Readers, sorry, this is a long post, but it’s one of the weirder, more disturbing neighborhood disputes I’ve ever come across. The illustration at left says a lot.
On a rainy night two weeks ago, more than 200 residents of Saranap, an older unincorporated neighborhood between Walnut Creek and Lafayette, gathered together. It was the first general meeting of a new campaign called Save Our Saranap.
These were a fraction of the nearly 750 residents who have signed onto this campaign, many anguished and frustrated by a series of disturbing events that have taken place in their neighborhood over the past year.
These events all swirl around on a development, a massive, 66,000-square-foot white domed sanctuary, or “school of worship,” that a Saranap-based religious organization wants to build in their neighborhood.
The organization is called Sufism Reoriented, and the aerial view is above. Sufism Reoriented is based in Saranap and has some 350 members, about half of whom live in there. Save Our Saranap members say they have co-existed with Sufism members peacefully for decades.
Why wouldn’t there be a long history of harmony with Sufism members? After all, Sufism Reoriented says its teachings are “designed for individuals who strive to devote their lives to the love of God through service” and whose members “work in harmony with all religions.” Despite its name, the organization is not affiliated with Islam, but follows the teachings of the late Meher Baba, a spiritual leader from India who chartered the organization in 1952.
Sufism Reoriented also runs the well-regarded White Pony preschool and Meher K-5 Schools in the neighborhood. Some Save Our Saranap members send their children to the Meher school. I, myself, have friends and acquaintances who send or have sent their children to these schools; all report positive educational and social experiences for their kids.
By the way, I don’t live in Saranap, but have friends who do and who have signed onto the Save Our Saranap campaign.
So, what happened to make everything go so wrong?
Late last spring, these friends started telling me head-shaking stories about how their Sufism neighbors were bombarding them with press releases, expensive newsletters, and aggressive door-to-door visits to disseminate information about the project. My friends say the information and the manner in which it was delivered was misleading, evasive, downright deceptive, and condescending. They say Sufism members subtly or overtly played the religious-intolerance card—as in, if you don’t agree with how wonderful this project is, and how wonderful we are, then you are a religious bigot and anti-Sufism.
I myself was contacted by someone advocating the project. He didn’t identify himself as a Sufism member, even though I knew he was. To sell me on the project, he made false claims, such as that there was no opposition even though I knew there was. The communication reminded me of something voiced by a functionary from an Orwellian horror story, a “Freedom-is-Slavery,” denial-of-reality style of propaganda. I immediately understood why my Saranap friends shuddered at the memory of their encounters with Sufism members over this project.
On the face of it, the project sounds oh-so wonderful. The sanctuary would rise on a 3.25-acre site along Boulevard Way. The sanctuary would house classrooms, chorus rehearsal studios, and offices, and those 13 domed structures would be “inspired by Mt. Diablo and surrounding hills.” Sufism Reoriented also claims that the building would be environmentally friendly and would “have little visual impact” on the surrounding neighborhood because two-thirds of it—46,000 square feet—would be built underground.
Best yet, according to Sufism leaders, the project’s designer would be top drawer. The architect would be the world-renowned, Manhattan-based architectural firm Philip Johnson/Alan Ritchie, which built the 101 California Street building in San Francisco, the Crystal Cathedral in Southern California, and Manhattan’s Trump International Hotel and Tower and the “Lipstick” building (from where Bernard Madoff operated his Ponzi scheme) in Manhattan. Meanwhile, the landscaping would be handled by SWA Landscape Design firm, whose clients include the California Academy of Sciences.
So proud is Sufism Reoriented of this proposed project that its leaders say they wouldn’t be surprised if it landed in the pages of Architectural Digest.
My friends and Save Our Saranap leaders contend they never had any objections to Sufism building a new sanctuary in the neighborhood. But, as details emerged, they became concerned about the size and design. They couldn’t see how this big white building—18,000 square feet larger than the new Walnut Creek library and 20 percent larger than the White House—would fit into their neighborhood. It also didn’t make sense that it was being built just to accommodate the activities of Sufism’s 350 members.
“We are not anti-Sufi,” SOS leaders say on their website. “We have neighbors who are Sufis. We have friends who are Sufis. Our concern is that the proposed Sufism Reoriented sanctuary is too large for the site, and needs to be redesigned to be appropriate for our residential neighborhood.”
The situation between Sufism members and non-Sufism members degenerated into outrage and recriminations last summer. There were the two flattering—and in IMHO, insufficiently reported—articles in the Contra Costa Times about Sufism Reoriented and the sanctuary project. One notable thing the Times reporters failed to do was contact the Saranap Community Association, the body that, back then, represented the neighborhood to county planners on development issues. The association was on record as opposing the project because of its size and design.
