Rural Walnut Creek estate of late state Senator Nejedly to be readied for small development

The son and daughter-in-law of the late state Senator John A. Nejedly have applied to Walnut Creek's zoning administator to subdivide the political patriarch's 13-acre grass- and oak-covered property into four parcels for the development of three new homes.

James and Jaine Nejedly maintained the property off Tice Valley Road and helped keep the late senator there, rather than sending him to a nursing home, up until his death in 2006 at age 91. The property currently has one single-family home on a knoll (the late senator's)  The couple would like to keep that home there, and subdivide the remaining property into three parcels for three additional homes. The new parcels would be about one acre each. 

Their request will be considered at the Zoning Administrator's meeting next Wednesday.

This land was the subject of a bitter family dispute among Nejedly's three children. On one side were James Nejedly and his sister, the Contra Costa County Supervisor Mary Nejedly Piepho. On the other side was their older brother, John T. Nejedly, a Contra Costa Community College trustee who has recently declared his intent to run for county assessor against incumbent, Gus Kramer. This summer, the lawsuit over the estate came to a close with John T. Nejedly, deciding to drop his case.

Nejedly purchased the property in 1951 (not far from where I grew up and now live). Senator Nejedly, in his trust, sought to maintain the rural nature of the land; he also wanted to repay his his son, James, and James' wife, Jaine, for taking care of the estate as he was ailing.

The couple are now moving forward with plans that seem headed for approval. According to a staff report prepared by Zoning Administrator Andrew Smith, the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvements, is consisent with the General Plan and single-family zoning policies for that area. The community development director also found that the project would cause no substantial adverse environmental impacts.

For those annoyed by leaf blowers, here's Walnut Creek's relevant noise ordinance

With all the concern expressed by readers about the noise made by leaf blowers, how clever of one of you to to find out which city ordinance covers these noisy devices and the hours when they can and cannot operate.

The ordinance is in the city's Municipal Code, under Title 4 (Public Welfare, Morals and Conduct), Chapter 6 (Nuisances), Article 2.

Under "Prohibited Noises Enumerated," and Maintenance Equipment it states:

"The use and operation of any noise-creating commercial or residential landscaping or home maintenance equipment or tools including, but not limited to, hammers, blowers, trimmers, mowers, chainsaws, power fans or any engine, the operation of which causes noise due to the explosion of operating gases or fluids, other than between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. (§1, Ord. 1753, eff. November 8, 1990)."

In plain English, you can only operate leaf blowers between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekdays and between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekends and holidays.

But as you can see, the ordinance went into effect back in 1990. So, maybe it's time for the city to revisit that issue?

The No on Measure I "virtual office"?

Each side in the race over Measure I claims that the other side is a funded by deep-pocket outside influences. Each side claims that the other side’s strings are being pulled by some grand puppet master, from outside the city, trying to exercise control over Walnut Creek’s economic and retail destiny.

Measure I is otherwise known as the Neiman Marcus debate. It asks Walnut Creek’s 42,000 voters whether they want a new, two-story 92,000 department store in Broadway Plaza. The store will most likely be a Neiman Marcus. There is no guarantee, but Neiman Marcus officials have said they are committed to coming to Walnut Creek.

By the way, if you want to view a handy-dandy Frequently Asked Questions guide to the whole issue, check out Elisabeth Nardi’s story in Monday’s Contra Costa Times.

Rival developers have heavily financed each side, spending more than $1 million combined. Those rival developers are Southern California-based Macerich, which owns Broadway Plaza, and Michigan-based Taubman Centers, which owns Sunvalley mall in Concord, and which was close to securing Neiman Marcus’ agreement to come to the planned San Ramon city center project.

The Yes on I people say that theirs is in the cause that is truly supported by locals, with more than 1,000 community leaders (including all five city council members), neighbors, and Rossmoor residents signing on to the Yes on I, Yes for Walnut Creek cause.

The No on I people say, on their website, that many residents support their cause, because they are concerned that the project will bring worse traffic, crowd downtown parking, and that Macerich’s “experimental” parking lifts and valet parking schemes “will now be allowed to spread throughout downtown.”

When it comes to local support, or, more accurately, a local presence, the Yes on I folks claim the upper hand, and specificaly in one respect. This is in regards to their headquarters versus the No on I headquarters--or its lack thereof.

Some Yes on I supporters recently contacted me to let me know that the headquarters for the No on I campaign is actually a “virtual office.”

Residents and Advocates for More Parking and Reduced Traffic (RAMPART), the anti-Measure I organization, lists its address in an office building on North California Boulevard. The office suite is operated by a business that rents out office space and “virtual office” space to individuals and small businesses.

I stopped by myself to check it out, asking the receptionist at the front desk of this eighth floor suite whether there were any RAMPART folks available to talk to about their campaign, or if they had any campaign literature available. She explained that no one with that organization is actually on site, and that, yes, they have rented out a “virtual office.”

On the Yes on I side, one supporter told me that their mailing address is a mailboxes shop near City Hall which is owned by the president of the Downtown Business Association, and who is one of the Yes for Walnut Creek’s volunteers. The Yes on I headquarters is at the former David M. Brian store in Broadway Plaza. This supporter added we “also have more than 175 volunteers working” on the campaign.

No on I spokesman Al Abrams responded to questions about the virtual office by saying: “That’s kind of a weird conclusion, based on the rental of temporary office space for a campaign, which is something that's done for all campaigns I've ever worked on in 30 years.”

He added: “The Yes on I people must be getting pretty desperate if that's the best argument they can make at this point in their campaign.”

Well, if you’re judging local support by who has managed to get the most campaign signs posted around downtown, and in the neighborhoods, the Yes on I side is scoring big time. Their signs are cropping up all over the place. (The above photos, by the way, were taken in front of homes in the same neighborhood near downtown.)

Meanwhile, I’ve only seen two modest No on I signs. They are posted in front of homes in residential neighborhoods near downtown, and the address of one of those homes is listed as being the home of Measure I opponent Selma King.

Walnut Creek Chamber welcomes C3 Collective with ribbon-cutting ceremony

C3 Collective, the controversial medical marijuana dispensary, officially opened its doors this week with a ribbon-cutting ceremony overseen by (pictured above) CEO Brian Hyman and representatives of the city's Chamber of Commerce.

Yes, it is a delicate matter for the Chamber, celebrating the opening of a business against which the city has filed suit. The city asserts that the Oakland Boulevard dispensary is operating illegally because it is violating Walnut Creek's zoning laws. Hyman says that C3 Collective is piling up about $500 a day in fines and must pay up nearly $15,000 by the first week of November. But he adds that C3 is determined to stay open. It wants to be a part of the community and to provide vital medical services to the public, he says.

C3 Collective also serves as the city's first, openly operating reminder of the local, state, and national debate on if and when to make marijuana legal for certain purposes.

Despite the controversy, one chamber "ambassador" said that the chamber makes it a practice to welcome new businesses to the city, and new members to its organization. The C3 Collective, a nonprofit "wellness collective," joined the chamber, and is therefore entitled to a chamber ribbon cutting ceremony.

The ceremony was accompanied by live music, and plates of sandwiches, salads and cookies provided by Morucci's, the excellent Boulevard Way delicatessen. Some attendees, including chamber representatives, were delightfully surprised by the clean and chic interiors of the collective--dark, hardwood floors, modernist furniture. A few joked about whether the refreshments would also include some free samples of the featured product.

Besides being able to purchase marijuana--for the time being, for however long it can stay open--members can also enjoy "wellness services," such as yoga, meditation, and massage classes, and can find referrals for legal consulting and hospice services.

C3 Collective, which, in fact, boasts of a "chic, boutique environment," offers a variety of medical marijuana products: "top-shelf strains to suit the divergent tastes of our patients." The collective seeks to find "what is best for each individual, hoping to consistently and effectively deliver the results that each individual wants."

Chic? Boutique? Well, you couldn't expect anything less from Walnut Creek, could you?

Guest Commentary on the Neiman Marcus debate: Al Abrams of RAMPART explains the No on Measure I position

Dear Readers:

I've invited representatives on both sides of the Measure I debate to share guest commentaries on CrazyinSuburbia. Measure I essentially asks Walnut Creek voters to say yes or no to allowing a new 92,000-square-foot Neiman Marcus--or another department store--to come to Broadway Plaza.

