Vote yes on Measure I.
by Don Blubaugh

For weeks, I have contemplated how best to write about the Walnut Creek flap over Neiman Marcus coming to town. I have a vested interest. I live here and worked hard during my tenure as city manager to help shape the future of Walnut Creek.

There are many avenues to discuss but the bottom line is that this project is good for Walnut Creek, produces sorely needed revenue in difficult times, and, contrary to the utterances of the naysayers publicly leading the opposition, will not produce horrendous traffic and parking problems as alleged.

I have voted yes on Measure I and hope you do also.

Let’s look first at the roots of the battle. It is not uncommon for some to wonder about whether this project is good for Walnut Creek. It is appropriate to question and challenge. Often this makes projects better. The opposition leadership in this case, however, comes from a small core group of people who have repeatedly never said yes to anything about Walnut Creek, have never worked toward solutions “… always just opposed, nor have they done anything to help shape this community into what it is today.

It is easy to be against something but hard to have a vision for the future and work to create it. There will be a few followers of this negative line of thinking, but mostly the community is happy with its city and its elected leadership.

It is almost criminal to see that over $1 million will be spent on this campaign.

Most of this money comes from two sources, both outside the community. Flashy and slick advertising, political polling, extra ordinary public outreach beyond the norm, paid petition-signers and other campaign efforts have been funded by the Taubman Realty Group, who wants Neiman Marcus somewhere in its holdings outside but near Walnut Creek.Macerich, the owners of Broadway Plaza finds it necessary to defend its proposal. Walnut Creek voters have become pawns in these competitors’ game. Each is attempting to outdo the other. Absent the bankrolls of these two retail giants, it is not likely we would face this election. If only that $1 million could have been spent on something worthwhile.

There are bogus arguments in this campaign. Those opposed suggest there is no guarantee that Neiman Marcus will come. Why would Neiman Marcus not come to Walnut Creek? The demographics of the area and the Plaza’s retail mix are compatible. The company has said it wants to be here and signed a lease to do so.

Opponents also suggest the company is getting a free ride on parking. This is not the case. In addition to the $1 million in transportation improvements Macerich will fund as part of this project approval, Macerich has pioneered the use of valet parking to entice customers, and the stacked parking arrangement for employees that will be employed is tried and true and will work.

Why would Macerich plunder the community and its own interests with inadequate parking when the essence of retail is location and provision of adequate parking? My experience is that retailers want more parking than government requires, not less. Besides, outside the peak Christmas season look at the many, many vacant parking spaces at the Broadway Plaza.

Opponents also allege Neiman Marcus will generate more traffic, parking nightmares, downtown gridlock. I have heard these arguments over and over again. Traffic generated by Neiman Marcus pales compared to other major retailers. Don’t believe these absurd claims. There will be no gridlock and no parking problems. These are old, worn out arguments used by the opposition over and over again.

Opponents also suggest the language of the ballot measure is flawed. It is not. But no ballot measure was needed at all. The naysayers in this campaign and their sugar daddy financiers have twice paid petitioner gatherers to launch a ballot measure opposing this project. Out of self-defense Macerich has countered with its ballot measure. So, the opponents started this mess and now cry foul over language used in the measure.

Measure I should not be on the ballot at all! But it is for reasons noted. A yes vote is needed to support the long-term integrity of land use planning for Walnut Creek; planning that has studied and factually supported projects like this; planning that has produced this great community.

Neiman Marcus fits with the higher-caliber stores so prevalent in this major regional shopping center, creates new jobs, pays its way and generates revenue in support of the excellent city services we all receive.

###

Blubaugh is former Walnut Creek city manager and member of the citizen editorial board.

Share This

Before the progressive movement swept through California in the early 20th century, there was a growing sense throughout the state that Sacramento had ceased working for regular Californians.

Shackled by special interests and rife with corruption, the capitol had become a playground for corporate lobbyists who exerted unfettered control over the legislative agenda.

Over time, public displeasure with the system became public disgust. Reformers of every stripe began to speak out against the corruption and graft in Sacramento.

Once relegated to the political periphery, suffragists, environmentalists, labor activists and good government groups began to coalesce under the banner of “progressivism,” which aimed to take back the state from the party bosses and corporations that were perceived to be running it into the ground.

What a difference 100 years makes.

Today, Californians are similarly disgusted with the state of affairs in Sacramento. Last week’s Field Poll on voter attitudes painted a comically bad picture for the state legislature, with only 13 percent of those polled registering approval. And although he doubled the legislature’s score, Governor Schwarzenegger can hardly brag about his own 27 percent approval rating.

A second poll released by Field indicated significant voter support to overhaul state government from the ground up. Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo stressed the importance of the numbers, noting that “a majority sees the need for making fundamental changes to the state constitution and would support calling a constitutional convention to develop the reform proposals.”

