Readers comments 1-22-16
Naming names again
I was surprised to read the Editor’s note in response to Sarah Barnes’ letter concerning the possibility of allowing some folks to remain anonymous in your reporting. You stated the need to be “steadfast on our policies or the exceptions become the norm” and the need to “treat everyone the same.”
I distinctly remember several years ago exchanging emails with you after the COURIER chose to publish an anonymous Viewpoint that was critical of Claremont teachers.
I questioned why you would publish this anonymously. You expressed concern for this person that “Oftentimes when one speaks out about an issue that is generally supported by community leaders, he or she will suffer greatly.”
Despite your current protestations, clearly there are some people the COURIER feels the need to protect and treat in a different way, just not those who have the misfortune to appear in the Police Blotter.
[Editor’s note: The Viewpoint referenced here was published in 2010. Our policy, which we’ve upheld since that time, is to not publish anonymous letters. Naming those arrested and protecting an anonymous letter-writer are not an equal comparison in my perspective. But, I agree that anonymous letters are a bad idea. One drawback to working in newspapers is that when you make a mistake at work, it lives in print for eternity. I apologize for printing the anonymous letter. —KD]
A Claremont station
The city sold land on Base Line Road to allow the building of high-density housing tracts. Some of that land could have been used to build a new police facility. Obviously, it’s too late for that, and some of the profit from the land sale was probably wasted on funding last November’s disastrous ballot and perhaps other projects we can ill afford.
One wonders how much of that money, if any, has been saved to purchase land elsewhere in the city to reduce taxpayer costs of a new facility or if it has all been squandered. And will any of the profit from the additional local taxes the city will collect from the new housing tracts be earmarked for a new station or will we all be socked with the full price of an approved facility?
I fully agree with many others who advocate a functional, not glamorous police station. We are not in competition with Montclair that had sales tax money to build their attractive station on a prominent street corner.