With these guest commentaries, I wanted to let both sides make their pitches. There's no doubt that what either side says will provoke comments, questions, and a strong desire to rebut. In part, that is what the message board is for, to comment, question, raise points for or against. But your comments can inspire follow-up questions, and we'll definitely want those answers before we go to the polls on this issue November 3. (Actually, I live in unincorporated Walnut Creek, so--boo-hoo--I don't get to vote

Anyway, here is what Al Abrams, a political consultant, working with the No on I group, RAMPARTWC, has to say:

Actually, most of the No on Measure I action is being done by the citizens in Walnut Creek who have been opposed to this project from the beginning, starting in 2008. They include three former Mayors, a former City Councilperson, a Planning Commissioner and others. They helped write the three referenda (all of which were successful having collected over 15,000 signatures of Walnut Creek registered voters) and they work every day making phone calls and distributing yard signs and bumper stickers.

The first referendum in 2008 led to the recission of the City Council's approvals of the project. The final two referenda, which were successful this past summer, were not placed on the November ballot by the City Council as they were supposed to be. The City Council was then sued by the members of RAMPART on behalf of the citizens of Walnut Creek. Superior Court

Judge David Flinn ruled that by ignoring the referenda, the Walnut Creek City Council had violated State laws in order to affect the outcome of an election. Their actions were described by the judge as "arbitrary and capricious". He said that the City Council had stomped on the fundamental democratic rights of the citizens of Walnut Creek. They were willing to sell their city down the creek and violate the rights of their own citizens, all for a developer of a retail store.

The City Council was then forced to repeal all of their approvals of the Neiman Marcus project, which they did in early September. But they had successfully delayed the situation enough to make it impossible for the referenda to be decided by the voters of Walnut Creek on the ballot. The County Registrar said it was too late. So the voters must send a message to City Council and see through this attempt to take away their democratic rights by rejecting Measure I.

According to Time Magazine (Sept. 18th edition), Neiman Marcus is in serious financial shape, laying off hundreds of employees and suffering hundreds of millions in losses. Their debt is in the billions. One recent writer to the Contra Costa Times pondered in a letter whether Neiman's would secretly like Measure I to fail so that they could nullify their 20-year lease with Macerich, the owner/developer of Broadway Plaza, and get out of town as soon as possible.

They're in no shape to build any new stores anywhere, especially in Walnut Creek. The phony Yes on Measure I promises of $400,000 in new sales tax revenue, 150 new jobs and 172 new parking spaces are pure fiction. Baloney might be a better word. Measure I would make permanent changes to the city's General Plan that not even the City Council could reverse.

Measure I is basically a sweetheart deal for a Southern California developer that gets it off the hook to provide new customer parking as the law now requires. Instead, they will be allowed to get around the law and use a variety of stacked up valet parking schemes and double-decker parking lifts in place of the new customer parking they are supposed to build. Measure I is a bogus initiative, written and financed by a developer whose only interest is self-interest. That's why they're willing to spend over $1 million so far to get what they want. Those are public numbers.

They've spent over $500,000 just for their initiative, Measure I. You don't do that as charity. It's all about profit. In truth, Neiman Marcus isn't even specified in Measure I. The developer can put in any retailer it wants and no one will have the ability to stop it if Measure I passes. Unless the voters get the facts, they will create permanent law for the benefit of a single developer.

It's public record that Neiman Marcus has stated that they need tens of thousands of customers to come from a 50-mile wide radius in order for the store to succeed. That will bring in long parades of cars into the already congested downtown area taking up space on the streets.

Measure I is a recipe for parking and traffic nightmares downtown -- and the developer refuses to build any new parking spaces. No matter how you feel about having a Neiman Marcus store, and the odds are slight it will ever be built here, Measure I deserves to be defeated strictly on the basis that developer influence has warped the judgment of the City Council to the point where they had to be chastised by a Superior Court Judge for showing favoritism to affect an election.

It's shameful at the least, and should be worrisome to any person with a sense of fairness and decency. In my 30 years of providing public affairs counsel to companies and citizens, I have never seen a situation where a City Council, and a former Mayor, think that they know better than their own citizens about the future of their city. It's outrageous and dangerous. The people need to reclaim their voice, and show their strength with their votes and reject Measure I.

--Al Abrams, political consultant, RAMPARTWC, Residents and Advocates for More Parking and Reduced Traffic

Hot pursuit of the "No on Measure I" billboard truck as it cruises around the Creek, spreading its anti-Neiman Marcus message

As some of you have suspected, I don't have much of a life and don't have better ways to spend my time. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been so easily distracted Sunday afternoon on my way to Safeway to pick up groceries for dinner.

I was going east on Newell Avenue, and up ahead (!)I see one of these billboard trucks that I heard that the RAMPARTWC backers were going to hire to visually broadcast to Walnut Creek voters the message that they should vote "no" on Measure I November 3.

Measure I would allow Broadway Plaza to build a new 92,000-square-foot department store--a Neiman Marcus, we have been told--on the site of the former David M. Brian store.

RAMPARTWC opposes Measure I because they believe the design of the new department store violates the city's General Plan and would bring unneeded traffic and parking congestion to downtown. RAMPART stands for "We Need Less Traffic and More Parking in downtown Walnut Creek." RAMPART supporters also point out that there is no guarantee that Neiman Marcus, which is facing financial woes in the recession, would come to Walnut Creek.

Anyway, I see the truck and decide I'm going to follow it and see where it goes. It makes a left onto South Broadway, and continues north, past Safeway, where I was going to shop, and on through Mt. Diablo Boulevard. It continues past the new library under construction and Civic Park.

Then, at Civic, it makes a left. I'm now right behind the truck, and will stay behind it for the next 45 minutes.

We take a right on North California Boulevard, and go north, along to where California merges with North Main.

Now, we're on North Main, and we stay on North Main for a while. I think the driver has figured out that I'm tailing him, especially when I signal left, just after he signals left, then I suddenly signal right, after he suddenly signals right, to turn onto Treat Boulevard.

Going east on Treat, the truck, even though it is not the most agile of vehicles, moves in and out of lanes. Maybe so the driver can see if he is being pursued by some Crazy woman in a busted up old Camry.

I wonder why we don't make that right at Bancroft, but instead go up Treat, past De La Salle and Ygnacio Valley high schools. We've crossed into Concord, right? Then, he makes the right onto Oak Grove Road, and goes northeast. I follow until we hit Ygnacio Valley Road.

Right turn. We go all the way west on Ygnacio Valley Road, past Shadelands, Heather Farm, John Muir Medical Center, and back into downtown. The truck continues on Ygnacio Valley Road past the BART station, then makes a sudden left, just before the Interstate 680 overpass, onto Oakland Boulevard.

We continue onto Oakland Boulevard, then left onto Trinity Avenue, then back to North California, where we make a right. It's at this point that I lose the truck temporarily. My car gets stuck at a stoplight as the truck makes its way south on California Boulevard.

At no point does the truck turn and move in to cruise closer to Broadway Plaza, the eye of the storm in this epic battle over allowing a new luxury retail department store to come to Walnut Creek's retail heart. Rather, the truck driver seems determined to keep his vehicle skirting the outskirts of downtown and of Broadway Plaza.

I catch up with the truck again, after it has turned left onto Newell, and then left again on South Broadway, where, just shy of Vic Stewart's, the truck pulls over to the side of the road. Th driver just hangs there for a bit, sitting in the cab of truck.

Maybe that's it? He's done for the afternoon? Or, he's just taking a break. Or he's calling into RAMPARTWC headquarters to report that he's being followed--maybe, he thinks, by one of those "Yes on Measure I" folks.

I continue on my way to grocery shop, and I think that about about one the mhe messages plastered on the billboard and touted by No on I residents. They say they worry about a new Broadway Plaza development because they think, perhaps correctly, that a new department store will add more traffic and congestion to Walnut Creek's streets and parking garage.

Yet, the No on I folks hire this truck to ride what are possibly multiple circuits around dowtown--adding to downtown's congestion.