In short, people are fed up.

Former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown likes to say that the system is not the problem; the problem is the people who run the system.

Of course, Brown just meant to say that when he was Speaker, the system worked. And while that may be true to some degree, just about everybody in California and around the globe believes that the Golden State’s problems run deeper than personnel.

There is a growing feeling that California has reached a tipping point. Most agree that we need both – new leadership and a reformed, renewed system – to effectively right the ship. If history is any indication, a new age of reform may be around the corner.

In 1910, California progressives were led by gubernatorial candidate Hiram Johnson. Johnson was a reluctant candidate but he embodied the progressives’ overwhelming desire to give Sacramento back to the people. His candidacy was infused with a spirit of renewal that helped galvanize the disparate agendas within the progressive bloc. Upon taking office, the fiery reformer began to deliver on his promises.

Johnson’s governorship represented a sea change in Sacramento politics.

In addition to rooting out corruption and graft, he also built a civil service system based on merit rather than political patronage. He broke the backs of the party bosses and special interests by building innovative direct democracy tools into the constitution such as the recall, the referendum and the public initiative.

Ironically, California State Supreme Court Chief Justice Ron George recently gave a speech in which he assailed the initiative process for “rendering our state government dysfunctional,” proving again that 20th century reforms may themselves need to be reformed for the 21st century.

Just like 100 years ago, reform fever is breaking out across California.

Labor groups, corporations, non profits, city and county governments, newspaper editorial boards and a host of reformers on both the right and the left seem to recognize that California now teeters on the edge of its own destruction.

Regardless of ideology or agenda, the new reformers are united in their determination to make California work again, to wrest the levers of power from the special interests and to eliminate the structural failures that have rendered the state dysfunctional.

One hundred years ago, Hiram Johnson led a citizens’ revolt. Will a new reformer emerge to galvanize today’s movement?

Memo to Democrats: Hiram Johnson was a moderate Republican.

Before the progressive movement swept through California in the early 20th century, there was a growing sense throughout the state that Sacramento had ceased working for regular Californians.

Shackled by special interests and rife with corruption, the capitol had become a playground for corporate lobbyists who exerted unfettered control over the legislative agenda.

Over time, public displeasure with the system became public disgust. Reformers of every stripe began to speak out against the corruption and graft in Sacramento.

Once relegated to the political periphery, suffragists, environmentalists, labor activists and good government groups began to coalesce under the banner of “progressivism,” which aimed to take back the state from the party bosses and corporations that were perceived to be running it into the ground.

What a difference 100 years makes.

Today, Californians are similarly disgusted with the state of affairs in Sacramento. Last week’s Field Poll on voter attitudes painted a comically bad picture for the state legislature, with only 13 percent of those polled registering approval. And although he doubled the legislature’s score, Governor Schwarzenegger can hardly brag about his own 27 percent approval rating.

A second poll released by Field indicated significant voter support to overhaul state government from the ground up. Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo stressed the importance of the numbers, noting that “a majority sees the need for making fundamental changes to the state constitution and would support calling a constitutional convention to develop the reform proposals.”

In short, people are fed up.

Former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown likes to say that the system is not the problem; the problem is the people who run the system.

Of course, Brown just meant to say that when he was Speaker, the system worked. And while that may be true to some degree, just about everybody in California and around the globe believes that the Golden State’s problems run deeper than personnel.

There is a growing feeling that California has reached a tipping point. Most agree that we need both – new leadership and a reformed, renewed system – to effectively right the ship. If history is any indication, a new age of reform may be around the corner.

In 1910, California progressives were led by gubernatorial candidate Hiram Johnson. Johnson was a reluctant candidate but he embodied the progressives’ overwhelming desire to give Sacramento back to the people. His candidacy was infused with a spirit of renewal that helped galvanize the disparate agendas within the progressive bloc. Upon taking office, the fiery reformer began to deliver on his promises.

Johnson’s governorship represented a sea change in Sacramento politics.

In addition to rooting out corruption and graft, he also built a civil service system based on merit rather than political patronage. He broke the backs of the party bosses and special interests by building innovative direct democracy tools into the constitution such as the recall, the referendum and the public initiative.

Ironically, California State Supreme Court Chief Justice Ron George recently gave a speech in which he assailed the initiative process for “rendering our state government dysfunctional,” proving again that 20th century reforms may themselves need to be reformed for the 21st century.

Just like 100 years ago, reform fever is breaking out across California.

Labor groups, corporations, non profits, city and county governments, newspaper editorial boards and a host of reformers on both the right and the left seem to recognize that California now teeters on the edge of its own destruction.

