Streets of Brentwood Responds After Booting Veterans

45

1149165_10201545543587924_170712212_o1147520_10201545542427895_703069436_o

In response to a Saturday story we posted regarding the management at the Streets of Brentwood booting veterans out of the facility for peacefully protesting Jane Fonda playing Nancy Regan in the “The Butler”, the Red Legacy, LLC. has issued the following statement.

The response was issued after the company received several emails/letters from our readers stating their opposition to the “booting” and vowed not to shop there in protest.

On Friday afternoon, August 16th, a small group of people gathered outside the AMC Theater at The Streets of Brentwood.  This group was protesting the casting of Jane Fonda as Nancy Reagan in The Butler. After a brief conversation, the General Manager of The Streets of Brentwood asked the group to leave the property and they did.  Since then, several people have written and called to complain that The Streets of Brentwood was wrong to deny this group their freedom to protest.

The Streets of Brentwood, its management and owners all respect an individual’s right of expression. It is our job to make The Streets of Brentwood a friendly and inviting place for families and individuals to shop, dine and relax. We have a process in place for groups who wish to stage a peaceful public protest. In the case of the individuals protesting The Butler this process was not followed. It is important that management be allowed to retain some control over the type and location of protest on the private property so that we can ensure full enjoyment by all Shopping Center patrons.

For groups who wish to stage a protest at The Streets of Brentwood, we need to know the subject being protested, the number of protesters expected and the date and time the event is planned to occur. These details need to be prearranged with management. For further details call the shopping center management office at (925) 516-8500. If this group would be willing to follow the process for conducting a peaceful protest at The Streets, we would be happy to have them.

Dave Claflin
Marketing
[email protected]
816.777.2852 Direct Dial

According to Mr. Claflin, the company does not have the contact information of those involved but encourages them to reach out to him if they choose so.


45 COMMENTS

    • Jim, which part of PRIVATE PROPERTY are you struggling with? The owners just stated that with advance notice and approval you can protest on their PRIVATE PROPERTY.

      I’m wondering, if I have an issue near and dear to my heart, can I set up shop on your front lawn? Even if it’s an issue you don’t agree with? As long as I ask first, should be no problem, right? Since you can’t possibly be applying a double standard here.

      Are people really not understanding the basics? Because a corporation owns it there is a difference than if the property is owned by an individual? is that the assumption? Or do you not understand the granted, but limited rights to use of a mall?

      Look up the term sense of entitlement before you offer a knee jerk response. I’ve carried a protest sign or two in my time. I had the sense to respect private property in the process. What’s so hard about that?

      • Yes it’s private property, and the owners are within their rights. And yes veterans ought to follow the same process as everyone else, that is fine. But veterans do deserve to be honored. If Streets of Brentwood management could not make an exception, they could at least pay some lip service to honoring them. But there is not even a word of thanks to the veterans for their service – which incidentally protects their rights to have that property.

        If American veterans mean absolutely nothing to Streets of Brentwood Management, as this dismissal seems to indicate, exercise your rights to shop elsewhere. I have pre-orders with a business there I will be cancelling.

      • JigsUp… are we really to beleive you are so obtuse that you are unable to recognize an opinion? And further, that the opinion will determine the posters future business dealings at the business he has made an opinion about? Does not matter one bit that it is private property, he can determine any criteria he chooses for himself on whether he shops there or not in the future. I thougbt that with all your other posting personas you use here (ECV et al) that you’d be better at this by now…

        • Sorry once again Medium Rare, but “Jigs” and I are not the same individual. Then again, this wouldn’t be your first wrong assumption.

          It must be a great source of frustration to always be wrong as evidenced in your posts. You must be used to it by now, so at least you have that.

          For the record; I support “vets” and anyone that provides for our safety, freedoms & democracy. With out this, you crybabies wouldn’t have a blog to “protest” your perceived rights. You really don’t get it do you?

          Jigs had it right….Too bad it was way over your head.

          • ECV/JiggsUp/B-Wood/Green Leader/Green this… you’re all one person. Confirmed. Nice way to put words in my mouth. I merely pointed out that both of your current personas are ignorant in the ways of debate and Jim was expressing an OPINION based decision. One that many others here agree with. I don’t need to spell it out, anyone can clearly see what I mean. Trolls are bad. Trolls that speak to themselves in multiple personas online are a danger to themselves and others. You all (figuratively) need to get some help. I’ll just call all of you Sybil from now on. The only crime here Sybil is the one your parents did to you to make you this way.

          • Guess I should have read further down. You’re Jane Fonda now too? Man, one thing to have multiple online personalities, much different to also switch hit.

