Town Square

Post a New Topic

Dilapidated home at 4345 First Street

Original post made by Marie, Downtown, on Apr 26, 2010

I am curious if anyone knows what is going to happen to the old house next to the liquor store on First street. I am sure it is very old and it would be great if it could be brought back to its glory. Anyone know??

Comments (19)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by loves old homes
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 26, 2010 at 10:52 am

Marie, This is what I found out from the city.
Property is owned, at least in part, by Mike Carey, a realtor. Carey wanted to tear down the property and build something else but was not allowed to do so as the building was considered "historical". So he elected to allow the building to be destroyed by neglect. It is now unsafe to enter it for purposes of repair or anything else so he is still trying to get permission to tear it down. He had also allowed excessive weed growth but it appears that someone made him abate that fire hazard. Back in around 2001 (???) I think I remember that he had the property listed for sale at over $750,000.
I worry that the property will be torched just to force the city to allow him to officially tear it down and rebuild something.
Ah yes, more real estate games in this town of character.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marie
a resident of Downtown
on Apr 26, 2010 at 11:22 am

Wow that is unfortunate, I would love to see it restored, it looks like is has an interesting little building outback that was used for something. To bad the city cannot buy it and restore it, we don't need another building downtown. The liquor store is an eye sore already. Would be a nice location for the historical society maybe?? Hmmmm


 +   Like this comment
Posted by loves old homes
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 26, 2010 at 12:11 pm

Good idea but Carey has let it be too damaged with rain through the roof, etc. And I don't think the city would pay him $750,000 for it. If people knew that he was doing this to that old house just to be allowed to tear it down they might not be too anxious to have him list their homes for sale. Ethics and all that. Or perhaps I should say the lack of ethics.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Michael Leonard
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Apr 26, 2010 at 1:01 pm

Michael Leonard is a registered user.

I've been wondering about this house too as I walk past it all the time. Considering that it is between too commercial properties I think the owner should be allow to tear it down and build a more appropriate building for that block. It is too bad this it has some to this situation where an building is run down. I don't see the historical significance and think that if a city is going to declare a property historical and restrict the use on it to uses are are not economic for the owner then the city should help pay the costs or they won't pay then they should release the hold on the property. The current situation does not help anyone.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marie
a resident of Downtown
on Apr 26, 2010 at 1:33 pm

Michael,
I hear what you are saying, yes if the city will not let them tear it down then they should help pay for it to be fixed, if it can be. Just looks like in its hayday that it was a pretty cool home. I hate to see historical places go away and another business put in though. Oh well I guess we will see what happens to to. I drive by it everyday going to work and have been curious. Anyone from the city out there that can comment???


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Katherine Harvey
a resident of Downtown
on Apr 26, 2010 at 4:41 pm

To "loves old homes"...where is your integrity? How unfortunate to suggest a life long, respected member of our city would commit arson without having the courage to use your real name. Shameful!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Viv
a resident of Birdland
on Apr 26, 2010 at 4:48 pm

A compromise would be to move the historical house to a lot that is more residential--but it's probably too late for that now. The building may be too far gone.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MY HOUSE
a resident of Downtown
on Apr 26, 2010 at 4:57 pm

THE HOUSE IS A PILE, ALWAYS HAS BEEN. IF YOU LIKE THE HOUSE AND WANT TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT, I KNOW FOR A FACT THE OWNERS WOULD LET YOU HAVE IT, FREE. YOU HANDLE ALL THE WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHY, AND WHEN, AS WELL AS ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH WHAT EVER YOUR GRAND PLAN IS, AND MOVE IT TO WHERE EVER YOU WANT. OR BUY IT FOR WHAT EVER AMOUNT THE OWNERS WOULD HAVE MADE THROUGH DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY. ITS VERY SIMPLE, ITS NOT YOUR PROPERTY, YOU SHOULD HAVE PURCHASED IT AND REMODLED IT, DUMPED LOTS OF MONEY IN TO IT, MADE IT SHINE AND THEN RENT IT OUT FOR $2000.00 A MONTH. GREAT INVESTMENT. BETTER YET DONATE IT AFTER YOU REMODLE IT. GIVE SOMETHING BACK TO THE COMMUNITY. EVERONE ALWAYS WANTS TO STICK THIER NOSE IN EVERYONE ELSES BUSINESS, YOU PEOPLE ARE PATHETIC. WORRY ABOUT WHAT YOUR DOING OR NOT DOING. GOD BLESS WHAT FREEDOMS WE HAVE LEFT AND GOD BLESS MANIPULATING LAWS AND REGULATIONS.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Theresa Carey
a resident of Downtown
on Apr 26, 2010 at 6:17 pm