Walnut Creek's mayor is right: There were better ways to use $1 million than to spend on the Neiman Marcus battle

One million dollars: That's what rival developers, on both sides of the Neiman Marcus battle, have spent since January in their fight over bringing this upscale retailer to Walnut Creek.

There is little over a month left to go before Walnut Creek voters go to the polls to decide on Measure I, which says "yes" or "no" to the 92,000-square-foot retailer coming to Broadway Plaza.

The anti-Neiman-in-Walnut Creek force, Taubman Centers, has spent $571,042 since January trying to defeat the measure, according to campaign finance documents filed September 24 and reported today by the Contra Costa Times. Taubman Centers had been hoping to defeat Walnut Creek's chances of winning the Neiman Marcus so that the Texas-based retailer would build a store in San Ramon's long-awaited new city center.

Meanwhile, the yes-on-Neiman-in-Walnut Creek force, Macerich Co., which owns Broadway Plaza, has spent $536,272 in support of Measure I. Macerich authored the Measure I initiative, one of the many controversial matters in this big, messy controversy.

Most of the money on both sides has been spent on lawyers, consultants, pollsters and mailings, the Times says.

Mayor Gary Skrel, who supports Measure I, says the amount spent on this battle is "staggering, especially when there are many causes in need of funding," the Times says.

No kidding. I'm sure each side will blame the other for how heated and expensive this battle has become. I just hope that Taubman and its local citizen representatives won't get in the way, via another lawsuit, with this election taking place November 3.

And I hope that each side will accept the results of the election.

I hope Taubman especially gets this message--if the results of the election don't go its way. We need to get this question of whether or not Neiman Marcus is coming to town resolved as soon as possible.

Taubman probably won't get the message. Sigh. Or Grr. The Michigan-based company has a long, nasty history of pouring lots of money into fighting rival retail developments.

Colin Powell said to be “amused” by Walnut Creek’s Neiman Marcus controversy

General Colin Powell, the former U.S. Secretary of State, was in town Wednesday night, speaking to a packed house on the Lesher Center about his journey from soldier to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the world’s top diplomat during the presidency of George W. Bush.

According to the Contra Costa Times Lisa Vorderbrueggen, Powell met with reporters before his speech. He was the latest luminary to come to Walnut Creek as part of the Lesher Newsmaker Speakers Series.

During that chat with reporters, he didn’t reveal any detailed advice he would give to President Obama on how to handle the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But he did speak broadly about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, commented on the state of racism in America, and called the current “uncivil discourse” on health care “unhelpful.”

A backstage view of Powell, his good humor, his keen intelligence, and his views on a variety of matters come from Steve Lesher, the producer of the Lesher Newsmakers Speakers series. Yes, Steve Lesher is the grandson of the late Contra Costa Times publisher Dean Lesher. He produces the series and writes a smart, lively blog, containing updates and behind-the-scenes chronicles on past and future speakers.

Lesher was at a special pre-speech dinner with Powell, then rode with him from the restaurant to the Lesher Center. It was during that ride, according to Lesher, that Powell saw some humor in our community’s brouhaha over whether to allow a new upscale department store to be built in town. As Lesher writes:

"I talked to him a little about Walnut Creek, and the kind of community we are. He was amused by the Nieman Marcus issue, and also amused by the fact that he was playing opposite the Elvis show at the center."

Lesher is referring to All Shook Up, the Elvis Presley-inspired musical now playing at the arts center name for his grandfather.

You can read more of Steve Lesher’s Behind-the-Scenes notes on the Powell speech here, including the fact that Powell doesn’t watch cable TV, but reads six newspapers a day, and can talk with equal deftness about America’s recent political history and, apparently, Mackenzie Phillip’s daughter-father incest revelations on the Oprah Winfrey show.

Marijuana Paranoia: Our perplexing attitudes about pot and crime, but what about crime and that other socially acceptable mind-altering substance?

I’m sure some opponents of Walnut Creek allowing a medical marijuana dispensary in town are frothing at this local news: How a shooting erupted in Concord Sunday over an attempt by six suspects (er, idiots) to steal marijuana plants being legally grown in someone’s back yard.

Apparently, a man suffered a flesh wound in the leg, possibly at the hands of his own associates, after he or someone from his crew was caught in the backyard of a home where the residents had a legal right to grow marijuana for medical purposes. You can read more about the attempted pot plant theft, the attempted getaway, and the shooting at Claycord.com.

But certainly, the Reefer Madness fearmongers would say, such an incident shows that allowing a medical marijuana dispensary in Walnut Creek will attract similar robberies and other violent crime to our fair city.

And, absolutely, these fear mongers would assert, such an incident provides more evidence that marijuana is a dangerous, destructive, crime- and violence-ridden drug.

It would be silly of me to say that marijuana cultivation, sales, use, and abuse are victimless, crime-free vocations. There is this incident, and, off the top of my head, I can think of two recent homicides in the East Bay suburbs that possibly involved pot deals gone bad. They include the shooting death of 17-year-old Rylan Fuchs of Danville earlier this year and the December 2007 killing of Eric Martin, of Pittsburg, in Walnut Creek over a failed marijuana growing and distribution scheme.

But are there any other mind-altering substances, whose cultivation and/or manufacture, sales, use, and abuse attract crime, including robberies, assaults, and homicide?

Of course!Alcohol!

The stuff of beer, wine, and Grey Goose martinis.

Once again, I’ll repeat that alcohol—mostly in the form of red wine—is my drug of choice. I like it--perhaps too much. But that's a whole other story.

As for pot, I have not tried it since college. I didn't like it much then, and have no desire to use it at any time in the future. The smell? Ick.

And who wants to be around a bunch of stoners? If you're not stoned? Although, I have to say that being around a bunch of people blissed out on weed would be no worse than—and might even be preferable—to being around loud, annoying drunks. Among these drunks, I’m including a very obnoxiously vocal and tipsy silver-haired man in a polo shirt (a lawyer? Bank executive? Real estate entrepreneur?) who was toting a wine glass and making an ass of himself on North Main Street during last week’s Fall Wine Walk. This wine-tasting event, hosted by the Downtown Business Association, was, remember, a fundraiser to benefit local Walnut Creek schools.

Again, what about alcohol and it's connection to crime and destruction? No wait! Alcohol is legal, so it’s harmless, right? It doesn’t cause death, destruction, or crime, right?

Well, of course, we all know it does. We’re familiar with the fact that alcohol is involved in thousands of traffic fatalities every year across the United States. We also know that long-term alcohol abuse is associated with tragic health consequences, astronomical medical costs, and the breakdown of families and communities.

The U.S. government says about both alcohol and tobacco, which are both legal in this country, for recreational use, to people of a certain age: "Alcohol and tobacco cost society a great deal every year in terms of crime, lost productivity, tragedies, and deaths. ... As a result of legal settlements and vigorous public education efforts, many Americans are aware of the dangers of dependence and addiction associated with alcohol and tobacco use. Even so, alcohol and tobacco remain a significant part of the American health problem."

So, we might be aware that alcohol is a major health problem, but most of us probably don't think of it as a major crime problem as well. But it is, and like marijuana and other drugs, it contributes to our local, state, and national crime rates. Alcohol, notably, is a major factor in domestic violence.

From the U.S. Department of Justice:

• About 3 million violent crimes occur each year in which victims perceive the offender to have been drinking at the time of the offense.


• Another Justice Department study found that that alcohol abuse was a factor in 40 percent of violent crimes committed in the United States.


• Among those victims who provided information about the offender's use of alcohol, about 30 percent of the victimizations involved an offender who had been drinking.


• Two-thirds of victims who suffered violence by an intimate (a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend) reported that alcohol had been a factor. Among spouse victims, three out of four incidents were reported to have involved an offender who had been drinking.

Let's return to alcohol’s contribution to annoying, life-style crimes in downtown Walnut Creek. As I mentioned in a prior story, the Walnut Creek police reported that 1515 Restaurant and Lounge attracted their attention seven times between late July and late August. Police had to come to arrest drunks, and patrons not cooperating with state Alcoholic Beverage Control agents. Police also had to hear from a father who was alarmed that his daughter got so tanked up on booze at 1515 and/or other downtown establishments that she couldn’t talk or walk, and had to be carried to her car.

