Readers comments 3-28-14
My neighbors and I just received the most recent parking restriction notification. We live on Michigan Drive, west of Mills.
If you keep restricting parking for the park, the hikers and cyclists will eventually fill up the Vons parking lot. Already, there are easily a dozen vehicles that do just that.
We see no problem with allowing parking on the west side of Mills between Pomello and Base Line, where no homes actually “front” onto Mills and there is a concrete wall for privacy.
We have to provide parking for people who come to use the park. What is the problem with allowing parking under the power lines, north of the dirt berm that would screen vehicles from the residents who live on Pomello? Would the PVPA be totally unreasonable on this? Have they been asked?
Putting parking restrictions on residents, their family and friends does not make this a nice community to live in. I belong to a study fellowship and we have monthly luncheons that necessitate 12 to 15 cars parked in the vicinity of my home from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., one day a month.
Whenever my family gathers for birthdays or holidays there are four to five cars parked in front of my house and the house of my neighbor across the street. Since the grandkids are young, we get together during the daytime. Occasionally, my neighbors have gatherings and do likewise. Do I have to inconvenience my neighbors to borrow their residential parking passes each time? This is ridiculous.
We have “built it, and they have come.” Now we need to figure out where to let them park. Don’t keep kicking the can down the street.
James and Lisa Doose
Claremont readies to remove Golden State Water
After years of discussion, it finally looks like the residents of Claremont are going to take control over their water system. And I couldn’t be happier. This week, the city council laid out a finance plan that will finally end Golden State Water’s costly monopoly in Claremont.
While the water system’s appraised value is $56 million, Golden State seems determined to grab as much cash on their way out of town as possible. The analysis done by the city indicates that the current water rates in Claremont can support an acquisition price as high as $80 million, even though it’s only worth $56 million.
But to the city of Claremont’s credit, they are making plans that will help ensure Golden State will no longer be able to hold our community’s water ransom. In the unlikely event a court forces Claremont to pay more than $80 million for the system, we will be ready. The city council is preparing a measure for the November ballot that will allow voters to approve an additional $40 million just in case Golden State wins their extortion attempt.
If the city needed to tap into that money to acquire, it will be money well spent. The cost would be about $21 per month and would vary based on water usage. Compared to how much Golden State continues to raise our water in Claremont, this cost would be pennies on the dollar.
I can’t wait to vote Golden State out of Claremont.
Dr. Anne K. Turner
When are the residents of Claremont going to wake up to the fact that Golden State Water (a private, for-profit company) will do and say anything directly or indirectly in order to keep the “cash cow” of Claremont residents’ water bills flowing into their coffers?
I read this morning a supposedly unbiased front page report by Liset Marquez in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin regarding this subject.
In it, she alludes to the “secrecy” of the city council and their projected plans to get more money to finance the takeover of Golden State. I resent the “secrecy” and blatant attacks that Golden State has made in their attempt to thwart our efforts to rid the community and its residents of an albatross that keeps demanding more and more money while providing negligible services to us.
I also resent the “secrecy” of Golden State in funding supposedly independent studies that paint their services in glowing terms and attack the credibility of any study the city funds. I further resent the fact that Golden State demands more money every three years (the minimum time allowed) in order to pay their management, board of directors and stockholders a yearly dividend that they haven’t missed in uncounted years.
Finally, I resent the actions (or non-actions) of the Public Utilities Commission in allowing this subterfuge of supposed overseeing for the public’s benefit to go on year after year.
Golden State submits a mound of paper to justify an increase and asks for more than they actually want; the PUC “reviews” the justification and grants a lower figure to Golden State (sometimes higher than they expected).
When will it stop? When we take action to take over this system using eminent domain and let the experienced La Verne water personnel run it?
I don’t believe that our rates will go down under this new system, but I do believe that they won’t continue to go up!
Damaging our treescape
I am a relative newcomer to Claremont, one of those retired PhDs who is here largely because of the trees. The wonderful spectacle of beautiful, well-nurtured trees spreading their lush canopies over the roadways displays to all that this is a community that cares about aesthetic and environmental values.
My interest in the trees eventually led me to join the Tree Action Group (TAG) of Sustainable Claremont, which has recently submitted recommendations for the coming revision of the Street Tree Policy Manual.
One of the major areas of our concern has been the topic of proper pruning practices. The city’s current manual already includes guidelines for maintaining the natural appearance of our trees by limiting the proportion of a tree’s canopy that can be pruned, and prohibiting practices such as “topping,” which produces trees that are unattractive, unhealthy, vulnerable to disease, and forces them to produce unsightly growths of “suckers” in a desperate attempt to compensate for the loss of crucial food-producing canopy. Unfortunately, trees on private property are not legally protected from such abuse.
A very disturbing case in point is the recent macabre spectacle of mutilated sycamores (I think they are…hard to tell from what’s left!) lining the Claremont Club’s parking area on Monte Vista Boulevard, as well as the marvelous large heritage sycamores near the stone clubhouse.
Did the Club employ the services of a certified arborist for this project? I’m certain that, private property or not, a responsible professional arborist would never have approved such massive overpruning of these magnificent trees.
I’m also a recent member of the Club, and am disappointed to see that their wonderful concern for the health of their human members does not extend to the health of their trees and their value to the community’s appearance and ecological health. I hope they will see the error of their ways, and not continue inflicting such abusive damage to our treescape.
Ben Wise, PhD
Support a cleaner environment
President Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have proposed a first-ever federal carbon pollution standard for every new power plant built in America. This is a game changer for the climate—especially because power plants are our single largest source of carbon pollution.
You can bet that corporate polluters are already doing everything they can to block these important health protections, while members of the environmental and health communities are already voicing their support.
If supporters like you stand up and demand the strongest standard possible, we can ensure a cleaner, healthier future for everyone.
The unlimited dumping of carbon pollution is a chief cause of climate change. And that means more frequent and violent storms and extreme weather events, as well as worse smog, which cause asthma attacks.
Will you join others around the country in saying you believe we must put people before polluters and protect our children and future generations from climate change?
Submit a public comment to the EPA in support of the standard and your voice will be part of the official record.
VP for Advocacy
LWV of the Claremont Area