On This Page
Proposed City Purchase of Johnson's Pasture
Proposed Affordable Housing in Claremont
Opposition to Mining in Claremont
The Club in Claremont and the Region
Proposed City Purchase of Johnson's Pasture
At its February 2006 luncheon meeting, the club sponsored a presentation on the topic of the proposed Claremont purchase of Johnson's Pasture. Suzanne Thompson, one of the founders of the Claremont Wildlands Conservancy, provided the presentation. Discussion followed. The following summary of what Professor Thompson had to say is by Bob May.
For those of you who may not know, Johnson's Pasture is a property of roughly 180 acres at the top of Mountain Avenue. It offers walkers and cyclists the ability to "get out of the city" in just a few minutes. Once you leave the trailhead, you are surrounded by the lush native grasses of this dry region. There is a fire road that meanders around and through the property. It does have some vertical elevation change but in general, it is an easy walk. For those ambitious souls who walk the full, four-plus miles of the trail to the Wilderness Park, there is the reward of a shaded walk along a babbling creek.
There is abundant wildlife to see if you are a lucky hiker or a nearby resident. This writer saw a beautiful adult doe in one of the meadow areas and then the buck in profile on the crest of the nearby hill.
This property is under private ownership. The owners like the idea of adding to the Wilderness Park and would be pleased to sell the property to the City of Claremont if the city can raise the funds to meet the purchase price. A recent appraisal stated a property value of $12,000,000.00 (twelve million dollars).
The city received a $500,000 grant from the county and has grant applications at the state. Grant money can be used to reduce the amount needed for the purchase price, but will not provide all the funding that is necessary. Therein lies the problem. The city doesn't have that much money and thus far, no individuals have come forth.
Enter the Claremont Wildlands Conservancy. This organization was started in 2000, with the focus of preserving the hillside country in north Claremont for public use. The Conservancy is working closely with the City to create a viable funding package to buy Johnson's Pasture.
There is an urgency in this effort. The owners have given the city until the end of this year, 2006, to buy the property. If that does not happen, it will be sold to a developer. In addition, the Golden State Water Company is seeking rights to put a water reservoir on the property.
There are three major developers who already have stated that they want to purchase the property for development. If it is developed, it is likely that over 100homes would be built on the property. Legally, the property could hold up to 350 new homes. It would require new road construction to provide access from two directions, plus electricity, gas, water and police and fire protection. Development in Claremont's hillsides would impact all areas of the City.
As with every major development of any kind, there are always multiple, intertwined and complex issues. For example, the City defined a "cluster plan" in its "Hillside Ordinance." Their intent was to fairly address the financial needs of private owners if their properties were to be used for parkland. Essentially, the ordinance structures the use of the land so that all private development is clustered, which then leaves open space for public use.
There will be ecological and geological use studies. For example, the Pasture supplies a substantial amount of Claremont's water through its aquifers. The cyclical wildfires that cross the area could wreak disaster on the homes built there. At this time, there is no plant or animal life on the property that is on the federal "endangered species" list. Nevertheless, a significant ecological factor is that Johnson's Pasture does provide a link in a regional wildlife corridor that stretches across the San Gabriel foothills between Marshall Canyon Regional Park and the Claremont Wilderness Park.
There are multiple ways of doing the financing, each of which has its own pros and cons. Mechanisms under consideration are the general obligation bond, a parcel tax, and the creation of a "Parks and Recreation Assessment District."
The City Council may have another meeting on this in March, possibly March 28. The Council is up to speed on this matter and then some. They are ready to move ahead if the financing can be arranged.
If you would like more information, here are some useful web sites:
Claremont Wildlands Web Site
http://www.claremontwildlands.org/index.html
Campaign to Save Johnson's Pasture
http://savejohnsonspasture.org
Trust for Public Land (TPL) Article
"Sewing a San Gabriel Quilt," by Angela Ballard
http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=19761&folder_id=266
Claremont City Letter, November 2005
"Johnson’s Pasture Update"
http://www.ci.claremont.ca.us/download.cfm?ID=568
City of Claremont Hillsides Map
http://www.cbaplanning.com/claremont/pdfs/festival2/hillsides/contraints.pdf
The Proposed Program of Affordable Housing in Claremont
At its January 2006 luncheon meeting, the club sponsored a discussion of the issue of affordable housing in Claremont. Defending the program was Karen Vance, a member of the League of Women Voters who spearheaded the circulation of their petition to the city council promoting an ordinance to require property developers to include a quota of affordable housing in their developments in the city. Speaking in opposition was Ivan Light, Professor of Sociology at UCLA, long-time Claremont resident and currently VP of the JVCDC. Their remarks are reprinted below.
