about the Berkeley Inn, with information such as:

The Berkeley Inn had been designed and built in 1911 by famed San
Francisco architect Joseph Cather Newsom (1858-1930), ancestor of the
present early 21st century mayor of San Francisco.

Joseph Cather Newsom and his brother Samuel designed and built elegant
houses for wealthy people and many public buildings in California. The
Berkeley Inn would thus have been a stately structure for the well-to-do
traveling citizens of the day.

The first floor of the east wing of the Berkeley Inn had once held an elegant

restaurant. The restaurant had its own separate entrance and probably also served as a

ballroom. Its kitchen held a giant black cast-iron stove and oven for cooking a multitude of

fine meals. But the restaurant was shut down, probably in the 1940s.

The single elevator may have been a novelty in the early 20th century. In 1980 it still

ran on direct current that had to be rectified by large vacuum tubes from Pacific Gas and

Electric’s normal alternating current. The elevator no longer reliably stopped even with the

floor levels. Its walrus-hide brakes were worn and could not be replaced.

The Berkeley Inn used the original telephone system installed in the
early twentieth century. A large white oak telephone connection console
stood behind the desk clerk’s chair. Desk-clerking involved using an
early 20th century white oak telephone switchboard with brass plug-in
pegs like out of a 1920s silent film.

All of the desk clerks and the lone maintenance worker received only free rooms as

pay. All of them had some college, and most of them had college degrees. It was a way of

life. Most had salable skills to sell for adequate income to survive and live the casual

California life in tolerant and intellectual Berkeley. Surviving meant illegally cooking on hot

plates in their rooms, as did most of the people receiving Social Security and Welfare.

This, in turn, created a cockroach problem not unlike the prevailing cockroach

problem in many older Berkeley buildings. The hotel management sprayed the hotel with

insecticide every week. But it helped only minimally.

In 1986 the first of two major fires struck the Berkeley Inn.

A second serious fire in 1990 damaged the historic structure too badly to be

considered for restoration. The building was found to be unsafe and was demolished in 1990

and 1991.

Ghosts! Ghosts that haunt the night!

Or more likely: Berkeley people complain about anything that comes to mind, whether it actually occurs or not.

I third the notion of some sort of garden. I think building in that spot would make the street quite shadowy during the day.

But the property already had the lien on it when Sarachan bought it. The city should have insisted on getting the lien paid when he bought it in 1994. Why didn’t the city do that?!  I’d like to know why Sarachan was allowed to buy the lot without paying off the liens then.

He is a beneficiary of Prop 13 on the other properties he owns, as the one example above shows (or doesn’t, YMMV).   I have owned a (residential) property in Berkeley for a decade.  I benefit from Prop 13 as the increase in value of that property has been greater than 2%.  I will pass on my tax basis to my children (thanks Prop 13 and Prop 58).

So, basically, it’s rent control — with additional benefits vis a vis heritability.

I agree with you, Bruce Love, that the general public does not know Sarachan’s motives for the choices he makes.  As I wrote elsewhere in this discussion, I would like to understand why the city did not insist that its $500,000 mechanics lien was not paid in 1994 when Sarachan bought the lot. Trust me, that real estate transaction did not close without there being lots of negotiation about that lien. Whoever handled that real estate closing would have had to notify the city about the sale and the city chose to waive its lien payment rights. Why?

His wife is

I have a serious, non-snarky, solution to offer to the vacant lot.  I think it might be a win for all concerned parties:

In exchange for forgiveness of the debt, Sarachan rents the land for $1 per year to the City which, in turn, creates a “mini-park” similar to those places in S.F. that people talk about or that were proposed for up by cheese board.

Well, that’s how it was sold to the public — keep granny in her home.  In practice, grandma is not the main beneficiary. Commercial property owners are.

Have people read “The Loneliness of the Electric Menorah” by Aaron Cometbus?  Despite the odd name, it is a history of all the bookstores and record stores on Telegraph Ave.  It includes interviews with Sarachan, and I think it  makes his motives pretty clear. 

If you spend any time hanging out on Telegraph Ave, you should buy a copy at Moes.  You will find all the stories fascinating.