          • @Medium Rare,

            Calling me names now? Sybil? That’s the best you can muster?

            Ironic that a month or so ago you couldn’t decide to call yourself Medium Rare or Scarecrow. Apparently you have now conveniently forgot about your last little tantrum and identity crisis? Thought so.

            You are a real case study.

        • Medium, thank goodness for you ignorance is not a crime, because you would be doing the time.

          You demonstrate your superior intellect by agreeing it makes sense to punish a specific business or tenant for something the landlord did?

          Genius, I tell ya. Absolute genius.

        • I’m afraid your tinfoil hat is about 2 sizes too small there, MR. If by “confirmed” you mean you are listening to those voices in your head again, well that explains a lot.

    • It is called the RIGHT to peacefully protest not the privilege to peacefully protest. The day and time that you need to get permission to excercise your rights is the day that America is no longer. Also, if these protestors are outside the building they are not on Private Property!

      • I am an owner of a local private security company. Please understand everything inside the county marked property lines, inside a building or outside, is still private property. Example: If someone is in your backyard they are still on private property, even though they aren’t inside your home. Same applies in a shopping center. All property owners rules have to be respected and followed by all no exceptions or then you lose control of your property.

        • They can go ahead and protest on the streets then. If people like the WBC can protest service member’s funerals veterans can peacefully protest in close vicinity without being on the property.

  1. They should have started with an apology to the four veterans and then explain the process. I am with Jim, no shopping there for me until there is an apology.

  2. The way to protest is to not shop there. No apology then they don’t get my business. A lot of people still remember what Jane did and don’t watch anything she has a part in.

    • We have not shopped at the Streets of Brentwood and will not until We here about a real apology!!! We will just have to find other places to spend the trust fund!!! $$$$$$ Respectfully. 2 LT Klug (Ret)

  3. i too will support this ban….of all the people who could have played this role, it should not have been her. it is like a slap in the face to those who have loved and served this country…the reagan’s being two of them.

  4. Why don’t they ask the foul mouthed, sagging pants people to leave? When I used to shop there (which I am not doing now) they made me and a lot of others uncomfortable. Soldiers, who were extremely hurt by Hanoi Jane, have a right to let people know what a traitor she is to our country. I will not shop at the Streets until a real apology is issued.

  5. I did read about some protester were asked to leave , but I was not aware of why .. now that I am, I will NOT be shopping the streets of brentwood .
    They fought for the right to protest and earned it.. the management of the sstreets should
    Have let them do their protest since it was peaceful. . And the person is right , they should have a policy about exposing ones underwear in public… that we can support.

  6. I don’t go there any way and do protest Jane Fonda in the movie. However, going back to replies to the original post several days ago, many did not think this is private property. Many thought this is public, it is not so I do understand their requirements. Target does the same thing.

  7. All that statement says is that protests are allowed. Ok, now Mr. Claflin needs to explain why Streets of Brentwood Property Manager Kristen Weideman never told the Vietnam Veterans of this policy when she kicked them out. She should have allowed them to prearrange another protest or continue with this one as no one had raised a concern about it, and it was quite small, orderly, and civil. Why isn’t that policy available as a handout for potential protesters?

    The fact that Ms. Weideman said that these Veterans presented a negative reflection on her property says all I need to know about RED Legacy and The Streets of Brentwood. Shame on them!

    Someone needs to apologize to these four Veterans. It should come from the Property Manager who insulted them, but if she can’t bring herself to do it then it should come from someone else on the management team.

  8. There has to be some control by management! When protests (depending on what they’re protesting) get out of control, property damage occurs or people get hurt. This is a shopping center folks, where there are small children and narrow streets. There are no guarantees that it won’t get out of hand either way, but at least if its a registered protest, someone can be held responsible.

  9. Just FYI. Private Property that is open to the public does not have the same rights as private property that is not. The constitution for free speech and the right to assemble does come into effect because although it is privately owned, it is a public place. By making accommodations with conditions they are doing thier due diligence and therefore in compliance. You will find that many municipalities also have ordinances that put conditions on the same sorts of activity and are often used and upheld by the courts.

  10. I appreciate all you folks not wanting to shop at the Streets anymore. Now it will be easier to park.

    Private property folks. Look it up and be thankful most shopping centers have a rule about protesters. Come Christmas time you wouldn’t be able to get near a store without being bombarded with similar inane protests.

