Cour

Recommendations

Info

1420 N. Claremont Blvd., Ste. 205B Claremont, CA 91711 (909) 621-4761 Office hours: Monday-Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Owner Janis Weinberger Publisher and Owner Peter Weinberger pweinberger@claremont-courier.com Editor Kathryn Dunn editor@claremont-courier.com Newsroom City Reporter Matthew Bramlett news@claremont-courier.com Education Reporter/Obituaries Sarah Torribio storribio@claremont-courier.com Sports Reporter Steven Felschundneff steven@claremont-courier.com Photo Editor/Staff Photographer Steven Felschundneff steven@claremont-courier.com Arts & Entertainment/ Features Reporter Mick Rhodes calendar@claremont-courier.com Production Ad Design/Real Estate pages Grace Felschundneff Page Layout Kathryn Dunn Website Peter Weinberger Advertising Advertising Director Mary Rose maryrose@claremont-courier.com Classified Editor Rachel Fagg classified@claremont-courier.com READERS’ COMMENTS Water Decision Day Dear Editor: On August 9 and 10, after a long trial, the city of Claremont and Golden State Water Company (GSW) made closing arguments before the judge who will decide if Claremont has the right to take over its local water system. The judge then had 90 days to rule on the case. That 90 days will be up on November 8. Last year, 72 percent of Claremont voters chose to have the city try to purchase the local water system from GSW, an unwilling seller, using eminent domain. The community was supportive in part because GSW raised rates sharply and the cost of water made Claremont a less desirable place to live. GSW was also allowed to set water rates on a regional basis, so Claremont’s local needs became less relevant while drought made local control of water especially important. No city can survive without water, and water should not be under the control of an outside forprofit monopoly. In closing arguments GSW claimed that the costs would be so high that rates would have to go up, that Claremont had used pretty words about local control but had not offered specific projects to be implemented if it had local control, and that water quality would be better under GSW. Management of the water system under Claremont ownership would be contracted out to the city of La Verne, so GSW cited problems with lead in La Verne’s water. In rebuttal Claremont’s attorneys argued that GSW’s cost estimates were exaggerated, and cited as an example GSW using depreciation of the system as an expense rather than as a financial benefit to stockholders. The lead contamination in La Verne water was a one-time incident in a small area and was quickly corrected. La Verne’s water quality is as highly rated as Claremont’s. So how will the judge decide? Does it make legal sense to rule that Claremont does not have the right to take over the system because it did not include enough detail on specific projects to be implemented under local control? This will be a precedent-setting decision. If Claremont prevails the next step will be a trial to set the price to be paid, but GSW is likely to use every legal challenge possible. November 8 will be a day of decision for the whole nation, and more so for Claremont. Freeman Allen Claremont Make America (and Claremont) great again! Dear Editor: November 8 is an election with huge opportunities or consequences. A “yes” vote on Measure G and Proposition 51 are vital to the public education facilities in both Claremont and the state of California. The most important resource we have is our youth and it is vitally important that we provide them with a 21st century education in order to compete in our global economy. I also firmly believe that it is time to “drain the swamp” in Washington, DC and put new private sector leadership in the Oval Office. Donald Trump certainly has his shortcomings, but he is a proven leader with many innovative solutions to the many problems facing this country. I’m willing to give the self-made “bluecollar billionaire” a chance. I believe Mr. Trump’s strongest attribute is his ability to Claremont COURIER/Friday, November 4, 2016 2 ADVENTURES IN HAIKU Intolerant hate Basket of deplorables Our Bigot in Chief? —Robert R. Hale Haiku submissions should reflect upon life or events in Claremont. Please email entries to editor@claremont-courier.com. GOVERNING OURSELVES Agendas for city meetings are available at www.ci.claremont.ca.us Tuesday, November 8 City Council Council Chamber, 6:30 p.m. Wednesday, November 9 Committee on Aging Joslyn Center, noon surround himself with great, hard-working and honest talent to get the job done. He also is certainly not afraid to make personnel changes with under-performing appointees or staff. This is a necessary trait for the success of any organization. Our Claremont school district facilities and Washington DC both need a complete overhaul to restore their past