Also, in documents distributed to neighbors and the press at this time, Sufism was cagey about their project’s size. Even, in its original, supposedly handy-dandy Frequently Asked Question document, it failed to cite square footage in this basic question: “How big will this building be?”
Then came the Saranap Community Association’s annual general meeting on July 10, 2008. My friends and SOS leaders describe the meeting as disintegrating into a “hostile take-over” of the board by Sufism members.
“It was like when the Panzers rolled in as part of their Blitzkrieg,” one Saranap friend told me. He and others say Sufism Reoriented packed the meeting with people sympathetic to its project, and elected two new Sufism members to the seven-member board.
Sufism leaders deny that the takeover was hostile, but one leader, Pascal Kaplan, in a statement that Sufism posted on its website, acknowledges that the meeting got so tense that “three of the three of the incumbent board members and all four of the alternates resigned in a block, leaving a strong majority on the board who are members of Sufism Reoriented.”
Now, with five of the six Community Association board members being Sufism members (as of last count), an alternate neighborhood group has sprung up, called the Saranap Homeowners Organization. Because of this project, this neighborhood now has two associations claiming to represent its interests.
The sanctuary proposal remains in the hands of county planners, who will determine whether an environmental impact report will be required. Meanwhile, the SOS campaign is growing, with its numbers now dwarfing the Sufism membership more than 2 to 1. SOS leaders say Sufism members continue to play the religious-intolerance card and to make misleading claims. One example I found on Sufism’s website: that only “small core of individuals” oppose their project. Check out the online list of residents who have signed on to the SOS campaign and see if those represented constitutes a “small core.”
Here are other key SOS concerns about the project:
— With regard to the eco-friendly, the project will be “very brown” before it becomes green, SOS says. With 46,000-square-feet of the sanctuary underground, the excavation will need more than 3,400 dump truck loads over five months. Rather than “sit lightly on the earth,” as Sufism claims, the project would crash onto the earth, “like a meteor, complete with crater,” SOS says.
–Although Sufism Reoriented describes the sanctuary as “nestling in a glade of trees,” to build it, the plan calls for the destruction of all vegetation and buildings on the site and the removal of all 42 existing trees, including six heritage oaks.
–While the plan describes a park-like setting and two acres devoted to open space, “the development is so massive” that “portions of the garden are grass pavers within the parking lot.”
–This is not a public neighborhood park, as Sufism implies, but private property. Unlike other religious groups, Sufism doesn’t have a tradition of regularly welcoming outsiders into its events or its facilities.
–Those 13 “sloping, saucer domes that mirror the shapes of the surrounding California hills”: SOS says “that’s like saying an oil refinery mirrors the shape of a redwood forest. Stark white, saucer-shaped domes have nothing in common with the hills of California.”
Overall, the 66,000-square-foot size leads SOS members, and me, to question what true long-term goal Sufism Reoriented has in mind. In its online literature, Sufism likes to project an image of modesty and to claim that it doesn’t prosthelytize.
But its own statements also show that it wants to build an architecturally ambitious, internationally admired project. It is therefore reasonable to ask whether this sanctuary is actually designed to host a much larger number of people on a regular basis. Sufism adamantly denies it has grander designs, but the organization’s prior tactics have left my Saranap friends unable to trust what Sufism representatives say.
Also, consider that throughout history, religions—Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims—have built architecturally grand monuments to make grand statements about their world view, to attract new followers, and to spread the word about what they stand for. Sure, these organizations do good works. But history has also shown that religions want to expand the power and wealth of their organizations, and, sometimes, of their leaders.
“I’m beginning to believe that they have their whole identity and future staked on this building,” one Saranap friend told me. “It seems to be the essential centerpiece of all their dreams and illusions of grandeur, and I think they will stop at very little to achieve its establishment.”
SOS just wants Sufism Reoriented to do a better job listening to their concerns “and reduce the size and bulk of the project, provide adequate parking, retain trees, and reconsider the design so it blends in with the Saranap community.”
To sum up, SOS is asking Sufism Reoriented “to be the good neighbors that they have been for many years.”
Crazy in Suburbia 
OMG. I had no idea there were groups like this in the area. That is a huge compound they are planning to build. Thanks for the story, now I’m interested to see how all of this plays out.
LikeLike
“Insufficiently reported” stories? Actually, they were suck-ass. The reporters had, as they say, drunk the Kool-Aid. Soccer Mom, you really think the Times needs to keep going.I hate to say that about the Sufis. I’ve met some and they are decent people, but the way they, or their leaders, have handled this school of worship this is really scary. Thanks for posting that photo. It’s really instructive.
LikeLike
Wow, I had no idea. And I was going to buy a house in Saranap last year. Good thing I found one in a different location.