1515 Restaurant operates legally, as do some nearly 100 other liquor-dispensing establishments in town. After crying about lost profits due to their 12:30 a.m. closing time, the owners of 1515, Jack and Tony Dudum, received permission from the City Council to stay open a half hour later. They needed this extra time so that they could sell more beer, wine, and cocktails--to earn more money. To stay in business. To turn a profit. That is, they were given permission to dispense more mind-altering substances legally, and for recreational purposes, with profit as a prime motive.

But pot? Well, some city leaders and members of the public have gotten huffy and expressed their grave concerns about C3 Collective—just one venue so far—dispensing pot in town. The owners of this pot club, which has been hit with a lawsuit to shut down, claim they are dispending pot, not for recreational purposes or for profit, but to benefit people with serious medical conditions.

C3 owners may or may not be telling the truth. I will assume they are, until someone proves otherwise. Meanwhile, we have plenty of other venues in downtown that are dispensing the mind-altering substance of alcohol—for recreational purposes and, most definitely, for a profit. I could fill a page with their names, but here are just a few. Besides the above-mentioned 1515, which by the way allegedly caters to an “mature, upscale crowd,” there are the upscale restaurants Prima, Va de Vi, Lark Creek Walnut Creek, and the Walnut Creek Yacht Club. There are also markets and drug stores like Whole Foods Market, Trader Joe’s (Two Buck Chuck!), Safeway, CVS Pharmacy, and 7-Eleven.

I'm sure in the history of any of these establishments--mostly likely the grocery and convenience stores--someone has come in and tried to steal a bottle or two of something. From my police reporting days, this was a fairly regular occurance at grocery and convenience stores: thefts of booze that amounted to a misdemeanor shoplifting. It might involve someone who is dependant on alcohol, shoplifting a bottle, or kids eager to get their hands on a six-pack or a bottle of hard liquor.

How is this kind of theft so much different from what those idiots in Concord were trying to do, when they were attempting to steal a bit of weed from that legally grown backyard crop?

Marijuana and alcohol: Both mind-altering substances. Both legal, with varying restrictions. Both promise to pleasure the senses, including smell and taste. Both offer the promise of relaxation, escape, and an altered mental state. And, both, when abused in terms of sales, distribution or use, become the source of devastating consequnces.

But why is one substance culturally embraced, celebrated as a symbol of the California good life, and used to entice people into donating money to help local school kids? And why is the other substance treated with contempt and mostly outlawed, when there is no evidence, I can find so far, that it causes society any more harm than the other? I'm trying to figure that one out.

Are Walnut Creek's Neiman Marcus foes like Wile E. Coyote?

Contra Costa Times' Tom Barnidge makes an amusing, but probably accurate, comparison in his column today between the “irrespressible” Wile E. Coyote of Road Runner cartoon fame to those Walnut Creek residents who, with the help of a deep-pockets developer, are trying to derail the proposed Neiman Marcus in Broadway Plaza.

Those Walnut Creek residents would be a group with the Acme Corp.-esque title, RAMPART (Residents and Advocates for More Parking and Reduced Traffic). RAMPART’s leaders are Selma King and Ann Hinshaw, but they are receiving financial backing from Taubman Company, the owner of Sunvalley Mall and a developer involved in San Ramon’s effort to build its long-awaited city center.

This is what Barnidge says about Mr. Coyote--and about the RAMPART folks:

When a missile launcher failed to propel him to his target, he hopped onto a rocket sled. When a stick of dynamite couldn't stop his prey, he reached for a hand grenade. When the boulder he dropped didn't flatten the bird, he tried again with an anvil.

Sure, he was a failure, but you need to look past that. He was a study in relentless tenacity.

The only force we've ever seen rival his gritted-teeth perseverance is the group trying to derail the Neiman Marcus project, even as the Walnut Creek City Council beep-beeps its way toward welcoming a new store to Broadway Plaza.

Check out the rest of Barnidge's column here.

Wish I had $600,000 to spend on fighting for my “right” to host raucous parties with lingerie-clad women on my 13-acre estate

What a jerk—though I could hurl out some other expletives at this guy named Kevin Degnan,who apparently liked seeing himself as the Hugh Hefner of the East Bay (Hugh, of course, pictured here).

Anyway, Degnan, an, uh, distinguished citizen and plastic surgeon in our East Bay suburbs took his case all the way to the state Supreme Court, according to this report in the Contra Costa Times.

And what was his “righteous cause,” for which he spent lots of his own money, but also wasted lots of taxpayer-funded court time and resources?

Well, he liked to throw big Playboy mansion-style parties on the 13-acre estate in the exclusive Alamo enclave known as Jones Ranch. He moved to this estate in 2003 and would helicopter in some guests and have others park their cars in a traffic turnaround on his property that could accommodate up to 50 vehiles.

Neighbors were not happy, alleging that the parties were cesspools of public sex and underage drinking—and that his guests made lots of noise, shouted obscenities, littered the streets, and parked in front of their driveways. Neighbors went to court, and his Jones Ranch Homeowners Association filed suit.

In his response to the suit, Degnan claimed that the homeowners’ association rules discriminated against his guests, because they included non-whites and lovely young females. Degnan proclaimed, in his court filings, that he was being picked on because he didn’t fit into his neighbors’ “picture-perfect world” and that there was a “bias against his attractive female party guests.” He also noted that many women living in his area are "matronly, middle-aged or elderly."

Snap.

I suppose he would like to think us to he’s fighting for the good old right of property owners to do what they want on their property. He wants to be property owners’ knight in shining armor.

You know, a couple years ago, I might have laughed this one off as yet another ha-ha example of the silly excesses of the local rich and not-so-famous. And yet another example of affluent suburbanites getting all huffy about, as Degnan says, fitting into their “picture-perfect” idea of how their little precious little world should be.

But times have indeed changed. Friends of mine have lost jobs, my 401K has landed in the crapper, my 85-year-old mom lost a lot of her retirement savings, my family’s health insurance premiums are going up. Beyond that, Contra Costa County social workers, who handle child abuse cases, have lost jobs. So have teachers. People around our community have lost homes to foreclosure, and nonprofits that provide a social safety net are struggling for dollars. Oh, and there are more people everywhere in America who are homeless and hungry. Do I need to go on?

Sure, it’s Degnan’s money to use to wage his “righteous” court battle. But he gets my vote as a Keith Olbermann-style Worst Person in the World for choosing to use so much money in such a frivolous, self-indulgent way.

The only justice here? Degnan is out the $600,000 he had to pay in legal costs, including about $280,000 that he, as the losing party in this case, had to turn over to the homeowners association to cover their legal costs.

Neiman Marcus vote to proceed to November 3 ballot

In the end, the City Council's choice Tuesday night on the Neiman Marcus issue had to do more with a matter of legal technicalities. Not with whether or not it would say yes or no to the the luxury department store being built in Broadway Plaza.

The council had already decided that it would leave it up to voters to say yes or no to the project, and put the development project on the November 3 ballot. Actually, the city was legally obligated to put the matter up for a vote within a certain time frame. That's because more than 15 percent of registered voters in the city signed a petition for an initiative, asking for the city to approve the project or to put it up for a vote.

So, Measure I was not in question for City Council members Tuesday night, despite a judge's ruling in favor of a lawsuit filed by Neiman Marcus opponents.

The language of Measure I comes from the initiative designed by residents who support Neiman Marcus, and whose pro-Neiman position is financially backed by Broadway Plaza owner Macerich.

In an apparent attempt the block the development, Neiman Marcus opponents filed a lawsuit demanding, among other things, that the city also include their two referenda on the November 3 ballot, along with Measure I. The anti-Neiman Marcus effort is backed by Taubman Centers, a rival mall developer that owns Sunvalley shopping mall and had hoped to bring Neiman Marcus to San Ramon. Their referenda asked for a city vote on specific aspects of the project, unlike the initiative, which supposedly asked for a yes or no on the project in its entirety.

At Tuesday night's meeting, Neiman Marcus opponents Ann Hinshaw, Selma King, and Ken Hambrick accused the City Council engaging in unethical, undemocratic, and "smoke and mirrors" practices to keep their referenda off the November 3 ballot. They wanted their referenda included on the ballot, so that residents would have what they view as a full opportunity to decide whether or not they want this store in downtown Walnut Creek.