Regardless of ideology or agenda, the new reformers are united in their determination to make California work again, to wrest the levers of power from the special interests and to eliminate the structural failures that have rendered the state dysfunctional.

One hundred years ago, Hiram Johnson led a citizens’ revolt. Will a new reformer emerge to galvanize today’s movement?

Memo to Democrats: Hiram Johnson was a moderate Republican.

Share This

Share This

Starting at 7pm tonight, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District will cut its service by 25% during non-peak periods (ie, most of the time). This compares unfavorably to AC Transit’s 15% service cut, and was not accompanied by a public input process like the one AC Transit has undertaken in recent weeks. (Full story)

Share This

I was riveted to the television recently watching the events of Ted Kennedy’s death and all that followed leading to his burial at Arlington National Cemetery.

Three things struck me about the events. First was the outpouring of love from his family members. It is easy in the world of politics and fame to leave behind those that are close to you. Kennedy had his priorities in order.

Second, his life was congruent but not perfect. His belief in support of those less fortunate, for middle-class American and for seniors was real and not a political front. He spoke what he believed. His views were not shaped by a zeal for re-election. For those who shared his views and respected the man, there was much public outpouring.

Third, and most important, was the respect shown for him by two political adversaries — Orrin Hatch and John McCain. While Kennedy was honored as a Lion of the Senate, these two adversaries, lions in their own right, were among his close friends. They could set aside their philosophical views on politics and fashion compromise, as they did numerous times, in the best interests of the American people.

They did this without compromising principle but by realizing in a world of differing views, it is best to find common ground rather than victory. By doing so, politicians serve the public and not themselves.

There is something nostalgic about what I saw. Because we see so little of it today. I yearn to see more of this in our legislators in Sacramento and Washington.

Civility and collaboration have eroded, brought on by the extremists of both political parties gaining control of their candidates. To these there is little tolerance of any point of view other than the one they hold, and they turn against even their own if the line is not toed.

Add to this term limits here in California and it is virtually impossible to achieve any bipartisan accord because there is no legislative history and no opportunity to develop trust, camaraderie and respect among our legislators so that they might act for the common good.

What is left are partisan bickering and inaction, and a public that views politicians with diminishing favor.

We must demand more of those whom we elect to office; we must reject extremist’s views and be more tolerant of each other. We need to lessen the invective and study issues for ourselves.

When we do not, we allow an environment that fosters calling the president a Nazi, questions the motives of the president speaking to our kids about the need to stay in school and work hard, or misleads people to believe death panels are included (not true) in proposed health care legislation.

We need to study more and not listen to the rhetoric that flows from extremists among us. We could begin by reading and listening to advocates of both sides of an issue. If you are tuned only to the Fox News Channel or MS-NBC, you are limiting your input on issues. Public policy is more than a sound bite or name calling. It requires some work to sort out the facts from rhetoric, but that’s what we must do.

Until we do that, the likes of Kennedy, Hatch and McCain will be few and far between. They could be the last of an era, and we will suffer for it.

###

Blubaugh is a member of the Times citizen editorial board and a former city manager of Walnut Creek, Fremont and Martinez.

Share This

Share This

Rome is burning. But this time, the reformers aren’t fiddling.The CCC – California Constitutional Convention – can’t happen soon enough.

The alarming spectacle of our state capitol going up in smoke has moved the Bay Area Council – a Northern California group of business leaders led by its savvy executive, Jim Wunderman – to call for a constitutional convention to repair California state government.

I have known Wunderman since he was a young star in the office of then-San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein. Over 20 years, he has evolved into one of the state’s true leaders. Fed up with the dysfunction in Sacramento, Wunderman hatched the idea of a constitutional convention to set things straight.

The proposal has caught on.

In an unusual turn of events, California citizens are listening to a business group. By a 59% majority, state voters favor a convention to rewrite California’s constitution.

The Los Angeles Times, San Jose Mercury News and Sacramento Bee have backed the convention with editorials. Longtime Capitol observers such as the Bee’s Dan Walters and George Skelton of the Times have given up on the legislature’s ability to self-correct and strongly endorsed the idea.

Widespread support from local governments and citizens signals that a constitutional convention may really occur.

The proposal on the drawing board calls for a 2010 initiative to empower the citizens to call a convention, a reform convention in 2011, and a set of proposals on the 2012 ballot alongside President Barack Obama.

But the voters patience may not last that long. Experts predict another budget crisis lurking around the corner that will fire voter disgust and ignite the kind of popular explosion that produced Proposition 13 in 1978.

We may see the citizens marching on Sacramento as early as 2010. It would be good for our state if they did.

I think a new beginning – symbolized by a remaking and renewing of our system of governance – is exactly what a constitutional convention would bring.

