Readers’ comments: August 29, 2025

CPD resumes parking patrol in Village
Dear editor:
As a friendly heads-up, Courier readers might like to spread the word that the Claremont Police Department has filled the personnel vacancy in the Village Parking Patrol, and has resumed marking tires and issuing citations for cars parked longer than the posted time limit. I think most of us would prefer a gentle reminder warning rather than a $50 ticket. On a similar note, some drivers are not aware that they can be cited for backing in to the angled parking spaces. That’s a $50 lesson I learned the hard way. May others benefit from my experience.
Elizabeth Tulac
Claremont

Does city also monitor private trees?
Dear editor:
I applaud our city staff’s monitoring of residential and commercial compliance with environmentally-conscious sanitation practices [“Where does Claremont’s trash go?” August 22]. Does the staff also monitor the condition of private trees, and advise property owners on improving their care where needed? I hope so, and I hope that staff will describe it in a future Courier article.
But if it’s not being done, why not? After all, the preservation and growth of our urban forest are goals of our sustainable city plan. Our urban forest cleans our air of unhealthy pollutants, cools and beautifies our neighborhoods, supports our property values, and absorbs the carbon dioxide which causes our climate to become hotter and more violent. That’s more than proper sanitation sorting does. It should be at least as high a priority.
Bob Gerecke
Claremont

Don’t accept Trump’s power grab
Dear editor: 
America must not accept a wannabe dictator Trump rigging the 2026 midterm elections so that he can consolidate and stay in power.
Opanyi Nasiali 
Claremont

A voice in opposition to SB 79
Dear editor:
What is California Senate Bill 79?
According to CalMatters, SB 79: Housing Development: Transit-oriented Development is a bill that would “upzone” or override local zoning that dictates density, height, design specifications, parking, open space, in order to fast-track development one-half mile from a city’s transit center(s).
What would SB 79 mean for Claremont?
This bill has big ramifications for Claremont’s downtown. If passed, it dictates that within a quarter mile of our train or metro station, a developer could build 5-story buildings, and within a half-mile, 4-story buildings.
Arguments in favor of SB 79:
California needs more housing and more affordable housing. It is good for the environment to locate this housing by our transit centers
Arguments against SB 79:
SB 79 does not protect historic neighborhoods. The bill provides no protections from the bulldozer north to Eighth Street; west to the Claremont Colleges’ Wash; south below Peppertree Square; and east to Rosa Torrez Park.
The passage of SB 79 poses environmental concerns. This June, Governor Newsom passed two bills that loosen environmental standards. According to the LA Times, These bills exempt residential infill projects from the California Environmental Quality Act. This means that unless SB 79 is amended to test for soil and water contamination at railway sites, they will not be subjected to proper clean-up if necessary.
More than 150 cities in California have voiced their opposition to the bill. On August 19th , the City of Los Angeles voted to oppose.
The bill is currently being amended. There is still time to voice concerns before September 12, but the clock is ticking. Assembly meetings are being conducted throughout August.
Call or write Assemblymember John Harabedian at (626) 351-1917 or a41.asmdc.org/contact.
Pamela Nagler
Claremont