City staff, council members ,and Neiman Marcus supporters have rejected the idea--and continued to reject the idea Tuesday night--of asking voters to sort through the initiative, plus two separate referenda, when they go to the voting booth.

One city resident suggested--and I agree--that the latest courtroom maneuverings and referenda ballot demands of Neiman Marcus opponents show that Taubman is "at the end of its rope." The resident, speaking before the council, said: "At this point all they want to do is create confusion. Something is terribly wrong with what they're trying to do."

Councilwoman Cindy Silva, like the other four council members, rejected the idea of putting the referenda on the ballot: "One ballot, one date, one question, one measure--that is the thing we should do in a representative form of government."

Councilman Kish Rajan concurred that "there are no issues in those referenda that are not addressed by Measure I. [Opponents] have the opportunity to vote no if they don't appreciate or don't like it. I don't think we are trying to deny people their rights or their ability to say what they think about this project. ... For those who said, 'we want to vote on the project, you'll get to vote.' "

So, there you go. The Council's decision. We'll see how long it stands. I hope city residents get the chance to vote in November on a simple ballot measure that asks whether or not they want this store to come to Broadway Plaza. City residents need to vote as soon as possible on this issue--and then move on.

Alas, we'll see if Taubman, and its citizen agents, have something else up their sleeve--lawsuit or otherwise--to confuse residents and prolong a controversy that has already wasted much time, energy, and money.

The anti-Neiman Marcus strategy: Gum up the works with legal maneuvers and confuse the hell out of every body

So, another City Council vote on Neiman Marcus tomorrow night. No disrespect to Elisabeth Nardi of the Contra Costa Times, but I read her story and I thought, “huh?” What’s the City Council supposed to do tomorrow not, or not do, and what does it all mean about the future of a new Neiman Marcus in Broadway Plaza?

So, I went to the city’s handy-dandy website and tried to get through the staff report on this latest city council action. I’m still scratching my head, so it looks like Nardi had some pretty confusing material to work with, and I’m not sure I can do better.

And what about anyone else in Walnut Creek, someone who is not deeply immersed in this issue for professional or personal reasons: The City Attorney, the lawyers for Broadway Plaza developer Macerich, the lawyers for opposing developer Taubman Centers; Ann Hinshaw and Selma King, our Citizen Confusers in Chief.

Basically--if you can say such a thing—the council can decide to repeal its decision, made earlier this year, to allow Neiman Marcus (or another department store) to be built in Broadway Plaza. Or it can place on the ballot two referenda that challenge this development agreement. Hinshaw and King are the referenda proponents—with financial backing by Taubman.

Are you following me? Because I’m not following me.

The thing is that there is--was--an initiative, submitted by the pro-Neiman Marcus side, with financial backing by Macerich.

The initiative asked for the city to put the Neiman Marcus development proposal on the ballot—for voters to decide. The City Council did just that, on August 4, calling for a special election November 3 to coincide with the special 10th congressional election.

So, doesn’t that, in effect, negate the council’s earlier approval of the project? The council is saying, okay, we approved it, but ultimately we’re gonna leave it up to the voters.

Actually, for election law reasons, the city council had to put this initiative on the ballot within a certain time frame, because more than 15 percent of registered voters signed a petition supporting a city-wide vote on this initiative.

But the anti-Neiman folks were not happy that their referenda—not to be confused with the initiative, but I’m confused---would also not be considered for the election. They filed a lawsuit, asking a Contra Costa Superior Court judge to order the city to repeal its approval of the Neiman Marcus project (even though the council had already decided to put the matter up to a vote) or to put their referenda on the ballot. The judge granted their request to force to the city to do either.

The idea of having to go to the voting booth on November 3 and decide which of these three measures—the initiative and referenda—to say yes to or no to … The idea of having to pick up apart the subtle differences and legalistic/electionspeak wording of the initiative versus the referenda…

Well, it just gives me a headache. And I’m sure it gives some other residents a headache, too.

It’s stupid, annoying, and I strongly suspect that this the strategy that Taubman and their citizen representatives have devised to kill this project. Clever of them, isn't it?

This is just a department store, right? As I’ve said before, I don’t really care if Walnut Creek gets a Neiman Marcus. And I think the City Council initially mishandled this project.

But that was then, and this is now.

And I resent people, whether they be citizens or outsider, deep-pocket developers, pulling stunts like this. To confuse the issue for ordinary folks to decide whether or not a certain development in town. To gum up the works. It’s selfish.

The city has better things to do than keep rehashing this issue, in the City Council chambers, and in the courtroom. It needs to, like, try to find ways to preserve the city’s economic vitality in the face of the most serious global economic disaster since the great depression.

Residents have better things to do than to try to sort through these different measures. Yeah, like go to work, and take care of their kids, and keep their homes, and, if they care about civic issues, pour their hearts into ones that have really important consequences--issues involving life and death, public safety, the safety of kids, homelessness, hunger.

I'll say it again. This is a department store. It doesn't deserve this much fuss.

Oh yes, I know King and Hinshaw believe they are standing for principle.

But more and more, I think they are standing for their own need to be right, and they are getting a big company, with deep-pocket vested interests to fund what more and more strikes me as their own ego project.

Walnut Creek noose-hanging controversy update: community service not termination for Midas employees

A North Main Street Midas shop mechanic who used racial slurs and hung a noose in the workplace, and the manager who supposedly allowed it to continue, won't get fired, according to the Contra Costa Times.

Even though their boss, Mike Glad, initially wanted to, the Times says. Instead Glad, the owner of the shop, has listened to the suggestion of a Pittsburg minister, who led a protest outside the shop on Monday. The minister agreed that the mechanic and manager committed offenses worthy of termination, but suggested to Glad that they be given the chance to try community service and counseling first. These options provide an opportunity for change and redemption, the minister said.

The complaints about the mechanic and manager came from an employee, Donovan McBride. He was so frustrated about repeated racial slurs, the hanging of the noose, and the manager's failure to reprimand the mechanic that he took his complaints to KTVU. McBride, who is white but who is married to a black woman, agreed that community service might be the way to go--"as long as you get something postive out of it."

Hike Lime Ridge Peak to learn about how to save it from what you see here:

Starting tomorrow (Saturday morning!) Save Mt. Diablo, one of my favorite East Bay nonprofits, is offering to take nature lovers on a hike along Lime Ridge. Sure, you'll see spectacular views , but you might also see why Save Mt. Diablo is concerned about an environmentally damaging proposal before the Walnut Creek City Council.

Mobile phone provider, Sprint Nextel. wants Walnut Creek to allow it to use the Lime Ridge peak for "expanded communications facilities, even though their lease expired two years ago."

Seth Adams, director of Land Programs for Save Mt. Diablo, says: "We're not opposed to cell phones, but this is a bad location." Adams expressed concern that the city has not done sufficient environmental analysis or review of alternate sites: " Cell sites along Ygnacio Valley Road, for example, would have far less impact."

According to the Save Mt. Diablo web page about the growing Lime Ridge peak controversy: "This is [Walnut Creek's] opportunity to end this inappropriate use of the open space and to return the area to its natural setting by requiring the removal of the existing facilities."

You can take yourself on a self-guided hike (information available here), or join one led by Save Mt. Diablo experts. Below are dates for those hikes. Each starts at 9 a.m. at the staging area at the eastern end of Valley Vista Road in Walnut Creek, next to the Boundary Oaks Club House. Bring water, layers, sunscreen and a snack. (No dogs are allowed in this section of Lime Ridge):

--Saturday, August 22: Co-led by Troy Bristol, Save Mt. Diablo's Land Conservation sssociate, and intern George Phillips

--Sunday September 13: Co-led again by Bristol and Phillips.

--Saturday, September 26: Led by Seth Adams, Save Mt. Diablo's director of Land Programs

And here is Save Mt. Diablo's background on its own efforts to preserve lands around Mount Diablo and on its efforts in regards to the the Lime Ridge/Nextel tower controversy. Thanks to Seth Adams for providing this background, and to Scott Hein for providing the photos.