I’m not surprised by the growing firestorm of protest. When I first started running campaigns, I got a rush every time I went to Sacramento to fraternize with legislators, meet with staffers and strategize with the Senate Pro-Tem. But as time wore on, the corrupt culture of Sacramento became profoundly debilitating.

Otherwise honest leaders maneuvered within a corrupt system in which special interests legally controlled legislators with campaign contributions instead of bribes.

Small-time politicos acted like they were big-time power brokers. Big-time interests acted like small-time thugs to protect their turf.

Matters have only gotten worse since 2000. Term limits have turned legislators into lobbyists’ puppets. The 2/3 requirement to approve budgets and new taxes has ushered in minority rule. Our reliance on the income tax has robbed the state of a stable, predictable revenue stream to finance government. Special interests have contributed more than $1 billion to state campaigns since 2001. They have blocked vital reforms in our prisons and schools.

Budgeting the biggest state in America and the globe’s sixth largest economy has become an embarrassing exercise in gerrymandered accounting and month-to-month robbery of cities to pay the state’s bills.

Reform candidates for the legislature face an amoral avalanche of smears and character assassination via special interest-financed television commercials and mailings. I speak from personal experience: In 2006 when my wife, Janet, ran for the Assembly, she was targeted with a $3 million smear campaign by Sacramento interests.

Still, a constitutional convention can succeed.

Reform initiatives must have three elements to win. First, they must save taxpayers money. Second, they must reduce bureaucracy and decrease the size of government.
Third, they must benefit the many, not the few – the public interest, not the special interests. A constitutional convention will accomplish all three objectives.

Nevertheless, reform proposals all face the same special interest assault. Somewhere in the fine print, opponents will find fodder for a red herring attack. A massive media campaign will then manufacture the bogeyman.

But today there is no greater bogeyman than the decades of decadence and dysfunction in Sacramento. The Capitol’s last hurrah may be upon us.

Share This

Share This

For the past few years, bloggers, TV reporters, industry analysts and even some newspaper people themselves have argued that daily newspapers are dead.

There are several reasons why this is not the case.

Those that predict newspapers’ demise cite dwindling subscription rates, dramatic cuts to editorial staff and coverage, and investors’ demands to increase profits at publicly held papers.

Others note a more fundamental problem, that by the time they are printed, the stories and classified advertisements are literally old news. In today’s age of social media, sites like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube deliver instant information. Many people now get breaking news on their cell phones. When they want to advertise a service or product, most do so for free on sites like Craigslist.

The traditional “paperboy” system of disseminating news and ads has been replaced by online content.

But are the early eulogies really warranted?

Technology has changed the medium for delivering news and the expectations of a new generation of consumers have changed accordingly.

Generation Y, the Net Gen, or the “Millennials,” have grown up with computers, the Internet and the emergence of social media. They communicate differently than previous generations and have a shorter attention span.

Many newspapers are responding to their demands, but their financial model has lagged behind.

The news delivery method has been in a state of constant evolution since the first Roman newspaper in 84 BC. Yet, newspapers have survived for more than 2,000 years.

Whether news is printed on paper or delivered electronically does not change the essential purpose of news organizations — to deliver timely facts about events and act as a guide to what is important in our society.

In many ways, the information age has caused a major shift in how news agencies cover local, national and international news.

Large dailies that once focused more on local news are now relying more on syndicated services and standard lifestyle features to fill their pages. Prep sports, in-depth investigative reporting and other staples are shrinking.

Local news is often covered in greater depth by alternative sources online. But relying on bloggers and online feeds for news has its perils. What about quality and veracity? Even as new information sources sprout up, we still look to professionals for reliable, accurate information.

Yes, a free press is a constitutionally protected right. But news is also a business dependent on securing advertisers and attracting subscribers. To survive and thrive, news organizations must change their business model. Newspapers can no longer afford to give news away.

The solution may include a subscription model, registration model, advertising model (banners, videos, pay-per-click) or some novel mechanism yet to be invented. At the end of the day, media companies will have to develop an innovative approach to delivering the news in a way that generates cash.

There are plenty of organizations that still see a successful business in the production and distribution of news to hungry information consumers.

For example, nuAlerts, a Pleasanton-based startup company, allows residents to receive real-time alerts from their favorite organizations for local news, promotions, events, jobs and special offers within their community through 40-plus social networking/media sites, including Facebook, Twitter, and iGoogle via the Tri-Valley nuAlerts digital billboard.

Newspapers and news organizations are not going anywhere. But how we receive the news — via phone, e-book reader, laptop or digital billboards — has already changed and will continue to evolve at a dramatic pace.

###

Brink is the president and CEO of the Tri-Valley Business Council. He serves as the Tri-Valley’s citizen editorial board member. For more information and a full bio, visit www.baypress.org.

Share This

Share This