LikeLike
Wow I do not want this god squad to plant such an ugly piece of garbage in my neighborhood. I don’t see how this building can be interpreted as anything other than a religious show of force. NOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.The traffic increase on Saranap Ave. was bad after the public storage facility went in, I can only imagine the impact this could have.
LikeLike
There are really no ways to stop ‘religious’ instututions from building in neighborhoods. When we were all Leave It To Beaver types, churches were considered as vital to neighborhoods as schools. Thus, no restrictions on what are considered elements to the community.We Are The World. (hehehe, watch out what you wish for)
LikeLike
Think of all the taxes they will have to pay! Oops they’re exempt right? Then maybe we should ask what will this will ending costing taxpayers? (in services, not religious) Or, is asking a hate crime?
LikeLike
I hate to tell you this, but it is highly likely that the project will get built. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 USC §2000cc et seq. (“RLUPA”), provides, in substance, insofar as is pertinent to zoning, that the municipality shall not impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution:(a) Is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and(b) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.(a) and (b) above represent the strictest limitations on government that apply in decision making. Given the strength of RLUPA, the city will have a very hard time stopping this, even if tens of thousands of citizens oppose it. In fact, RLUPA would trump a local measure put to the voters.Good luck with stopping this, but I imagine we will see this come to fruition.
LikeLike
Is this property in city or county jurisdiction? If it’s county, these plans will probably have very little difficulty getting thru the permit process(example ‘big ugly house'(s)on the hills above Parkmead. See CIS’s great series) unless there is strong organized opposition with political clout. I think that the Saranap residents needs to support SOS to stop this project bigot label be damned. A note to Parkmead residents- have you noticed how much influence a certain church has gained in the neighborhood over the last few years? Stay vigilant.
LikeLike
These guys were the ones who forced out the Boulevard Market by raising their rent and then offering to sell them that run down building for $1 million. At least that’s what the store owner had told me, she couldn’t afford to pay that price so out they went.Now the way is clear to build this monstrosity. This cult seems pretty creepy to me. Wonder where they get their money?
LikeLike
My husband grew up in Saranap. We have family are business owners in that area. We have family that rent residential housing to the Sufis. I have friends that send their kids to the schools in Lafayette run by the Sufis.From everyone I’ve spoken with, the Sufis are very well-liked. My family FAR prefers this to the rentals in that area because there are too many burglaries perpetrated by the locals that live in the rentals around there. Boulevard Market used to be De La Rosa’s market. My husband says that $1M for that building and esp. the lot with all of the frontage parking was a fair price.I guess it’s a matter of substance over style. My family prefers having good neighbors who don’t rip them off.
LikeLike
My hubbie also prefers this development over the newer, money-lovin’, pretentious downtown Walnut Creek (rather than the older charming downtown he used to frequent as a kid). He preferred Clifford’s and Love’s to PF Chang’s (we’ve never set foot in a PF Chang’s).
LikeLike
No one says that the Sufis weren’t well-liked or that they don’t run a school that a lot of people value. We just don’t like how they have handled this issue. Maybe not individual members, but the leadership.
LikeLike
Methinks the issue comes down to one side not getting their way.It’s change. There are people in Saranap and around Blvd. Way that will support this.
LikeLike
Methinks the side not getting its way is the Sufis. They threatened to pull up stakes, sell ALL their properties, and leave the neighborhood if they couldn’t get the church just as they wanted. Methinks the people along Boulevard Way who will support it are the Sufi members living the apartments and those that have bought up the property where this “lovely” piece of architecture will be built.
LikeLike
Well, me thinks you are incorrect. I am a long-term resident of Saranap from 1958. Not a Sufi; just an old white guy originally from another state.The Sufis are the best thing that’s happened to this area in a long, long time. They’re the best neighbors and tenants we’ve had. I like that they’re no trouble.Perhaps our focus should be cleaning up the neighborhood.Your post here just reinforces my position. If someone doesn’t agree with you then you’re a Sufi? How ridiculous.Tell me where to write my letter of support.
LikeLike
Concord Blogger,These people have been around for many years. They don’t bother anyone, I’ve never heard any complaints, they’re properties are immaculate.If anything, they enhance neighborhoods. You’re too funny. Your prejudiced against a group that you ‘had no idea there were groups like this in the area.’I’ve never heard of them committing crimes, it’s obvious the Saranap neighborhood doesn’t want them to ‘pull up stakes, sell ALL their property off, and leave the neighborhood.’ OMG, they must be really bad, yes?
LikeLike
oops. typo: You’re not your.
LikeLike
This development equals progress? Anon 2:13. So, f you think this sanctuary is too big, or have concerns about how all the trees and vegetation will be destroyed, you are prejudiced? That’s the line this group, which touts their peace-loving, open-minded, compassionate ways, has tried to shut people up. And if you question why they really need this big of a space for 350 people, you’re also prejudiced. My question in general? WHere is this 350 group getting all the millions it will cost to build this sanctuary? Big name architect, big name landscaper, all that excavation? Why did they change their tax status from non-profit to religious organization? So, that no one would find out that they are more than just a small local worship group? It’s been painful to see people get angry and upset about all this but the Sufis brought it on themselves. That’s nice that they are good clean tenants but that’s not the point.