greatness for the hardworking tax payers which they serve. Please vote yes for Measure G and Proposition 51, and vote for Donald Trump on November 8. Kris Meyer Claremont READERS’ COMMENTS/page 7 Business Administration Office Manager/Legal Notices Vickie Rosenberg legalads@claremont-courier.com Billing/Accounting Manager Dee Proffitt Distribution/Publications Manager Tom Smith tomsmith@claremont-courier.com Circulation/Subscriptions subscriptions@claremont-courier.com The Claremont Courier (United States Postal Service 115-180) is published once weekly by the Courier Graphics Corporation at 1420 N. Claremont Blvd., Suite 205B, Claremont, California 91711- 5003. The Courier is a newspaper of general circulation as defined by the political code of the state of California, entered as periodicals matter September 17, 1908 at the post office at Claremont, California under the act of March 3, 1879. Periodicals postage is paid at Claremont, California 91711-5003. Single copy: $1.50. Annual subscription: $56. Send all remittances and correspondence about subscriptions, undelivered copies and changes of address to the Courier, 1420 N. Claremont Blvd., Suite 205B, Claremont, California 91711-5003. Telephone: 909- 621-4761. Copyright © 2016 Claremont Courier one hundred and eighth year, number 45
CITY NEWS Claremont COURIER/Friday, November 4, 2016 3 Residents question council vote against Prop 57 The Claremont City Council’s decision to formally oppose Proposition 57 has not been without its share of criticism. An online petition has been circulated in the past week admonishing the council for taking a negative stance against the proposition, which would allow early release of low-tier offenders, give judges the final say over whether a juvenile is tried as an adult and expands good behavior and parole opportunities. The proposition was put on the ballot by Governor Jerry Brown to chip away at prison overcrowding in the state. In the unanimous decision on October 25, the council determined that it would be too risky to let offenders out after the end of their primary sentence. The council mentioned the perceived after-effects of Proposition 47, a previous ballot measure aimed at reducing prison overcrowding that has been pinpointed by Claremont police as a reason for the uptick in property crimes in the city. Nancy Neiman Auerbach, professor of international political economy at Scripps College, called the council’s decision to take a stance on the proposition “kind of unprecedented.” “Nobody’s asking them to vote on this. They’re actually taking a policy position and I think it does very little good for city,” she said. “It doesn’t make me proud to be a Claremonter.” Mayor Sam Pedroza disagreed with the assertion it was unprecedented, saying that the council has passed resolutions for or against statewide ballot measures in the past. According to city spokesperson Bevin Handel, the council has passed resolutions for or against state propositions six times in the past decade. The language under Prop 57 states that non-violent felons would be given the option for parole at the end of their primary sentence, a move that Claremont police and council have deemed a threat for local communities. “Felons who have committed multiple crimes against multiple victims will be eligible for release at the same time as inmates who committed one crime against one victim,” Claremont Police Chief Paul Cooper told the council during the October 25 meeting. Mr. Pedroza noted that the council is free to take a position on ballot measures that could directly impact the community. That stipulation, he said, is part of the council norms reviewed by the city at the beginning of every year. In this case, the council believes Prop 57 could have a significant effect on the city, which has suffered through an increase of home and car break-ins in the past year. Mr. Pedroza noted the council had been receiving regular input from the police about crime in the city. “I think the reason why [the vote] was unanimous was because the council does receive the regular notices from the police department on what’s happening with our nonviolent crimes increase,” Mr. Pedroza said. Despite law enforcement’s stance on Prop 47, Ms. Auerbach noted there was no direct link between the uptick in crime and the proposition’s passage. There have been a number of studies that have determined no causal effect between passing Prop 47 and a higher crime rate, she said, and the council’s decision to take a stance against Prop 57 is based on a “very narrow understanding” of the prison system. “They basically presented it as an open-and-shut case, that if you let people out of prison they’re going to have a higher crime rate,” Ms. Auerbach said. A study conducted in March by Mike Males of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice concluded that