We do not own the house, yes we once owned part of it. What is being said is really sad. It's a good thing I realize you have no idea about what your talking about.
Theresa Carey


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MY HOUSE
a resident of Downtown
on Apr 26, 2010 at 6:44 pm

I DON'T THINK YOU UNDERSTAND, THERESA. I KNOW FOR A FACT YOU OWN IT AND WOLD GIVE IT TO PEOPLE FREE.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 27, 2010 at 12:05 am

Maybe it could be developed into affordable housing.....


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kevin Heller
a resident of Civic Square
on Apr 27, 2010 at 8:16 am

Hey, if someone wants to get rid of it, give it to me! I would be happy to work on it...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Not my house
a resident of Canyon Creek
on Apr 27, 2010 at 8:41 am

Hey "My House",

Did you really just tell everyone to mind their own business and it turns out this is none of yours? You made it out that this was your house and tell everyone to keep their nose out of it and you have nothing to do with it. Hypocrite! And by the way who are you to tell people what they do and do not own? How is it that you know better than them what they own? Two last things for you check your spelling and grammar before you post AND STOP YELLING AT EVERYONE!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hybrid Owner
a resident of Valley Trails
on Apr 27, 2010 at 8:54 am

I wondered why a well known agent in the area would risk his real estate reputation so I did a little research on my own. According to the Alameda County Tax Records this house IS NOT OWNED by Mike Carey, or anyone named Carey for that matter. People, I urge you to check out your information before you slander any one unnecessarily.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by digitalFlack
a resident of Stoneridge Park
on Apr 27, 2010 at 9:34 am

Pleasanton Weekly,

I think a responsible amount of editing should be done here.

If the realtor named in the first post does not have ownership or responsibility for the property, then it should be redacted...

I do not know any of the parties involved, but to leave up a smear based on a fact that can be easily determined as false is irresponsible journalism/hosting.

I am not suggesting editing posted comments and editorial dribble, except when they have specific incorrect facts that may impact a person's reputation/livelihood. Too many people will not read to the bottom of the roll.

DF


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marie
a resident of Downtown
on Apr 27, 2010 at 9:46 am

Hey MY HOUSE

I just asked a simple question no need to get testy! Wow. Whoever owns it give it to Kevin maybe he can restore it, or make it a neighborhood project.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary Palmatier
a resident of Stoneridge
on Apr 27, 2010 at 9:58 am

Thank you Theresa for commenting. I was going to email you guys when I happened upon these comments this morning. Some typical rants without fact checking, etc. and people going off for whatever reason, maybe somehow justified to themselves, maybe not. Personalities aside and First Street aside, it does seem unfair to property owners who have properties that are retroactively restricted due to ordinance or land use. It's one thing going into something knowing the risks and the rules (zoning etc). It's another thing having the rules changes on the middle of the game and there not being any culpibility on the part of the govrning agencies. I don't know about First St specifically but I do know an anonomous ambush when I see one.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mr. Cheney
a resident of Downtown
on Apr 27, 2010 at 10:25 am

The slander of Mr Carey is TOTALY with out merritt and should have been corrected by the PW. I personally know the family and have grown up in Pleasanton with him. I have worked with Mike on real estate transaction a number of times. He is very clear about what he does and is always looking out for his clients. I know that he has integrity and truly cares for what happens in this city with the old and the new of it all. He has served on the PDA board along with many untold or paid hrs spent to help make this city, for the good of all of us, a great place to live.
Thanks Mike!
From Mike


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jetson
a resident of Downtown
on May 10, 2010 at 3:34 pm

Jetson is a registered user.

Well it looks like there is some action going on at the house, it looks like they are installing anew roof, some wood was just laid uptop. I am hoping they rebuilt


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


To post your comment, please click here to Log in

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Not Endorsements
By Roz Rogoff | 9 comments | 1,232 views

A second half of life exceptionally well lived
By Tim Hunt | 1 comment | 658 views