LikeLike
2:31,Yes, my guess it’s prejudice. You complain because they’re hiring big name companies to work on their project, and you’d complain if they hired no-names to work on the project. Where does the Catholic, Mormon or Evangelical Churches get their money? What I really think is that they’re good at selling God, but I also think that it’s none of my business.Northcreek built a new big-ugly addition to their already unattractive existing one. This certainly can’t be any worse than that.Could they have changed their tax status because it benefitted them financially or does it have to be some big conspiracy?The fact that they are such good neighbors DOES matter. It certainly matters to me, and my voice counts as much as the next Joe.I support them, and I certainly hope they stay.
LikeLike
Great story Soccer Mom. Thanks for the info. Keep us updated.
LikeLike
If you look at the single aerial shot posted on the blog, I admit the planned construction looks awful, like some kind of grounded spaceship. But if you look at the artist renderings on the Sufism Web site depicting the eventual look of the project, the plans look quite lovely, with the eventually mature plantings, and the domes peeking out from among the trees, etc. As a relative newcomer to the area (been in WC for 2 yrs; was in SF for 25 yrs), I have to say this is the first I’ve heard of the Sufism community here and am really intrigued to hear of their presence. I’m hopeful that the center will be a positive thing.
LikeLike
I have mixed feelings about the Sufis. When my son was younger, we met a family through his basketball team. They sent his son to the Meher school. We weren’t happy with the local public school or the system then, at least for my son, so we checked the Meher school out. It seemed great, but something wasn’t right. I watched this video the school produced of the Sufism leader, the murshida, she’s called. She talks about the basic ideals of the school. It was kind of soothing and inspiring, but also weird at the same time. It’s hard to explain. She talked about the “spirit moving abroad” and how special we all were, Americans in the 21st century. She seemed like a saleswoman trying to flatter parents into sending our kids to her school. She was smart and all the people seemed positive and educated, but I got this weird vibe.Then I happened to meet this lovely older woman through work. We became friendly. She lived by herself in one of those apartments off Boulevard Way. She was nice, and one evening, I dropped her off after work and she invited me up to apartment for tea. Her apartment was filled with pictures of Meher Baba and this leader of Sufism, Carole Conner. All over. Every shelf. It was a little bit of cult of personality. That’s when I thought, this is a bit too much for my comfort. This woman I got to know was nice and the murshida seems nice. But something felt off. I guess, almost cult-like. I hate to say that, but it was too much, and we decided not to send my son there.
LikeLike
If they own the property, back off and let them do what they want with it. It is their land and their right… Too many people trying to regulate because their opinion might be offended. No more HOA’s, no more ACLUs, if they own the land, let them be….
LikeLike
I have not made up my mind on the issue after reading the blog, the links and the comments most of which bring up valid points on both sides.I do have questions though:from the Sufi Reoriented web site:“members of Sufism Reoriented have dreamed of building a permanent sanctuary that could house all our activities in the neighborhood where we live.”questions:1. what activities in the neighborhood are going on and where are they housed?2. does the current level of activities fit in the new facility and what is left over?3. what will be the effect on the community of the centralization of the activities, considering that there are only 72 parking spaces there?4. When you build a structure like this you sort of expect that it will be a center of the group to orient on. Will that mean tourism from prior residents who were converted (if the site is private membership only), or does it mean a return to the neighborhood of the past folks and does that even matter in the scope of the discussion.5. Is there any restrictions or general plan sort of conditions that would come to play?6. has there been a finding of environmental impact which includes a range of issues such as traffic, impact on services, population growth and quality of neighborhoods etc>?
LikeLike
Anon 123- Hopefully you do not reside in Saranap or anywhere around WC. Without proper planning, zoning restrictions, and public comment we would have housing all the way up Mount Diablo (the mountain not the street) or porn shops next to schools. Local government regulations can be/are a pain in the ass but it is a necessity for a civilized society. If all of this is too much for you to take, maybe you should relocate to Bophal, India where chemical companies think like you.
LikeLike
Based on my dealings with the pinheads at Walnut Creek Building Department, the building will end up being 2,800 square feet, beige stucco with a brown shingle roof.