it was too early to tell if Prop 47 was directly to blame for a rise in crime rates in California. “There are no obvious effects associated with Prop 47 that would be expected if the reform measure had produced a consistent impact on crime, and it is too early to conclusively measure the effects of Proposition 47 on crime rates just one year after the law took effect,” Mr. Males wrote in the report. But Mr. Pedroza—who initially supported Prop 47 in 2014—said the crime hike in the wake of the proposition was too acute to ignore. “It seems too coincidental,” he said. He issued a challenge to those backing the proposition. “Show me some evidence, show me information that some of those reforms that were supposed to happen under 47 are, first of all, occurring and second, having positive effects,” he said. The council’s decision has struck a chord within the community, with petitions, phone calls and emails being circulated lambasting the decision to oppose the proposition. One petition has more than 200 signatures as of Thursday morning. Local groups such as the Democratic Club of Claremont and the League of Women Voters are listed in the petition. In addition, the California State Lawmakers Association and the Chief Probation Officers of California support the proposition. The language in the petition is clear— the Claremont City Council should rescind its resolution opposing the measure. “Given the lack of representation of community members in favor of Proposition 57, to suggest that Prop 57 would compromise the safety of Claremont residents is undemocratic,” the petition read. Mr. Pedroza stated that the council would have appreciated input from the community before they made their decision, as opposed to afterward. “The agenda was properly noted,” he said. “How much can the city do to let people know that we’re going to discuss this? I wouldn’t agree that it wasn’t properly noted.” Ellen Taylor, speaking on behalf of the Claremont chapter of the League of Women Voters, said she disagreed with the council’s decision, but understood why they would do it. “Their feeling is that we have had a lot of minor crimes in Claremont—maybe it’s these people who are committing these minor crimes, we don’t know,” she said. “But I understand why they came to that conclusion.” Ms. Auerbach said halfway houses in the city such a Crossroads—which helps formerly incarcerated women to reintegrate into society—are proof that the solution is treatment rather than incarceration. “This kind of symbolic statement from those who represent us, it’s upsetting,” she said. —Matthew Bramlett news@claremont-courier.com Metrolink takes noisy BNSF locomotives off-track If the horns from trains passing through Claremont seem a tad quieter than usual, it’s due to a main culprit being taken off the tracks. Locomotives from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad—the big, orange engines that have been a fixture in front of Metrolink trains for the better part of the year—have officially been taken off the line, the city announced last week. The locomotives have been taken off the tracks as of November 1, Metrolink spokesperson Gina Mack confirmed. While this can be seen as a positive development in Claremont’s quest for a quiet zone, the reactions from those living near the tracks have been mixed, according to Traffic and Transportation Commissioner Zachary Courser. “There may be a subjective notion that the train noise is slightly less,” he said. “I still think it’s a nuisance, and I think the community still feels that way.” The engines were attached to the commuter trains as a safety precaution following a fatal 2015 accident in Oxnard, according to Metrolink. But an unintended consequence occurred—the engines had a louder train horn fixed higher on the engine for maximum distance, which caused a loud and irritating noise problem for Claremonters living near the tracks. BNSF TRAINS/continues on the next page COURIER photo/Peter Weinberger As of November 1, Metrolink has pulled the noisy BNSF locomotives off track. Despite this development, some residents say that train noise will continue to be a nuisance.
Page 1: t COUNCIL VOTE ON PROP 57 CREATES A
Page 5 and 6: EDUCATION Claremont COURIER/Friday,
Page 7 and 8: Vote no on everything Dear Editor:
Page 9 and 10: Claremont COURIER/Friday, November
Page 11 and 12: Florence Gordon Webster Loving moth
Page 15 and 16: HIGH SCHOOL ROUNDUP CROSS COUNTRY T
Page 24 and 25: CINEMA LAEMMLE’S CLAREMONT 5 THEA
Page 26 and 27: Claremont COURIER Classifieds/Frida
Page 28 and 29: LEGAL TENDER T.S. No.: 2015-05690-C
Page 30 and 31: Friday 11-04-16 SERVICES CONTACT US
Page 32 and 33: 909.621.4761 Friday 11-04-16 REAL E
Page 34 and 35: Claremont COURIER Classifieds/Frida
Page 36: Local Expertise with a Global Reach

Cour

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?