  11. This is ridiculous! I respect our servicemen. Hell, I have family in the military. I think the protest was a little off thou. Some of you just need to agree to disagree. You are going to find this kind of thing everywhere. As for you people that say you won’t shop there anymore, you know that’s a lie! Especially you women. Come the holidays, we’ll see you all there 🙂 And for the comment on the baggie pants, feeling uncomfortable around those types of people…that’s everywhere too! My god, I just laugh at people like that. Life’s to short. There is no “take two”. Live your life being happy and enjoying things that make you, your family and friends happy too. Pay it forward! Minutes spent complaining and being negative, are minutes you’ll never get back…

  12. “Many of you will be there come Christmas.” True. Many of the retail clerks that have protested about WalMart can easily be found on camara shopping at WalMart. They forget that little thing.

  13. I agree with the reason the Veteran were protesting . But I don’t understand why people are going to boycott the Streets business. How is not shopping there hurting the management company? You’ll only hurt the actual businesses. Employees thus could lose jobs. I don’t think the Veterans intend that to happen. They have the right to protest but the Management has the right to protect the investment of the owners. Please find another way to express your displeasure with the Management then boycotting the businesses. They’re becoming an unintended victim of all this. We do have the right to assemble and protest, but private property owners have the right to protect their property. The Veterans needed to be on Public property, but even there they would to follow the guidelines of the jurisdiction they’re in. .

  14. The businesses should step up and let the management company know they expect am apology for the Veterans.

    And the management company does indeed have financial interest in their lessee’s revenue. Look at a lease. They very much need these businesses to succeed in order to make their profit.

    Private property that is open to the public and commerce is not comparable to private property that is intended for purely private use and is not otherwise open to the public. The management mop any is well aware of this even if some posters here are not. They were completely out of line when they booted the Veterans off the property and said they were a negative reflection on the mall. They know it, which is why they issued the statement admitting their policy is to allow for peaceful protests.

    My suggestion to the management company: apologize, respectfully assist the Veterans schedule another protest, and take a nice picture with big smiles that demonstrates how much you say you respect our Veterans.

  15. When the businesses hear from people who will not be shopping there, they can make their feelings known. What I don’t spend at the Streets will be spent elsewhere, so no job impact.
    The shop owners can certainly let the management of the shopping center know that they do not want to lose customers.

  16. https://www.aclunc.org/issues/freedom_of_press_and_speech/rights_of_demonstrators/location.shtml

    In California, the courts recognize big malls as the modern-day “functional equivalent” of a traditional public gathering place, because they have “common areas that would invite the public to meet, congregate, or engage in other activities typical of a public forum. . . .”
    The California Constitution does protect your free-speech rights in privately owned shopping centers—as long as your activity doesn’t interfere with the primary commercial purpose of the mall.

    Can shopping centers regulate my expressive activities?
    Yes. The courts have approved a slew of “reasonable” time, manner and place regulations, some of which present obstacles for effective communication. Most large malls have rules restricting free speech activities, although the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Fashion Valley Mall v. N.RB calls into question some of these restrictions. The Court invalidated a rule that prohibited a union from handing out leaflets at a San Diego mall calling for a boycott of a particular store, finding that the union’s interest in getting its message across outweighed the economic interests of the mall.

  17. As the mother of a soldier who is deployed, I still don’t want to see people protesting as I go to enjoy a night out. Do I think they have a right to be there? Yes…I do. They have a right to be there. But the management has a responsibility to make sure I am happy and comfortable as I spend my money as well. EVERYONE has rights. My son is fighting for their rights to protest and my rights to enjoy a movie that I want to see. I respect the fact that they are veterans. I honor them. However, they were asked nicely and they complied. They are acting more mature than any of these people complaining. Why is everyone else all up in arms? Just because they are veterans? Well, support our troops now by sending them things they need. Or go visit a veterans hospital this Christmas….those are things that will make a difference. I promise!

    • You people are amazing. So much opinion and so little knowledge.

      1. Research the difference between “Right” and Privilege.

      2. Research the difference between Private property and Public property.

      Its all law and very clear. Try as you might you can’t make your own interpretations to fit the scenarios-its the law plain and simple. We all love Vets, but they don’t get a pass here.

      Educate yourselves, Then come back a post a rational support for our vets….because right now, most of you are NOT helping their cause.

        • Medium Rare,

          What’s wrong with you now? Can’t look it up? Truth too painful or are you just in denial that others disagree with your perceptions?

          So are you back to going by Medium Rare? (I thought you had settled on Scarecrow).

          Sorry to wreck your day but hypocrites like you need a little exposure.