LikeLike
Apologies for length, but I read the whole blog and feel a lengthy response is called for:I have lived in Saranap for a few years – I’m not a member of the Sufi congregation. Most posters here seem to agree that Sufis are helpful and have seriously improved the area.So – FIRST: The Sufis DID NOT take over the SCA association: they legally followed the by-laws to gain some representation in the face of a board that was going against its own clearly established precedence in the process it used to review and make recommendations to the county. Then, in a sour grapes move, the other board members resigned and so it made it look as though the Sufis “completely took it over” when the Sufis in fact, did not. To wit. the new SCA Board President is not a Sufi. That, my friends, is the truth of what happened there, and it is easily verifiable. SECOND: To say there is a small group in opposition is 1) true if you count the core opposers. The SOS was created by the old board members and mostly the people whose property is directly adjacent to the site, and 2) true at the time when the Sufis put up the website information in December-ish, no matter what count you use. Quite honestly, there are a lot of massive distortions on the SOS website and so there is no reason for anyone to actually believe the 700+ number. This is the same group that tried to get people to put bumper stickers on their cars to show the high level of opposition. I have yet to see any SOS bumper stickers on cars and I walk the neighborhood regularly.So, the facts are, to counter claims that SoccerMom (who usually gets her facts right) clearly just pulled from the SOS site: 1) The RLUPA law, as someone else posted, makes this situation mute because it applies most specifically to small and unknown groups – which Sufis are.2) The zoning laws allow for a church on that property.3) no trees have been certified as “heritage” – that’s just fear mongering.4) a height variance has CCC precedence on an adjacent property and guess whose property that is: one of the main SOS leaders. It was okay for him to get a height variance, but some how it is not ok for the Sufis, even when their percent of building above the height limit is less than his is?5) The Sufis did some sort of traffic study that fully supports that there will be little or no new traffic, so that’s going to be seen as a mute point.6) The County has repeatedly approved far more ugly buildings.In my opinion, as is true for many small spiritual groups, the Sufis appear to have suffered from a bit of insular thinking about how to conduct PR. I think that if they had started a few years sooner on the newsletters about themselves, folks would have no argument about that piece of it. I sense that perhaps the Sufis felt pressure once they got out there talking with folks and so they compressed a “getting to know us” outreach process which rubbed some folks the wrong way. Of course they see the sanctuary as special and having the potential for admiration – did they make the best statements about how others might see it? Of course not. Since when does a religious group know how to do PR “the right way”? Were they even thinking that way about the Architectural Digest comment? No – they were probably just really proud of it, thinking that others too would find it as beautiful as do they – and that type of thinking is consistent with the Sufis I know. I think people should cut them some slack on this issue. So, they are NOT a cult, but they do have some serious requirements for time service by their members – which is really why, in my opinion, they need/want that much space. I personally think that they will use every inch of the place. They apparently are a respository for Meher Baba items, and he is an international spiritual figure – so that makes sense to me that they would need space for archiving. They also do all this AV stuff and produce full fledged DVDs and so forth – not many small groups do that, so I think they need adequate space for that sort of thing. In sum, I do not think they are lying about keeping numbers small – they just are not “Christmas and Easter” worshippers. AND – Contrary to what’s been said here, they do invite neighbors to events. I’ve been to 5-6 events over the past few years, as have many of my non-Sufi neighbors, and there is NOTHING peculiar going on. If you’d seen the Christmas concerts and plays that are performed, a person can easily why they’d want a couple of big areas for those events. Sure, they have pictures of their spiritual guides around, as Christians often have paintings of Jesus in their homes – you make not like that, but it does not mean that they should not have a place to worship that fits with their own symbols of faith.In sum, since I have seen this situation unfold, the fact is that neighbors just don’t want something big and white and domed in their backyard – this is simply a NIMBY situation – and guess what? The neighbors are just going to have to grow up. In fact – the rhetoric by the neighbors has changed from – “You can’t do that and we’re going to stop you!” to “Please listen to us because we don’t want a white building there” which means to me that they are finally becoming educated about what is going to happen. What I feel that neighbors won’t admit to is that had the Sufis proposed a slant roofed, wooden building of the same size and put a Christian cross on top, many neighbors would not have challenged it at all: there is an acceptance of Christian architecture no matter how against design folks might feel it is. Thank God we have a Constitution that protects small and unknown religious groups who emerge in this country. How else would Muslim (and these Sufis are not Islamic), Jewish, Baha’i, Hindu, Mormon, Zen, Zoroastrian, or Buddhist congregations get anything built? In sum, I ask SoccerMom to do more research before assuming the worst of a very devout and honest group of people. Again, the Sufis need a few lessons in PR, but that should not at all be the measure of them. Also, SoccerMom is a balanced thinker in general and so I hope she takes more time with this. It’s clear that she talked with SOS group members who have filled up the comments section. I only wish she had done the same with Sufi people. ALSO – my sense is that the number of comments is being done intentionally to try to create enough noise to get CC Times to do another story on it. If that’s the case, then I would hope that the CC Times does a complete job of getting both sides to the story. The facts are still the same however: the Sufis will get their sanctuary, and they, like smaller unknown groups before them, will get to decide what kind of building corresponds with their needs and their faith. This is the American way.
