How long will the lot formerly home to Raleigh’s and Cafe Intermezzo remain empty?
About 10 months ago, the site — which housed apartments in addition to the beloved eateries — was ravaged by a fire and later demolished as a result of the damage. Since then, little progress has been made, aside from a scrapped idea to restore the restaurants under temporary structures. Plans must move more quickly.
But in order to revive business in the area, the city is presented with a tricky balancing act. On one hand, the city needs to do everything it can to ensure that construction begins as soon as possible. On the other hand, it cannot offer too many compromises to the property owners in the hopes that they will move plans forward faster. Regardless, it is the city’s responsibility to make sure reconstruction starts in a timely manner.
At the Sept. 18 Berkeley City Council meeting, Mary Lynn Kirk — the daughter of Kenneth Ent, one of the building’s owners — made a valid yet potentially troublesome request. She asked that the council waive the city’s affordable housing mitigation fee in order to alleviate a financial burden on the owners. The city needs to be cautious of agreeing to such requests — it should not set a precedent of agreeing to any concessions the building owners desire. Doing so would put the city on a slippery slope, sending a message to these and other owners that rules can be waived.
Currently, the public knows next to nothing about the status of plans for the lot. The last tangible idea was to erect temporary tent structures to allow the restaurants to resume business for a while. That idea has since been abandoned, apparently to speed up the process of constructing a new building. But what will that new building look like? When can construction start? Right now, there are more questions than answers.
This is a critical moment for Telegraph Avenue. Since the fire, some other stores in the area say their business has declined. The city has the opportunity to firmly ensure speedy development of the vacant lot, and if that happens, the business district as a whole can recover faster. Telegraph should be full of thriving storefronts, given its proximity to UC Berkeley, but its potential will not be realized until every lot is filled.
Berkeley’s chief priority for the area should be encouraging speedy development of the lot, because it goes hand-in-hand with the greater need for revitalization. Strong business must once again occupy that corner. Telegraph needs this.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
> But in order to revive business in the area, the city is presented with a
> tricky balancing act. On one hand, the city needs to do everything it
> can to ensure that construction begins as soon as possible. On the
> other
hand, it cannot offer too many compromises to the property
> owners in
the hopes that they will move plans forward faster.
In other words, let’s not offer any type of incentives or breaks to businesses to encourage them to rebuild or move at a quicker speed, because that would be seen as favoring them. However, we’re not going to offer any DISincentive to the homeless, derelicts, substance abusers and mentally ill to come to Berkeley, squat in the parks and on the sidewalks, and interfere with the productive members of society. Thank you, Senior Editorial Board, of the prime example of why more and more people consider liberalism to be a mental disorder.
Lets pass the sit-lie ordinance. No sane person would want to invest in a new building when bums sit outside with aggressive, un-neutered pit-bulls, harassing passersby for money.
Some of the homeless are truly mentally or physically disabled (and deserve better than sitting on the street in Berkeley), but a lot are just people who want to sit around on telegraph and sleep in People’s Park. That’s not acceptable.
The affordable housing mitigation fee should be a non-issue. These folks had their building burn down, and now they have to pay fees again when they already paid them for the original building? That is absurd. Berkeley can continue to be idiots and live with vacant lots, or they can get smart and recognize the benefits of businesses bringing in tax revenues. I am ashamed of the Daily Cal for their cruelty in even thinking this should be something to hold up the rebuilding.
You do have a point, but on the other hand there is the contention that the Ents were negligent in maintaining the building, leading to the fire. Now they want fees waived to make it easier for them to rebuild. Why should they be rewarded for not keeping the property up as they should have?
If the Ents’ negligence caused the fire, then there are other means to make them pay for that negligence.