Save Mt. Diablo worked for decades to help create, expand and then finally open Lime Ridge Open Space to the public. ... Unfortunately, the peak of Lime Ridge has been off limits for decades, used for a communications site and surrounded by chain link and barbed wire. With the lease for the site expired, and three dozen rare species identified, this is our opportunity to return the peak to the public which owns it--by not renewing the lease for the communications site—which conflicts with the city’s General Plan for its open spaces in the first place.

Unfortunately the city is contemplating not just renewing the communications tower lease, but expanding it. The city hasn’t done environmental review for the expanded site, and hasn’t done alternatives analysis for other, less sensitive alternatives, such as along Ygnacio Valley Road. We have proposed removing the existing dilapidated equipment, and have even offered to collaborate with the city in using volunteers to remove the old equipment.

Last year, staff from Save Mount Diablo began considering the impacts of proposed telecommunication towers in Lime Ridge Open Space, especially in light of the discovery of two new plant species there. The plants, the Lime Ridge Navarretia (Navarretia gowenii) and the Lime Ridge Woollystar (Eriastrum sp. nov.) have been confirmed as new species. Both are critically and globally endangered. Given their recent discovery, almost nothing is known about the plants, their requirements, or how they might be impacted by various existing and proposed activities within the open space. The City of Walnut Creek has been considering a lease for Sprint-Nextel within the habitat of the plants.

In the absence of environmental review and effective mitigations, Save Mount Diablo is opposed to this contract. ... The proposed contract and project violate the City General Plan, they would directly affect the newly discovered plants, and they could have significant other impacts on the environment. They fail to include effective protections for sensitive resources including the newly discovered plants and other significant species, they have not been subject to environmental review, and they ignore our suggestion that alternative locations be assessed.

Save Mount Diablo is the largest environmental organization in Contra Costa County, with decades of professional experience in land use planning and resource management. We are a nonprofit conservation organization founded in 1971. We acquire land for addition to parks on and around Mt. Diablo, monitors land use planning which might affect protected lands, and build trails, restore habitat, and are involved in environmental education.

In 1971, there was just one park on Mount Diablo totaling 6,788 acres; today there are 39 parks and preserves totaling more than 90,000 acres. We have more than 7,000 members and eight professional staff. Save Mount Diablo has worked with many agencies and conservation organizations to preserve open space throughout the area, including in Walnut Creek.

Our founder, Mary Bowerman, was a recognized expert in plants around Mount Diablo. Our first president, Peg Kovar (who later became mayor of Walnut Creek) and other Save Mt. Diablo leaders, as well as the organization itself, helped to lead the fight opposing development in Indian Valley (Shell Ridge Open Space) and to create the Walnut Creek Open Space system.

Our board of directors and Land Committee include highly qualified biological and botanical experts and land use attorneys. Our staff is expert in these areas as well, including in land use planning and environmental review. We have been intimately involved with preservation at Lime Ridge, as well as defense of its borders from every subsequent development project. ...

We also own the 208-acre Mangini property adjacent to Lime Ridge Open Space, not far from the project site, and have conducted substantial professional analysis of the property and of the Open Space’s resources.

We are interested in maintaining the natural integrity of Lime Ridge. ... We have also been involved in communication tower issues since the mid-1970s. Save Mt. Diablo helped create Contra Costa County's first telecommunication towers ordinance and helped amend its subsequent versions. These efforts slowed and then stopped the construction of towers in Mt. Diablo State Park. ... While we are not necessarily opposed to tower facilities, their location and mitigation is very important. ... Our single most important recommendations regarding the newly discovered plants at Lime Ridge were a “go slow” and a “do no harm” approach to anything which might affect them, until more information could be gathered about their needs.

For all these reasons, we are opposed to creation of a new communications tower lease at the peak of Lime Ridge or for expanded facilities there.

It’s time to return the peak to the public.

Why doesn’t Walnut Creek vote to tax its new pot club?

We could follow the lead of Oakland, where 80 percent of voters in July said yes to a special landmark measure to tax sales of marijuana at the city’s four licensed medical cannabis dispensaries. Walnut Creek could become the second city in the United States to tax proceeds on medical marijuana. It could tax its new dispensary, the C3 Collective on Oakland Boulevard.

Walnut Creek could become another West Coast trend setter!

The Oakland measure imposes a 1.8-percent gross receipts tax, which amounts to about $18 for every 1,000 in marijuana sales. One Oakland dispensary, whose owner celebrated the measure, will have to pay more than $350,000 from the new tax next year. “It is important because the city of Oakland is facing a massive deficit like many jurisdictions in California," said the owner, Steve DeAngelo.


Hey, Walnut Creek is facing a major budget deficit. That’s one reason why the City Council and business and community leaders want Neiman Marcus to come to town: the potential sales tax revenues.

Okay, I can just hear the cries of outrage. How dare I compare posh Neiman Marcus and its posh patrons to a not-so-posh pot club and its maybe-not-so posh patrons?


To borrow a term from the great American capitalist Michael Corleone, I’m right now, for the sake of an argument, looking at this medical marijuana issue from a “strictly business” standpoint. Perhaps, the potential economic benefits revenues from having a medical marijuana dispensary in town could be one of the issues the city looks at as it studies the issue, after instituting its 45-day ban on C3 Collective's operations.

Fellow Walnut Creek blogger, the DUBC, touches on the economic motives of the medical marijuana business and has a very good debate going about the arrival of this dispensary in town. The DUBC also provides some interesting background on Brian Hyman, the owner of the C3 Collective, and of the club’s renowned, pro-marijuana supporters. You can read it here. Actually, the DUBC uses more harsh language in referring to these economic motives. He calls it a “medical marijuana sham.” The DUBC writes: “Let’s get real about this. It's about making money and getting high.”

(Making money and getting high? Gee, couldn’t you say the same thing about the liquor and wine industry and the bars around town. For liquor and wine makers and bar owners, isn’t it all about them making money to help us get high?)

The DUBC continues: “The legislation started with people that had ‘serious medical conditions.’ Now for every cancer patient there are a hundred 18- to 20-year-olds getting prescriptions for insomnia, back pain and stress. They pay $100 for a ten minute "consultation" and can go get their medicine. … If the people vote for legalization then we are all for it. Until then, keep this stuff out of our city.”

I agree that we as a society need to get this marijuana legalization question settled. For the record, I would probably be in favor of legalizing marijuana, not because I myself would partake—I tried it a couple times in high school and college and didn’t like it. I would be in favor because I like to drink wine, and not just for the flavor. I drink wine because, at the end of the day, it makes me feel nice. I don’t think I—or anyone else who seeks that “nice” feeling from a glass of wine or a lemondrop or apple-tini—is in the position to judge someone who prefers to smoke marijuana as their path to feeling "nice."

Also I voted for Proposition 215, but I agree with the point the DUBC is raising about the real motives of many in the medical marijuana world. These pot growers, distributors, and dealers, as well as producers of paraphernalia and pot candy, didn’t entirely get into the business to ease the suffering of cancer and AIDS patients. Oh, sure, some might genuinely view themselves as healers, and some might do some good for very sick people.

But, it’s also about money. Lots and lots of money.

And speaking of money, in my post yesterday, arguing that Wallnut Creek is not all that conservative, one reader correctly pointed out that our non-partisan city government generally leads towards retail, real estate and other business concerns. Such as Neiman Marcus, and urban-style mixed-use developments, and bars and restaurants. So, if that’s how our city council leans, why not throw the C3 Collective into this mix of potential local revenue generators?


As for the DUBC’s statement about keeping “this stuff out of our city.” Well, I’m sure he knows that this stuff is already in our city, whether it comes from C3 Collective or some dealer peddling in a parking lot.

Walnut Creek becomes latest East Bay suburb to adopt emergency pot club moratorium

The Walnut Creek City Council voted at an emergency meeting Tuesday to institute a temporary 45-day ban on the opening of medical marijuana dispensaries in town. The meeting was hastily called after the city received an application from a group called C3 Collective to open a dispensary on Oakland Boulevard. It was the city's first proposed pot club. With the city having no ordinances as of yet to regulate such businesses, the council decided to institute a 45-day ban, to allow staff and police time to study the issue.