THE CASE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
By Karen Vance
Affordable Housing programs first arose from public policy concerns about how to move those who live in poverty into the mainstream of American economic life. Since the inception of these programs in the Johnson administration’s “War on Poverty”, affordable housing policy has become an increasingly sophisticated, well researched, well understood and highly effective tool in moving families out of poverty and into the economic mainstream. Citizens fortunate enough to qualify for affordable housing have run through a credit check, criminal background check and immigration status gauntlet before finding shelter for themselves and their children in the scarce affordable market.
For Claremont, specific affordable housing target goals are established by SCAG, the Southern California Association of Governments. SCAG uses RHNA, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, to identify the number of affordable housing units needed for very-low income, low income and moderate income families. These income levels are decided for Claremont using state and federal formulas applied to the median incomes in Los Angeles County. Many of us are unaware that there are very-low and low income families, with adults working in Claremont, who live here in overcrowded conditions or in housing that consumes more than 33 percent of their income. Current RHNA figures identify 283 units of needed affordable housing in Claremont and this figure continues to rise.
Claremont looks with pride at the refurbished Vista del Valle town homes on San Jose and affordable housing projects for seniors. Yet, we unfortunately have had and continue to have an abysmal record in meeting the actual RHNA needs for our community. A currently proposed condominium project on San Jose will destroy fifty-two units rented to low income families. The debate over the Towne and Baseline proposal continues. Even if built, it will not satisfy the need for very-low and low income housing for working families in Claremont.
It is Claremont’s immediate task to create affordable housing in the most positive and effective manner possible. Two cities similar to Claremont, Irvine and Davis, are considered among the top jurisdictions in the state in satisfying the affordable housing needs of their very-low and low income families. Property values and quality of life remain very high in both cities; they have outstanding school systems and crime rates remain very low. Both cities have chosen to use the inclusionary method of scattering affordable housing throughout all new development as their main strategy. This protects the quality of their school systems and prevents overcrowding at any given school. Inclusionary housing allows nurses, firefighters and police officers who work in these cities, but cannot otherwise purchase housing, to live in these cities and augment disaster preparedness. Irvine’s policy also provides for creation of homeless shelters.
So, there is reason for optimism. In the past, segregation by race, first de jure then de facto, made race the primary predictor for any child’s educational success in the US. Public policy changes have, in fact, eradicated race as the primary predictor for any child’s educational success. De facto segregation by poverty is now the sole, primary predictor for any child’s educational success or failure in the US. Poverty, not race, is the great divide in opportunity this nation, and this city, must straddle. Irvine and Davis do so with great success; they create positive outcomes for all level of income families working in their cities. Claremont’s citizens, rather slowly, are coming to awareness of the housing obligations they have left unfulfilled, and of the many opportunities to provide affordable housing missed. But there is still time, and much new development before us. With our new awareness, too, comes the knowledge that this time, we really can’t afford to miss any of the myriad positive opportunities available.
WHY THE DEMOCRATIC CLUB OF CLAREMONT SHOULD NOT ENDORSE AFFORABLE HOUSING IN CLAREMONT
By Ivan Light
Southern California has a serious shortage of affordable housing. To redress this shortage, the State of California has introduced legal guidelines intended to open metropolitan suburbs to affordable housing construction. Cities open to affordable housing by waiving housing rules hat protect the quality of life. Density restrictions are the prime target. Affordable housing requires higher density than existing development standards permit. California’s guidelines threaten sanctions against cities that do not accept “their share” of affordable housing construction. However, as matters now stand, sanctions are weak and rarely, if ever, enforced because enforcement is politically unpopular with homeowners. To speed up the change, the League of Women voters is petitioning city governments to authorize more affordable housing within their jurisdictions. They want the Claremont Democrats to get on board their campaign.
Because of external pressure, Claremont has already authorized affordable housing construction for the middle class on Baseline Road east of Towne Avenue. This concession is more than many other suburban cities of comparable socio-economic level have done. As matters stand, no enforcement regime exists that Claremont must respect, and most suburban cities are doing the minimum to comply with the affordable housing guidelines. We are not discussing whether Claremont should authorize affordable housing; we only discuss whether, as Democrats, we should encourage Claremont voluntarily to authorize more affordable housing than it already has; more than other, comparable cities have done; and more also than the minimum Claremont must authorize.
What would be the consequences for Claremont of volunteering to authorize yet more affordable housing? That decision would increase the density of settlement, reducing quality of life, as most residents understand the phrase, by increasing user pressure on schools, streets, parking spaces, parks. It would lower the average household income. Reduced quality of life and reduced average household income would set Claremont on a course of development that would, if continued, would eventuate in a much more urbanized environment in Claremont. Picture Claremont as Queens, N.Y. No, property values would not decline, and homeowners could sell out and move elsewhere without financial loss. However, Claremont would have become highly urbanized. Frankly, unnecessary affordable housing is not in Claremont’s self-interest unless some compensation is offered. Voters in Claremont do not want affordable housing, and Claremont has already done enough to evade sanctions. We should not saddle Democratic politics with this political albatross.