LikeLike
Someone asked where to write in support of the Sufis project:RE: Application LP08-2034 / MS08-0011, Sufism ReorientedLaShun CrossCCC PlannerCommunity Conservation & Development Dept651 Pine St, 4th Flr, North WingMartinez, CA 94553-1229T: 952-335-1229F: 925-335-1222Gayle UilkemaSupervisor District 2CCC Board of Supervisors651 Pine St, Room 108AMartinez, CA 94553-1229T: 925-335-1046, 925-646-6067(msg)F: 925-335-1076
LikeLike
Wow 7:04 – Thanks for that information. It really presented a more balanced view of the situation. I live in the area, and that was very helpful.Note to self: always look for information representing both sides of a story before forming an opinion.
LikeLike
This has been an extremely educational group of postings to read. I would imagine that this situation is “classic” and simply characterizes various sorts of conflicts in values, with <>enormous unconscious components<>. The same building can look beautiful or ugly depending on who is seeing it and what underlying feelings percolate through!In this case, there are likely to be projections of various fears about a “religion” that is, or at least appears on the surface to be “different” from what most people are used to. If such fears are unconscious, they can take any form whatsoever! A person can’t be <>responsible<> for what’s not fully conscious.The entire situation seems to me to be one of education…in fact, on ALL sides.I think in the final analysis, the Alan Ritchie building will be seen as an asset by everyone, or almost everyone in the neighborhod. It was rather a low blow to say that Ritchie/Johnson designed the Lipstick Building in NYC “where Bernard Madoff did his thing.” Come on, now.
LikeLike
A new one from “7:04” – the long post from this AM:I re-read what I wrote and in my list of facts, I did not mean to imply that I think the Sufis proposed building is ugly when I said CCC approves many very ugly buildings. I actually think it is a building appropriate to their faith and has beautiful design lines. I simply meant to make the point that CCC does not seem to make a decision based on opinions about what is beautiful and what is not.
LikeLike
Readers,I’m heartened by the range, thought, and heart behind all these comments. I think it’s great to hear from people who have had good experiences with Sufism members as neighbors and tenants and who think they have the right to build their sanctuary as they wish. I also think it’s great to hear from people who are poking around all the related websites to come to their own conclusions, and those who still have questions, who think the building is ugly, who have had less than positive experiences with the organization. It should have been pretty clear from my post that I am biased and am sympathetic to people who organized to raise questions about the project. Some of the people on the list are people I’ve known for a long time and for whom I have a lot of respect. A couple are more outspoken about the project than others, but all have concerns about it. Maybe they are closet anti-Sufism bigots. I don’t think so. I think they are people who formed the concern than some group was trying to pull something over one them. Yes, I did hope to raise the attention of more mainstream news organizations about the situation. That could include the Contra Costa Times. I do think the stories the Times did last summer were pretty one-sided–and lame. They just re-wrote the Sufism Reoriented press releases One commenter complained about my need to do more research. Sure, I can always do more research. But the Times, as our so-called local newspaper of record should have done a hell of a lot more research. It was clear from their stories that they did nothing near what I did, and I’m not getting paid for writing this. I wrote this post because I think this is a local Walnut Creek/Lafayette issue that needs to be explored more thoroughly. If nothing else, the Times missed a hell of a good story brewing, about what one commenter termed a “classic” neighborhood dispute, but one with more than the usual interesting overtones, about religion, aesthetic tastes, land rights, possible NIMBYism. It’s clear that this dispute has left a lot of people on both sides really upset. The fact that this neighborhood now has two associations claiming to represent its interests says a lot, whatever your opinion about who is to blame. So, I would love to see another news organization–if that’s even possible given the state of the news business–do a more thorough story; look into, yes, some of the development and legal disagreements, but also into the underlying sources of tensions. Even though I have my bias, I actually don’t see this in black and white terms. There are a lot of those proverbial shades of gray. I wish I could do that story, but I can’t because of my bias. One poster said the group probably should have done a better job of public relations. That could be the crux of it–not so much PR, but communications and getting out of an insular way of thinking. As much as Sufism says it reached out to the community and tried to be inclusive, it’s clear that the message didn’t get across to a lot of people. And the approach they used was, for some people, very unpleasant. I had my own honestly disturbing encounter with someone from the group. That was a while ago, and maybe Sufism has learned some good lessons. To be fair to the group–yes, I can try to be, despite my Lipstick building/Bernard Madoff swipe–I had a very positive experience with someone else from the group a short time later, just by happenstance, and this person talked a little about the faith, and its relation to other traditions, and it was an interesting, enlightening chat. This person and I never got around to talking about the sanctuary project, which is probably just as well. And actually, I thought the issue had died down and been worked out. I recently learned not, and that’s why I chose to write about it. Thanks again for sharing thoughts and for those who shared good information. We’ll see what happens, and I actually hope that different groups involved can find a way to work things out.
