Readers comments 5-22-15

Pomona’s museum of art

Dear Editor:

Besides being incredibly ugly, this new building would cause significant traffic and parking problems. It would be a shame to replace lovely old structures with this monstrosity.

As a graduate of Claremont High School, secretary of the CHS alumni association, a former employee of Claremont Public Library and a spouse of a former Constortium employee, I see no advantages to this building and a host of disadvantages.

Just because you have a huge endowment and this money is burning a hole in your pocket, does not mean you should squander it on this!

Megan Parnell



Museum’s impact on town/gown

Dear Editor:

I’ve been following the museum controversy from afar, but it now seems clear Pomona College is making a colossal mistake in seeking to completely transform the western side of College Avenue. There is an obvious alternative.

As the Pomona-Pitzer Faculty Athletic Representative for many years, I found invoking Title IX as an excuse for not building the museum on the northeast corner of First and College downright offensive and disingenuous. All that is required by Title IX is programmatic equality, a requirement that can easily be met by building an alternative women’s softball field on any number of available sites on the Pomona campus.

Pomona College is embarking on a public relations disaster that will forever damage town/gown relations. Don’t use our female athletes as an excuse to advance the college’s aggressive expansion into the Village.

Dana Ward, PhD



Gold Line workshop

Dear Editor:

Reader Christine Gatson-Michalak need not have worried about missing anything of substance when she was unable to attend the [Metro] Gold Line Foothill Construction Authority’s Community Open House on April 29 at the Hughes Community Center’s Padua Room (“Gold Line meeting inaccessible,” May 15).

There are certainly better locations for events than the car-dependent Padua Room, and it’s shameful that such a facility was ever located so far from local bus service. In a city that claims to be “sustainable,” gatherings like this should be held in places accessible to all, not just those with the ability to operate a motor vehicle.

This event was not a “meeting,” at least not in a Brown Act definition, but just an exhibition of what might be possible if the region goes along with the idea of funding the extension of Electric Rail Transit to San Bernardino County.

It could be said to have been one of a series of very low-key pep-rallies designed to garner support in the cities through which this “Segment 2B,” if built, will have impacts. 

There was no agenda, no public comment period, no discussions. Comment cards were handed out, but these can also be filled out online at www.foothill

I believe all of the charts and pictures displayed at the event should be available at the website.

One new change revealed to me was the movement of the access to the replacement Metrolink platforms away from an originally-promised College Avenue walkway to a bridge-only entry from the upper floors of the planned 1100-space East First Street parking structure. That there will no longer be access to Metrolink from the south side of the tracks should concern us all.

Lastly, despite the name given by our State Legislature to the entity tasked with building the line, Metro (a.k.a. the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority), has very little to do with this independent construction authority’s decision-making process, except as a provider of funding and consultation on design issues. 

Metro did not hold this workshop, the Foothill Construction Authority did.

Erik Griswold




Submit a Comment

Share This