The Contra Costa Times and ABC7 News says that many spoke at the emergency meeting in favor of allowing a medical marijuana club to open in Walnut Creek. One of those was Councilman Bob Simmons, whose son is a cancer survivor. He said it "inexcusable" to tell people with serious illnesses allowing them to use medical marijuana that they have to drive all the way into Oakland or San Francisco to fill prescriptions allowed under law. You can view Simmons' statements in this ABC7news.com report.

The blogger, the East Bay Daze, reported, that C3 Collective has already been dispensing marijuana at the Oakland Boulevard shop in exchange for "donations." This non-profit wellness center, as it describes itself, opened just recently and said it offered "patrons yoga lessons and acupuncture," as well as marijuana to those in need.

The East Bay Daze says that the operator of this dispensary has already tried to open up shop in Orinda and in Lafayette, where moratoriums were likewise imposed and approved.

When we refer to “vested interests” in the any debate, including the Neiman Marcus controversy, what are we really talking about?

Among readers' comments about Neiman Marcus and other controversies, I’ve seen this term pop up from time to time, usually in reference to those who want Neiman Marcus to come to Broadway Plaza.

Here’s one instance, referring to last week's City Council meeting on putting a Neiman Marcus initiative up to a city-wide vote: “If you listened to the titles of the speakers as they introduced themselves , most had a vested interest in this issue and were there to beat the drums for the home [pro-Neiman Marcus] team.”

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “vested interest” is defined as:
1: an interest (as a title to an estate) carrying a legal right of present or future enjoyment; specifically : a right vested in an employee under a pension plan
2: a special concern or stake in maintaining or influencing a condition, arrangement, or action especially for selfish ends
3: one having a vested interest in something; specifically, a group enjoying benefits from an existing economic or political privilege

But is having a “vested interest” in whether or not this store gets built, or on any other issue, a bad thing?

Sure, having a vested interest could be a bad thing—if that interest prompts illegal behavior. For example, if we could show a direct line of financial benefit to a past or present City Council member and to an issue on which they voted. … Let’s say, Cuncilman Joe Smith’s business will get some kind of contract from, uh, helping to build the new department store in town. That would be a conflict of interest, the kind that would probably get him into trouble with the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Oh, in no way, am I saying that any of that kind of thing is going on …

Aside from anything illegal, I agree with the person commenting that many of those who spoke at the City Council meeting had a vested interest in the project.

As in, most everyone expressing a strong viewpoint on the project expected to gain some kind of “present or future enjoyment” from it; possessed “a special concern or stake” in influencing this action for “selfish ends”; or hoped to enjoy “benefits from an existing economic or political privilege.”

But couldn’t you say similar things about people on the other side of this debate?

And, isn’t that the way of controversial issue? Doesn't most everyone who cares have some kind of stake in the outcome—a vested interest, if you will. Isn’t that the way of life?

Some in this Neiman Marcus debate definitely see the promise of financial gain, but I would guess that others hope to gain in less straightforward, dollars-and-cents ways. They want to preserve something of Walnut Creek they value; they want their beliefs about what’s best for Walnut Creek to become the new reality. Let's consider the "vested interests" of some of the players:

In terms of financial gain, Macerich, which owns Broadway Plaza, wants a new luxury department store, and it wants Neiman Marcus, because it thinks Neiman Marcus will be profitable and earn it money, so it is willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on petition drives and initiative campaigns to bring the store here.

On the other side, rival mall developer Taubman Centers is involved in developing San Ramon’s city center, which Neiman Marcus was eyeing pretty seriously until the Walnut Creek location became available. Naturally, Taubman, which also owns Sunvalley shopping mall, has an interest in Neiman Marcus not going to Walnut Creek. So Taubman will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in an effort to block its construction in Broadway Plaza.

The City of Walnut Creek: Rightly or wrongly, city staff and City Council members believe Neiman Marcus will bring additional and much needed sales tax revenues to Walnut Creek. The city wants that additional revenue to pay for services and staff salaries—some of which have been cut to deal with the current budget crisis. The city staff and council members, also rightly or wrongly, believe that Neiman Marcus will be good for downtown’s prestige and long-term economic and social health.

Downtown business leaders: Their pro-Neiman Marcus motives are similar to those of the city, but they also think that what’s good for the city’s overall economic health is good for them, and they see Neiman Marcus as being an economic plus.

The main Neiman Marcus opponents, Ed Dimmick, Selma King, Ann Hinshaw: It is said that they care very much for the city and its future, and that they speak for all those residents who question how the city is growing, and whether our downtown is getting too crowded and unattractive for residents. I have no reason to doubt that they believe that their lawsuits and campaigns in opposition to this project is a good thing for the city. If I do any pop psychoanalyzing, I suppose their passion on this issue could have do with gaining some sense of personal satisfaction in making their vision of Walnut Creek a reality, proving that what they believe is the correct way to go.

Take it from a blogger, who occasionally spouts off her opinions, there can be nothing more satisfying than having your opinions validated—in getting affirmation that you might, after all, be saying something reasonable, thought-provoking, influential. Herein lies my vested interest? Well, not in this Neiman Marcus project, actually, but in why I blog?

As usual, I digress . . .

People involved in city arts and recreation, including those who work in the city or volunteer on city commissions or who work and volunteer for nonprofit groups or organizations that support arts and recreation programs in the city: Some of these people spoke at the City Council meeting in support of Neiman Marcus and the initiative to let residents vote on the project. They see the new store as bringing in money for services they love, and they also know that a financially healthy business climate better supports those quality-of-life services that keep them employed or that give them pleasure. So, herein lies their vested interests. Perhaps the nonprofit leaders are also hoping that Neiman Marcus will become a “community partner” donating money to their organizations or sponsoring their events.

I'm sure there are some groups and motives I've left out. If anyone cares to, they can share their theories for why certain individuals and groups are taking the positions they are taking.

City council decides to end the agony: Let voters decide on Neiman Marcus

I’ve barely stepped foot in the Neiman Marcus in San Francisco, except to ooh and ahh over the big, multi-story-all tree at Christmas time. Also, I know a fair share of Walnut Creek residents who say this luxury department store is out of their price range.

Nonetheless, I say, let Neiman Marcus come to Broadway Plaza. Or, as the City Council voted Tuesday night, let the voters decide. Specifically, let the voters say “yes” or “no” to allowing a two-story, 92,000-square-foot department store, such as Neiman Marcus, to come to Walnut Creek. The City Council approved this project May 19.

Actually, I don’t live within the city limits and can’t vote on this Neiman Marcus initiative. So, in this narrow technical way, this issue doesn’t matter to me.

On the other hand, I live near downtown, and the issue does matter to me, because I’m annoyed and worn out by this whole stupid controversy. It is just stupid that it has been drawn out in such an ugly, costly way--a battle between rival mall developers that has swept up residents into what amounts to a battle over the soul of our town.

We’re talking a department store, folks.

I don’t agree with all that Councilwoman Sue Rainey said at Tuesday night’s council meeting, but she was astute in pointing out that this project will only add about 40,000-square feet of additional space to downtown—about half the size of Nordstrom. Are those 40,000-square-feet worth all this political and legal fuss, and street-level harassment of residents, allegedly by anti-Neiman Marcus petition gatherers?

No, it’s not.

Again as Rainey pointed out, city staff have spent countless hours verifying signatures on three different petitions submitted, and on preparing reports, and researching legal issues. “At some point, this has to come to an end,” she said. “The city cannot keep up doing this and do other work at the same time. … It is very upsetting.”

Unfortunately, Rainey undercut herself somewhat by suggesting that the city had been listening all along to residents’ concerns about this project. With all due respect, Madam Councilwoman, the city has not. The prior council, who initially approved a larger scale version of this project back in the fall, did not. By the way, this prior proposal had an absolutely boneheaded proposal to turn all of the five-story South Main Street garage into valet parking during peak shopping times.

Sure, there were the "dark evil forces," as some see it, of Taubman, the Michigan-based rival mall developer. Tauban, which owns Sunvalley shopping mall and has interests in the San Ramon city center project, which Neiman Marcus was seriously considering as an East Bay location, stepped in to pour big bucks into funding the anti-Neiman Marcus drive.