      • Research findings per ECV request:

        1. Difference between “Right” and “Privilege” – Much more complicated than it sounds and very often interchanged, but I will boil it down to a “Right” is generally something that one is endowed with by his or her creator and can not be taken away. A “Privilege” on the other hand, is granted by someone else and can be taken away. The distinction, I believe, is largely irrelevant based on the findings for #2;

        2. Difference between Private property and Public Property includes a provision for that shopping malls that is described by the ACLU in this way:
        “In California, the courts recognize big malls as the modern-day “functional equivalent” of a traditional public gathering place, because they have “common areas that would invite the public to meet, congregate, or engage in other activities typical of a public forum. . . .”
        The California Constitution does protect your free-speech rights in privately owned shopping centers—as long as your activity doesn’t interfere with the primary commercial purpose of the mall.” (Source: ACLU)

        Shopping malls are NOT the same as someone’s private residence. Our free-speech “rights” in shopping malls are protected. These are “rights”, not “privileges”.

        It sounds like several posters (JigsUp, Gordon, Jane Fonda, Home in East County, ECV) were unaware of free-speech rights as they apply to shopping malls.

        • Unless your name is “United States District Court”, you are offering a layman’s read and your opinion.

          But more interesting is the fact you missed the obvious. The Vets were asking people not to see the movie(ie. the sign with “Just say no to The Bulter). Now I’m a little slow some days, but I’m reasonably sure the purpose of the movie theater they were standing in front of is to sell tickets to movies they are showing.

          In other words, the activity did indeed “interfere with the primary commercial purpose of the mall”. To quote your own words, which you presumably pilfered from the ACLU site.

          Interesting that Nancy Reagan doesn’t seem to have a problem with the portrayal by Ms. Fonda that some of you do. Perhaps because she has more class?

          But thanks for turning in the homework.

          • This is California Constitution, and therefor California Courts – all the way up to the California Supreme Court. But definitely a lay read and opinion, and definitely pilfered from the ACLU site.

            While I appreciate the thought that “Just say No to the Butler” would activate the prohibition against interference with the primary commercial purpose of the Mall, it does not. Blocking doors and walkways would, but getting out a message like this is, in fact, what free speech is all about. At least in California.

            Did you know that California Supreme Court’s ruling in the Fashion Valley case specifically rejected several property owner rules as either impermissible content discrimination or as not narrowly tailored including the following:

            • Prohibition on speech activities that identify or single out the mall or a mall tenant by name. In fact, the Court invalidated a rule that prohibited a union from handing out leaflets at a San Diego mall calling for a boycott of a particular store, finding that the union’s interest in getting its message across outweighed the economic interests of the mall.

            • Prohibition on the carrying or wearing of signs, including picket signs

            • Prohibition on any activity on the exterior walkways

            • Ban on activities during holiday periods

            It is interesting stuff. Nothing that RED Legacy doesn’t know, but certainly much that the general public and many posters here (JigsUp, Gordon, Jane Fonda, Home in East County, ECV) aren’t familiar with. Remember it was just a day ago that these posters were adamant that private property meant the owner had control over protests just as a private homeowner would.

            There is some education going on here, and that’s a good thing.

            Finally, whether one has issues over casting of a movie is irrelevant to the actions of RED Legacy and The Streets of Brentwood. From my point of view, I will support Vietnam Veterans’ and their right to civil and peaceful protests. They have more than earned my support, and from all appearances, these Veterans have more than enough CLASS! I appreciate their service and respect their right to express their opinions without being denigrated by anonymous posters.

            I’m with you 2Lt Klug!

        • Researcher,

          Thanks for taking the time to do a little research. However it looks like you cherry picked your information on #2 just a wee bit. While the ACLU has their slant, the courts and lawyers have another.

          I’m very well schooled in public law and freedom of speech regulations. Because of this, might I suggest you increase your research beyond that of the ACLU. They tend to be a little one sided, but you already knew that right?

          Just sayin’

  18. Streets of Brentwood is just digging a deeper hole and opening them self up to more legal action Who is making the decisions for this group? They don’t get it at all! They have no idea! Please everyone stop supporting The Streets of Brentwood until they get it! Respectfully 2Lt William Klug U.S. Army Med. Ret., Desert Storm Vet, I don’t ask for support or help much, but please back me on this issue!

  19. Hint to the Streets of Brentwood: take responsibility for a bad decision, say your sorry to the Vets and move on. We live here, we want you to do well, but we will not at the expense of our brother Vets. Respectfully William (Bill) Klug Veteran

  20. I have to give the mgmt at the Streets a slight break on this. It wasn’t handled perfectly, but it is a tough position for them to be put in. On the other hand they have done a lot for the community and you have to give them some credit for that.

Comments are closed.