Practical, helpful advice for older folks
Dear editor:
An important item of advice from this old man concerns problems I have had since I was much younger, which afflict many men of every age, as well as women. This advice is about how to void one’s bladder fully.
When I was younger, it seemed that even medical doctors were uncomfortable discussing this issue. That is a shame, and has caused unnecessary suffering by many men and women of many ages over many years.
At age 85, I only recently found information about this topic. I urge other men and women to overcome whatever reticence they may have, and to follow my advice about how I void my bladder more fully than in previous years.
The important point is to walk during the night.
When I waken with the very natural need to urinate, I first go to the bathroom next to our bedroom. After urinating, I then walk to our other bathroom at the other end of our long hallway. After urinating again, I return to the first bathroom and urinate yet again. I do this three times nightly.
An important part of this process is that I no longer avoid drinking water, but always have 16 ounces at breakfast and at lunch, but as little as possible with my dinner.
While this routine seemed tedious at first, I am rewarded by being able to go back to sleep right away. I urge readers of the Courier who experience similar medical issues to follow my suggestions.
Don Fisher
Claremont

Digging into SB79
Dear editor:
SB79, the new Transit-Oriented Development Law, will override Claremont’s ordinances, allowing for the development of five- and six-story mid-rise buildings within a half mile of our train station and an eight-story high-rise on Metrolink’s parking lot on First. This half-mile area extends north to Memorial Park, south to the Pepper Tree Mall, to the eastern edge of Pomona College, and west to Rosa Torrez Park.
Any new development within this area will now be “upzoned,” which means the city will still be tasked with approving a project, but if the City violates SB79 by not streamlining approval, it could be presumed to be in violation of the Housing Accountability Act.
In June 2025 the state passed laws to relax environmental standards on new development.
– SB79 is not solely a housing bill – 1/3rd of a development can be commercial and only 7%-13% of the remaining housing units need to be affordable, depending on whether they are designated for extremely-low, very low or low-income households, respectively.
– There are no protections for demolition on lots with single family homes, duplexes or homes with ADUs – only on multi-family units.
– Protections for historic resources are capped at 10% of the total land area and only apply to those on the current local registry.
SB 79 allows some flexibility. Cities can draw up an alternative plan as long as it provides the same overall housing capacity.  However, since Claremont is largely “built-out,” coming up with an alternative plan is a challenge, and comes with some expense for taxpayers.
In my conversation with state Senator Sasha Renee Perez, she said the bill’s author, Senator Scott Wiener, only wanted to preserve 10% because he did not want cities to protect entire neighborhoods or downtown areas, only isolated buildings.
Pamela Casey Nagler
Claremont

We are not safer under Trump
Dear editor:
We’ve seen the worst that can happen, with jack-booted thugs acting as a private army murdering U.S. citizens in Minneapolis — now two. ICE is nothing less than Caesar’s praetorian guard — Trump’s private army. Why won’t they allow these crimes to be investigated? One can only assume they are in cover up mode to hide their complicity in these deaths.
We, contrary to one recent opinion [“Trump makes ‘wanted man’ feel safer,” Readers’ comments, January 23] are not safer.
Our founders had good cause to be worried about our nation having a standing army. It’s like the appearance of a gun in the first act of a play: eventually, it will be used before the final curtain. Under this low-information president it is being employed to disastrous ends.
NATO, the most durable defense alliance for the defense of the Western world, has been permanently ruptured by Trump’s gratuitous insults at Davos this week. The international rule of law, a framework established after WWII, has been junked by Trump and the antics of the incompetent Hegseth.
A bitter animus is being generated as the residual group of Maduro’s thugs now terrorizes Venezuela.  Reporters are being sentenced for treason for just doing their jobs. And Trump proclaimed, “I’m in charge.” His reign of terror will certainly come back to bite this Yankee imperialist. Definitely not safer.
Our economy is in a shambles for the average consumer. Our schools are beggared for funds by a World Wrestling Federation Trump stooge who knows nothing about education. Not safer.
Madison in his letters warned that a democracy depends on an educated and informed citizenry. With 38 percent of our eighth-grade students performing below the lowest of standards in math and science, we, most certainly, are not safer.
Time to wise up.
John C. Forney
Claremont

In support of taking Greenland
Dear editor:
As global dynamics shift in the 21st century, the United States must thoughtfully consider bold steps to safeguard national security and economic interests. One such step is pursuing the acquisition of Greenland — a territory whose strategic value cannot be overstated.
Greenland occupies a critical position in the Arctic, serving as a gateway between North America and Europe. Its location makes it vital for early-warning defense systems and for projecting stability in a region increasingly contested by hostile global powers. Greenland hosts the Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), a key asset in monitoring potential threats from across the polar routes and strengthening missile defense capabilities. Direct U.S. control would further solidify our ability to protect the homeland and strengthen collective defense with allies using our proposed Golden Dome Missile Defense System.
Beyond defense, Greenland holds significant potential in natural resources, including rare earth minerals critical for modern technologies and renewable energy systems. Securing access to these resources could reduce U.S. dependence on hostile foreign supply chains and foster economic growth.
U.S. interest in Greenland is not new. Historically, leaders from Secretary of State William Seward to post-World War II policymakers saw its acquisition as vital for expanding American strategic reach. Today’s discussions should be grounded in diplomacy and shared interests, exploring options that respect Greenlanders’ rights while advancing mutual security and prosperity.
In weighing this proposal, Americans must consider both the opportunities for enhanced security and economic benefit, and the need for respectful, constructive dialogue with the people of Greenland and the kingdom of Denmark. Thoughtful negotiation, not conflict, should define this pursuit, but not limit it. As President Trump indicated, Greenland is vital to our military and economic security.
Kris M. Meyer
Claremont

It’s your daily grammar lesson
Dear editor:
“Its” is a possessive which means belonging to, not to be confused with “it’s,” which is a contraction for “it is.” Likewise, “your” is a possessive not to be confused with “you’re,” which is a contraction for “you are.”
Opanyi Nasiali 
Claremont

A Line is clean, cheap and comfy
Dear editor:
In a letter published in the Claremont Courier on January 23 [“Was the lonely A Line worth it?”], Mr. Linde correctly assesses that current ridership on the new A Line is very low. Hopefully it will increase substantially when the public learns how convenient, pleasant and inexpensive the A line is.
I take it once or twice weekly to Pasadena and marvel at the help available at the stations, the clean cars, and the efficiency of the travel. I used to drive there, and the trip home to Pomona took well over one hour, compared to  the comfortable 35-minute train ride. I marveled this past Friday as we whizzed along beside the immobile traffic on the 210 Freeway.
All this for a non-rush hour senior fare of 35 cents each way and $3 for all day parking during the week.
Please join me on a trip to Pasadena, Los Angeles or even Long Beach.
Arthur Weinstein
Pomona