The Contra Costa Times reports today that Taubman spent $234,000 on two referenda aimed at blocking this project. To be fair, though, Macerich, the owner of Broadway Plaza, spent $217,000 to support the initiative that the council voted to put on the Nov. 3 ballot. And about 70 individuals and organizations, including Mayor Gary Skrel, donated and raised more than $75,000 to support the initiative.

Besides these two rival mall developers contibuting to this controversy, the prior council helped create an environment of frustration among residents--that their concerns were not being heard. Taubman easily exploited those frustration.

I have to give it to Kish Rajan, who came into office after the city’s initial approval, for acknowledging at Tuesday night's meeting that legal challenges to that initial proposal—which, yes, were funded by Tauban—resulted in a “better proposal.”

“That’s because the people dissented,” he said. “I’m proud that the process resulted in a better project.”

After those legal challenges, Macerich in January withdrew their initial proposal, went back to the drawing board, and returned with a somewhat smaller project and an idea to make room in Broadway Plaza garages and other city parking structures for any influx of Neiman shoppers.

Macerich and the city also got out and held a series of community workshops.

If only these two groups had displayed more community relations savvy way back when and realized that attempting to seek public buy-in is prerequisite for this kind of major development project ...

Yes, I digress.

Back to Tuesday night's meeting: About 30 residents spoke, and most want Neiman Marcus to come to Broadway Plaza and most spoke in favor of the city putting ithe initiative on its May 19 decision up for a vote. These speakers also vented their frustration about the confusion and chaos and ugliness that has sprouted up over this project. The competing referenda and initiatives. How many? It’s hard to keep count.

And what’s the difference between a referendum and an initiative in the first place? One speaker referred to herself as community-minded and college-educated and said she was confused. Even Councilwoman Cindy Silva asked the city attorney for clarification, perhaps for her benefit or for the benefit of idiots like me who read the staff report but were still confused.

I could make an attempt to explain the difference, and the subtle differences between what each of these referenda and initiatives were seeking in terms of the project itself. But let’s say that right now I’m writing more as average citizen, and to me, the question should be simple.

Neiman Marcus? Yes or no? I say, yes. As I said, I might never step foot in the store, and I've been critical of the city's initial handling of this project.

But other people presumably will shop at Neiman Marcus, spend money, and help increase sales tax revenues for the city. A number of speakers at Tuesday’s city council meeting--people with a long history in Walnut Creek civic activism, and in the arts, open spaces, recreation, and in business and economic development—all proclaimed that this store would be good for downtown. It would be good for its economic health and eventual recovery from this slow times. It would be good for the city overall, and all those services we cherish--arts, recreation, public safety.

The speakers, who included representatives from Macerich and Neiman Marcus, also spoke of the store’s desire to be a community partner—which I translate to mean that Neiman Marcus might be willing to donate dollars to local nonprofits or to sponsor community events.

Not that I wanted to get into the technical aspects of what an initiative is—and a reader is free to chime in—but the city council basically had to make a decision about what to do with this pro-Neiman Marcus initiative. That's because the petition garnered signatures from 15 percent of registered voters, and state law says the council had to adopt the initiative outright, or put it on the ballot for voters to decide. The council decided to put it on the November 3 ballot for voters to decide.

So that’s where we are. We’ll have to see if that group of citizens who oppose Neiman Marcus, and who are financed by Taubman, will file any more legal challenges. Like they did last Friday afternoon in a last-ditch pathetic attempt to stop last night’s decision from going forward. A Contra Costa County Superior Court judge knocked that bid down on Tuesday, before the meeting.

Well, I hope that the plaintiffs of this suit, and the outspoken Neiman Marcus opponents, Ann Hinshaw, Selma King, and Ed Dimmick, can take some consolation in the fact that they enjoyed some success in getting changes made to the project--as Kish Rajan said.

Now it's time for them to shut up. I'm sick of them, and their obstructionism. Sorry to put it that way, but I am.

Actually, I mean they can shut up in terms of any more legal challenges, or mounting further referenda or petitions. Now, they can turn their attention to campaigning against the store, if they so choose. They can put their efforts into trying to convince voters why bringing a new department store to Walnut Creek is a bad idea.

In any event, let it now be up to voters to decide.

More Neiman Marcus ugliness: Opponents file suit to block City Council action on special election decision

As the Walnut Creek City Council was set Tuesday to consider whether to call a November 3 special election on the whole Neiman Marcus controversy, opponents of the project filed a awsuit, according to the Contra Costa Times.

Opponents want to block the City Council from accepting a staff recommendation that the November 3 ballot be based on what could be considered a pro-Neiman Marcus initiative.

The opponents, Walnut Creek residents Selma King and Ann Hinshaw, had put forth their own referendum. This referendum objected to the City Council’s May 19 decision to allow Broadway Plaza to build a two-story, 92,000-square-foot luxury department store.

They circulated a petition, gathered more than 7,000 signatures, purported to be from registered Walnut Creek voters, and filed it with the city. The city certified that the petition had the required number of signatures. This petition, if you don't already know, received financial backing from Taubman Centers, a mall company in rivalry with Macerich, which owns Broadway Plaza.

Meanwhile, Walnut Creek residents who want Neiman Marcus to come to Walnut Creek circulated their own petition to place an initiative on the ballot. That petition also received the necessary number of signatures from registered voters. The initiative asks voters to approve building Neiman Marcus.

Legally, the King-Hinshaw referendum halted the project, and city staff figured the best way out of this mess was to have the City Council hand off the issue to voters.

But basing the ballot measure on the initiative, rather than on the referendum, “takes away the Walnut Creek citizens’ right to vote,” Hinshaw and King said in a joint statement, according to the Times.

City staff must have seen their objections to their referendum being sidelined—and possibly even this legal maneuver—coming.

In their agenda report, city staff offer these reasons for rejecting the King-Hinshaw referendum:
“Placing the initiative on the ballot will give Walnut Creek voters the full opportunity to decide whether the project is In the best interests of the City. Therefore, not placing the referenda on the same ballot at this time will not diminish the right of the voters to vote on the project.”

The city had the option to put both the referendum and the initiative on the ballot, but having both on the ballot “would create confusion," staff said. “Further if the referenda and the initiative were all approved at the same election, it would result in the approval of two, subtly different projects, creating legal ambiguity about which approval takes precedence.”

Meanwhile, here is a summary of the project so far, which you can read in full on the city’s website:

On May 19, the City Council approved construction of the two-story, 92,000-square-foot Neiman Marcus. (This was a scaled down version of the project that the City Council approved in the fall. The original project would have involved a three-story Neiman Marcus, as well as transforming the five-story South Main Street garage into valet parking during peak shopping times to accommodate any influx of Neiman shoppers).

After the May 19 approval, the city subsequently received the two petitions from the anti- and pro-Neiman groups.

Petition 1: This King-Hinshaw challenge was based on the project’s size, specifically with what’s called the floor-area ratio. To fit two stories of a department store onto 1.59 acres at the corner of South Main Street and Mount Diablo Boulevard, the store would need a higher floor-area ratio than allowed under the city’s General Plan. At its May 19 meeting, the city said “okay” to a General Plan amendment, allowing an increase in that ratio.

Petition 2: The initiative would allow voters to say “yes” or “no” to the project that was approved by the city on May 19. Besides increasing the floor-area ratio, the city said yes to an interesting idea for how Broadway Plaza would accommodate additional shoppers needing parking space. The idea has to do with instituting an employee-only attendant parking program and installing mechanical lifts, and stacked and tandem parking spaces, into the South Main Street parking garage.

Once the first petition for the referendum was filed, on July 2, and the city, under state law, had to halt the project and think about calling for a special election.

So that’s what staff says the City Council should do: Call a special election.

“Given the long, significant public engagement in this project, staff believes that the Walnut Creek voters should be given the opportunity to vote on the initiative without delay,” staff says.

"Significant public engagement"--That's putting it, uh, politely.

A special election will be costly: About $300,000 but some of those costs could be offset, according to the Contra Costa County Elections division, by the fact that the CD10 special election is also scheduled for that day, as are elections involving the city of San Ramon and two local school districts.

Back to the lawsuit: While King tells the Times that it is presumptuous to think Macerich's initiative is an impartial measure, City Attorney Paul Valle-Riestra suggests the lawsuit is presumptuous, in that it asks the court to set aside a decision that had not yet been made yet.