Another developer pulls the plug

Dear Editor:

The previous edition of the COURIER was filled with land use articles that had my head shaking “no!”

Our town seems to have become very good at razing land for a new development, only to have it go nowhere fast. All of the parcels noted are mostly for housing, which requires quite a few water hook-ups, unless no toilets are being included, and the last time I took note, this region does not make water. Our city leaders are told that water is “available,” but it will always come to us at a cost to someone or somewhere else.

What happened to maintaining or at least sustaining the quality of life in this town? The old golf course is a site being eyed for more housing or a future new college, which in turn will gridlock Indian Hill more than it already is during heavy use periods. Couldn’t the botanic gardens have the land?

What about more open space for ground water absorption? More parks, anyone? There are certainly better uses for some of this land that does not always end up as housing! We ought to be a little more creative and save our town from becoming paved over.

So with the city’s housing element out of compliance, anyone can file a lawsuit to put a freeze on the city issuing building permits? Hmmmm.

Nikki Coulas

Claremont

Prop 61

Dear Editor:

What Proposition 61 would actually do and what Big Pharma says it will do are two different things. Why am I not surprised by this development where the money from Big Pharma is being spent to distort the truth about Prop 61?

Prop 61 would regulate drug prices by pegging the cost of drugs for people on Medi-Cal to the cost of drugs under the Veterans Administration. State programs would be required to be purchased at a cost no more than the lowest price paid by the VA.

This would be good news for the state as it would lower the current cost of drugs for Medi-Cal patients by 20 to 25 percent. But the large pharma companies would see a lower profit, and they are not happy about this prospect.

In a very costly ad campaign, our air waves are full of misleading ads put forth by Big Pharma, somehow claiming that the costs for drugs will go up for veterans. Their claim of increased costs to veterans is not true. They are even threatening to raise the cost of drugs.

Some very reputable people support Prop 61—the California Nurses Association, AARP, the Urban League, Bernie Sanders, Robert Reich and others. But they do not have the money to put forth a campaign to support this measure that Big Pharma does.

Let us not be misled by the clever ads the no on 61 campaign uses. Let us say no to Big Pharma and pass Proposition 61.

Gar Byrum

Claremont

Plastic bag propositions

Dear Editor:

The November 8 election will be here before we know it. There are 17 state propositions on that ballot. The League of Women Voters has taken positions on those topics which we have studied. Since it is important to know the facts so you can vote intelligently, the local LWV will present combined recommendations.

Vote no on 65—Sowing Confusion about the plastic bag ban. Don’t be confused by this deceptive measure—vote no. Large players in the plastic bag industry spent millions to put this disingenuous initiative on the ballot, creating a distraction that could thwart California’s efforts to rein in plastic bag waste and litter. The plastic bag industry wants to use this measure to damage the hard-won agreement between environmentalists and grocers that made the plastic bag ban possible. This is not about helping fund environmental programs but is intended to cause enough voter confusion that the more significant environmental measure, Prop 67, fails. Don’t be confused; Vote no on 65 and vote yes on 67.

Vote yes on 67—Protect California’s plastic bag ban, The League urges a yes vote on Proposition 67 to retain California’s plastic bag ban. The question on a referendum is not intuitive; you are being asked if you want to retain the new law. Vote yes to keep the 2014 statewide law prohibiting single-use carryout bags. These plastic film bags pollute our oceans, pose a deadly threat to marine wildlife, clutter our landscapes, create toxic byproducts when manufactured and are very difficult to recycle.

California grocers and other retailers support the ban, and many cities and counties have local measures that are working. Don’t let out-of-state plastic bag industry players stop our progress.

Ellen Taylor

VP for Advocacy,

LWV of the Claremont Area