My dear wife has her first opinion piece as a private citizen in the Daily Journal today. Kudos to Jon Mays for reaching out to an "expert" on the topic of our downtown Post Office. It's been a topic of interest here on the Voice for awhile as you can read by clicking on the category to the right or here.
Cathy offers three opportunities to the new owners and the community at large.
Local landmark: An opportunity exists to preserve one of the most important structures both to Burlingame’s history and its historic downtown.
Lucrative tax benefits: With the city’s recent adoption of the California Mills Act (for property tax abatement) coupled with federal tax credits available for commercial restoration and AB 1999-Economic Development and State Historic Tax Credits, the new owner has the opportunity to reap huge financial incentives for adaptive re-use of the building.
Lasting legacy: This magnificent building along with its 1.4 acres of land and the possible use of the adjacent city parking lot, could be developed as an enduring public/private use space incorporating a public square, recreation space for families as well as a spot to hold a farmers’ market and other worthwhile community events a la Redwood City’s Courthouse square or San Francisco’s Ferry Building.
I won't make the fatal spousal mistake of adding to or modifying anything she says, but do click through and read the whole piece.
At the $15.7 million sale price there is no way there is enough tax incentives to make preserving the building financially feasible. The buyer (through Stanley Lo) has stated they want retail, office and condominiums in their development of the property.
Posted by: fred | September 25, 2014 at 04:06 PM
What the buyer wants and what the buyer gets are two separate things. If they did their due diligence they would know that.
Posted by: hillsider | September 25, 2014 at 08:59 PM
Considering Burlingame tried to enter into an exclusive partnership with Grosvenor to develop the parcel in a similar fashion I would think any obstruction by the city could create a pretty easy lawsuit for the property owner to win.
Posted by: fred | September 26, 2014 at 10:55 AM
After I made the original post yesterday, I read in the WSJ:
The Postal Service said it is testing AmazonFresh deliveries "to determine if delivering groceries to residential and business addresses would be feasible from an operations standpoint and could be financially beneficial for the organization."
A spokeswoman said the USPS is making the drop-offs between 3 a.m. and 7 a.m.; few of its trucks are in use at those hours. Because Amazon uses insulated tote bags for perishable groceries, the agency can make deliveries without the benefit of refrigerated trucks.
I also saw an AmazonFresh truck in my neighborhood this week (bigger than a UPS truck). Could it be that the left postal hand does not know what the right postal hand is doing? Did they just sell a building that is centrally located in an AmazonFresh sweet spot and had plenty of storage space and a good sized loading dock?
Just asking.
Posted by: Joe | September 26, 2014 at 01:08 PM
*cough* Webvan *cough*
Posted by: fred | September 26, 2014 at 01:11 PM
*cough* driving in the rear view mirror *cough*
Posted by: Joe | September 26, 2014 at 08:53 PM
"driving in the rear view mirror" Haha!! ohh, the irony...
Posted by: fred | September 29, 2014 at 10:53 AM
bits of "burlingam" keep disappearing, pretty soon burlingame will be just another pit stop along el camino in the sprawling metropolis know as san franico peninsula. the city leaders are lost and have no connection to burlingame...what's the point of history or culture, if it can be sold and converted into retail and housing development.
Posted by: mike | September 29, 2014 at 11:36 AM
Here here Mike. You are right on the money. Our council as it stands now cares not for history or the king lost culture of Burlingame. If my long lost relatives were to come back to life, there is no way they would recognize anything about the town in which they grew up and raised families. Council is supposed to be for the people not for the dollar.
Posted by: Been here forever | September 30, 2014 at 01:58 PM
The latest installment about the U.S. Post Office building and parcel on Park Rd. by Angela Swartz, Daily Journal
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2014-11-04/burlingame-post-office-up-for-short-term-lease-long-term-plan-may-include-a-mixed-use-development/1776425132732.html
Please note - Though he held property here, Anson Burlingame was not the founder of the City of Burlingame, as misstated in this article. During his brief life, he was a remarkable legislator and early human-rights advocate here, and abroad. Remarkably, he served both as Minister to China, and Chinese Envoy to Washington in the 1860s.
MOre: http://burlingame.wikispaces.com/search/view/Anson+Burlingame
Posted by: Jennifer | November 04, 2014 at 09:12 AM
Here is the official announcement off the city website. Don't go to the old building next week!
BURLINGAME, Calif. — The Burlingame Main Post Office, located at 220 Park Road, Burlingame, CA 94010, will close on Jan. 17, 2015 at 1 p.m. and all retail and P.O. Box operations will move to the new location at 329 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. The new Primrose Road location will be open for business at 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2015 following the Martin Luther King Holiday.
The relocation of the Burlingame Main Post Office, following its sale last September, will not impact any customer’s P.O. Box number or size of the box and there will be no ZIP Code change. Aside from the new location, this move will be transparent to our customers and will have no impact on mail delivery by letter carriers to businesses and residents.
Posted by: Joe | January 18, 2015 at 12:27 PM
What's with the fence around the perimeter of the USPO!?!? That looks really horrible :( and I don't think anything really concrete has been proposed, so I guess we have to live with that for quite awhile...
Posted by: Jennifer | February 28, 2015 at 04:31 PM
Kern's must be thrilled. Here is the equation for how long it will be like this
no lawsuits = 3 years
1 lawsuit = 5 years
2 lawsuits = 7 years
Posted by: hillsider | February 28, 2015 at 04:35 PM