The impact of Regency's lawsuit

<p>The news that the proposed Regency shopping center is suing the city shook things up in this old town last week, and may well influence this year's political sideshow known as the annual elections.</p><!-- Nothing to do. The paragraph has already been output --><p>As 2009 limped out the door, the political crystal ball looked like this: Mayor Torliatt was figured to be the early-line betting favorite for the Board of Supervisors job, with two of her fellow council members, one former council member, and that fellow from Penngrove challenging to take the seat being vacated by Mike Kerns.</p><p>Torliatt had just one problem she needed to resolve: Two shopping centers were trying to get city approval, and neither she nor her three “progressive” sidekicks on the council showed any inclination whatsoever to approve either one. The Regency center next to the fairgrounds wants to put in a Target store, while Deer Creek Village on North McDowell wants to bring in Lowe's. This is problematic for aspiring Petaluma politicians, because improved shopping opportunities enjoy great popularity east of the freeway, where almost two-thirds of the city's votes are entrenched.</p><p>Then, just before the end of the year, a deal was brokered (with Torliatt getting the credit) to add Friedman's Home Improvement Center to the Regency package. This would have served two purposes: The first supposedly making the Regency project more palatable to the anti-shopping center bloc that is the “progressives'” core constituency, and at the same time provide an excuse to keep Lowe's out of Petaluma. Locally owned big business is supposed to be better than corporately owned big business.</p><p>However, as the mayor discovered at the first January meeting, her supporters had no intention of going along with any compromise. As the council met to approve the environmental impact report, a packed house showed up determined that the council would do otherwise.</p><p>As the issue was introduced, the mayor asserted that the issue was going to be continued for several weeks for further review. Then the majority of four started picking apart an issue that has been on the table for about five years, in one form or another. Draconian conditions such as making Target pay a substantial penalty if they close the store in the future, or allowing the council to decide which businesses were allowed to operate in the center, were suggested.</p><p>Sideline analysts surmised that perhaps the majority's strategy would be to approve the center, but put such onerous conditions on it that Regency could not afford to build it.</p><p>So it looked like perhaps the majority was going to have it both ways, but Regency, which has put up with the council's wavering and stalling for years, finally had enough, and filed their lawsuit contending that continual delays have cost Regency dearly.</p><p>The council, presiding over a city that is so cash-strapped that they had to fire the entire planning department, already faces one potentially costly lawsuit because they then defied public opinion and fired the non-paid, politically diverse Planning Commission as well.</p><p>The majority, which has always enjoyed support from unions, has now seen the city's unions turn against them because the city is not pursuing the kind of revenue sources that would protect jobs.</p><p>The Regency lawsuit also yanks the rug from under Torliatt, as well as her colleague' David Glass, who wants to succeed her as mayor. For five years, Regency has been passive as the city has marched them up and down the hill and around the block, but no more. Not only is Regency fighting back, but they are fighting back in court.</p><p>Target, meanwhile, also entered the fray. In two strongly worded letters to the mayor, the retailer first dealt with the council's micro-managing majority, stating example after example that showed they were in over their head, and then stating flatly Target has no intention of agreeing to the “vacancy tax” idea that was being floated.</p><p>So, the mayor and her colleagues are in a bind. If they plunge forward to keep their supporters happy, they are going to be spending election year with a lot of legal-based headlines saying unflattering things about them, reminding voters of why they have to drive out of town to shop. If they yield and approve the Target center, they risk losing those very workers that put them in office in the first place.</p><p>(Don Bennett, a business writer and consultant, has been involved with city planning issues since the early 1970s. He serves on the Sonoma County Planning Commission. His e-mail address is dcbenn@aol.com.)</p>