LikeLike
As long as you are listing weblinks, you might list the one for the actual popularly elected neighborhood association, and not just those who are opposed to things (you listed two).That group is the Saranap Community Assosciation, and it represents the concerns not just of area homeowners, but also those of apartment renters, condo owners, duplex owners, and business people in the whole Saranap area that we all love–as well as homeowners. You can learn more at:http://www.SaranapOnline.org
LikeLike
To: Soccer Mom From: A non-Sufi Saranap neighborWell, to your credit, you have now admitted that you carry a level of permanent bias against the Sufis to an extent that you cannot present a non-biased case. It’s too bad you did not admit as much at the beginning of your original blog.Part of the reason I read you regularly is that you have stated you have been a journalist and you have said that you feel there is some journalistic integrity lacking – that in some way, your public relations face has been that your blog provides an alternative to corporate media with its built-in biases. On this topic too I expected to hear that same independent critique’er whom I’ve come to admire when addressing some of the concerns in the WC community – but instead, I find a poorly researched, unverified stack of what amounts to a personal attack. You presented the Saranp situation as if you were a journalist for most of the first two segments, but then a bunch of website quotes from a group that is openly hostile to the Sufis is used as a resource as if everything they posted were a basis in fact. Isn’t fact checking a tenet of proper and unbiased journalism?So, I understand you to say that you had a bad experience with Sufi person. Only after being called on being biased did you admit that you also had a good experience with another Sufi person. It would have been nice to hear that at the outset – shades of gray and so forth.But no! Your response to one reader is not that you will engage in finding out any more actual data, for instance, the data of what happened at the SCA group and instead you cover your head and say that you are unwilling to do anymore than throw one side’s argument up – as if it were the only legitimate view of the situation. That is just not the Soccer Mom I know and respect.So – today – and I just cannot think it is any kind of coincidence at all – a relatively small group of SOS picketers (half of whom were children under 12) was found along Boulevard Way with some “TOO BIG” signs, and gee, a TV crew showed up, and gee, a helicopter was overhead for 10-20 minutes – – – could the timing of your blog have been part of a concerted effort?I think so, and I am thoroughly disappointed with your so-called “coverage” of this situation.
LikeLike
to the person who talked about the Sufis supposedly forcing out the Blvd Way Market:I saw, with my own eyes, and more than once, the Blvd market folks selling alcohol to underage minors. What goes around comes around.
LikeLike
Soccer Mom said:To sum up, SOS is asking Sufism Reoriented “to be the good neighbors that they have been for many years.”According to most readers, the Sufis have been good neighbors, so is Soccer Mom now the publicity firm for the SOS people? What does it mean: be good neighbors? Should the Sufi people > Give up the symbols of their faith? > Make it too small to be effectively useable for their purposes?Seems like the Sufi people could argue that the SOS people are (and the first community group were) not being good neighbors. As I understand it, here these tolerant religious people provide a cheap private school, be good tenants, and clean up the bad lots of garbage for 30+ years and the community association does not even give their plan a proper hearing before voting NO on it.How is that representative?How was that a fair thing to do?yer losin' me Soccer Mom! Please go back to being less biased – you were lots more fun that way
LikeLike
Anon 3:46: Point taken. I will attach the links to the Saranap Community AssociationAnon 6:16 and 6:48: Don’t read my blog if you don’t agree or like what I write. It’s my blog. I do it on my personal time. I express my opinion about issues I care about. I do not work for SOS. I think they raise worthwhile questions that deserve a hearing. That’s why I wrote about their organization and their objections to this project.
LikeLike
Anon 9:53- You were doing so well in your argument in support of the Suffi’s, that I was rethinking some of the reasons I have for my position on the project. It’s too big,it’s not ‘green’, and it’s ugly. However, after reading your well written although inaccurate,bigoted, and inflammable response to the opposition, my feelings against it are even more firm. Unlike Soccer Mom who admits her bias up front, you show yours by omission and deceit. You fail to mention the thousands of yards of soil that will be removed and trucked out of the site. You say no trees have been certified as “heritage”. Even if they haven’t been designated as heritage, if they meet the code requirements for heritage tree designation, that will have to be declared when a permit to remove is applied for. But what really outraged me was your claim (which I cut and pasted here for accuracy)…”What I feel that neighbors won’t admit to is that had the Sufis proposed a slant roofed, wooden building of the same size and put a Christian cross on top, many neighbors would not have challenged it at all: there is an acceptance of Christian architecture no matter how against design folks might feel it is.” You are the worst kind of person. To paint those who oppose this project for its size and design and then state that it’s all about religion is indicative of a true lowlife bigot! Read the following article from the CC Times. COPYRIGHT 2006 Contra Costa TimesByline: Theresa Harrington Sep. 30–A proposed church facility expansion in a residential area of Walnut Creek has sparked controversy among neighbors, including KGO radio personality Bill Wattenburg. Some residents, including Wattenburg’s wife, are appealing a Planning Commission decision granting the expansion at St. Matthew Lutheran Church on Wiget Lane, which they fear will bring more traffic congestion, parking headaches and noise to their quiet streets. The City Council will hear the appeal Tuesday. COPYRIGHT 2006 Contra Costa Times
LikeLike
I was very saddened to see parents proudly standing behind their little children who were holding protest signs against a church.Children don’t hate people on their own…they have to be taught to hate other people.Ms. Soccer Mom: You who rail against child predators! Where is your outrage at this abuse?
LikeLike
8:23: Great comment! And thanks for more information about another controversial church project. 8:42: Yeah, it’s not like the Sufis don’t trot out their kids every chance they get for every conceivable public relations opportunity to show how wonderful, compassionate, humane, and family friendly they are. Just go to their website, or their glorification of their involvement in the Meher school. Wonder what “indoctrination” goes on there?
LikeLike
Come see for yourself.
LikeLike
Anon 8:42- Hate?!?! What has protesting have to do with hate? Again you are spreading a lie! The children were there as part of their families that live in the neighborhood. It is their neighborhood too. They also have a stake in its future. They were also getting a lesson in American civics.They were protesting against the plans for the eyesore. How is that considered hate? You are the one that really needs to take a civics lesson and also learn how to report the truth. You are trying to make the opposition to ‘Starship Galictica’ as being opposed to Sufisism and we ain’t gonna let you do it!
LikeLike
There will always be people who exploit their children for their own purposes. Nice dog-and-pony show.Sarah Palinesque.
LikeLike
The Sufis would NEVER trot out its children or images of children to assert, in a public relations way, its amazing political/religious viewpoint. Give me a break. Just check out Page 8 of the Winter newsletter “Neighborhood Newsletter.” This is the regular newsletter that the organization so kindly shares with its neighbors to tell us just how we need to think about a particular issue. 6 of those 8 pages keep us up to date on how great the sancutary will be. http://www.sufismreoriented.org/_brochures/neighborhood-newsletter-winter.pdfOr check out any of their newsletters, which you can view at http://www.sufismreoriented.org/new_sanctuary/brochures/index.htm Kids, kids, kids. If you want to talk about spreading hate–or at least attempting to indoctrinate students and their parents to take a particular stance about an issue–what about a letter the Sufis distributed to kids at the Mehers schools? http://www.saveoursaranap.org/rebuttals.html
LikeLike
Anon 8:14 – First – re the amount of soil – wht does that have to do with bigotry? Part two to that is that the SOS claim a ridiculous number of truck will be needed. The actual size of trucks used for jobs of that size means that 1/2 or less the number claimed by SOS will be needed. I know this for a fact, given I have had relatives in the construction industry.Re: the trees – the point is that they are not heritage trees NOW, and SOS basically claims that they are – and that’s misleading.Re: the slanted roof – look, if the sanctuary had been tan, you would not care, if the sanctuary had been Christian, not so much fuss at all – it’s because it is white and big and NO ONE ASKED YOU FOR YOUR PERMISSION TO DO IT.
LikeLike
to continue on the last post – …AND DUDE, it’s simply not your property, so thank God there’s an extra Federal law that makes it so that you can’t tell the Sufis what to do with THEIR property.from “the worst kind of human” who happens to believe in property rights…
LikeLike
This reminds me of < HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafayette_Morehouse" REL="nofollow">Lafayette Morehouse<>. What’s up with all these cult-like organizations in this area anyway?
LikeLike
oh give me a break, Morehouse had weird purple cadillacs and weird purple people eaters… not even sure they are still over there.Sufis are toatlly integrated into American society – totally unfair comparison… a spit ball.
LikeLike
Ummm I just saw this story on the News. They showed pictures of the proposed building from ground level. The pictures were surprisingly beautiful. I don’t get it?? Save our Saranap from what?????
LikeLike
And here I thought I was going to be bored once I moved from San Francisco to the suburbs — but no! Sufis! Controversy! Lafayette Morehouse! I didn’t know about any of this before. I love the blogosphere and I’ve become a regular reader of Claycord and Crazy in Suburbia and don’t know what I’d do without them (and even though I’m currently partial to the Sufi building, I figure I don’t know enough about it yet, and also, on a related note about another post above, people who expect blogs to be unbiased just aren’t keeping up with the times. It’s a blog, not a newspaper article. Bloggers express their opinions. C’mon.)
LikeLike