Support for Opposition to Mining in Claremont
At its November meeting, the JVCDC Executive Board (unanimously) passed a resolution in support of the attempt to ban mining in Claremont. For more on the issue see the following newsletter from Claremonters Against Strip Mining (CASM).
CASM MINING UPDATE -- DECEMBER 9, 2005
Since both the City Planning Commission and City Council unanimously turned down Vulcan Minerals' application to mine rock in Northeast Claremont zoned OPEN SPACE, Vulcan Minerals has sued the City of Claremont to reverse their decision and has now appealed to the State Department of Mining to take jurisdiction over the issue. The hearing is scheduled in Claremont on February 8th. If passed this would take away Claremont's right to decide if mining is right for Claremont and the Community.
WILL CLAREMONT BECOME ANOTHER IRWINDALE?
-- 10 to 20 years of breathing toxic dust that covers our homes and yards
-- Desecrated land like Upland and Azusa with deep ugly pits remaining
-- More uncovered tractor-trailers on Baseline, Padua and Foothill with residual dirt and rocks on our roads
-- Mining would be as close as 60 feet from some homes and within 200 yards of a school
Your neighbors have been working hundreds of hours and donated thousands of dollars fighting strip mining in Claremont. We are Claremonters Against Strip Mining -- CASM (see below).
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
There are several things we can do to stop strip mining in Claremont. We have prepared a budget that projects $50,000 to continue the fight. We have received donations from $25 to $2,000 and have spent the money wisely, but we are almost out of funds.
PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO CASM TODAY!
Send your tax-deductible contributions to: CASM, P.O. Box 1425, Claremont, CA. 91711. We need your help to carry on the serious work of protecting our neighborhood and City from the devastating effects of strip miners. If you have any questions please call 626-252-5536.
WHAT HAS CASM DONE THE PAST 8 MONTHS?
-- We have facilitated the placement of news articles in the L.A. Times, the Inland Daily Bulletin, the Claremont Courier and on KNX radio
-- We launched a website at www.NoMinesInClaremont.org
-- We enlisted the support of surrounding cities, which are confronting similar experiences with Vulcan Minerals
-- We mailed a newsletter to 2,000 Claremont homes and community organizations
-- We retained an attorney
-- We placed full-page ads in local newspapers
-- We have met with our State Senator, State Assemblymen, Senior Aide to our Congressman and other elected officials
-- We have worked closely with the City of Claremont
-- We have had meetings with mining interests, hydrologist and environmental groups
-- We have also done a great deal of research on damage to our community from mining
ABOUT CASM
Claremonters Against Strip Mining (CASM) is a non-profit citizen-based organization committed to stopping the expansion of strip mining in Claremont and protecting the health and beauty of our community.
Michael Kunce -- President
Dr. Ivan Mizner -- Vice President
Marylou Ferry -- Secretary
Dr. Marla Law Abrolat -- Treasurer
Charles Magistro -- Director
Dr. Tom Easter -- Director
Pam Willoughby – Director
This newsletter was sent to you by CASM: Claremonters Against Strip
Mining, a nonprofit community organization ~ P.O. Box 1425, Claremont, CA
91711 ~ E-mail: Info@NoMinesInClaremont.org ~ Website:
NoMinesInClaremont.org
Opposing the 'Thank the Troops' Banner Program in Claremont.
The JVCDC has taken the lead in protesting a development in Claremont which makes it look as if the City and its Council are supporting the war in Iraq. Read the documents here . (You need the Adobe Reader to open it.)
October 28, 2005. I won't bore you with all the activities and shenanigans involved in the dispute with the City over the Banners policy. In the end, the Council, muttering over and over, the mantra 'We followed the process' without giving thought to the fact that no process can guarantee a wise decision - which is what we were claiming did not occur - will place the requested banners on city streets: and have in fact done so.
Still, the progressives of Claremont are having one last word. An ad will run in the Claremont Courier two days before Veterans Day, November 11. It offers a perspective on what Veterans Day has officially been declared to be. The city council's action runs counter to the intent of the official justification for the commemorative day.
See the full ad, complete with signatures, here.
Perhaps there will be a future review of the entire matter next year.
Protesting Bush in Rancho Cucamonga
On August 29 the President and entourage came to Rancho Cucamonga - fleeing Crawford and Cindy Sheehan and also avoiding proximity to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina - to give a speech on Social Security and Medicare. Protesters from several groups were there including a contingent of JVCDC members. Of course there were also the Bush supporters. According to the newspaper report there were approximately the same number of people in each camp.
It is instructive to hear the reports of those in opposition to Bush. For the other side was, typically, ill-behaved and with nothing of substance to say.
So I have posted here a few written comments by people who were at the protest. Go here to read them.
(909)-626-8100
P.O. Box 1201, Claremont, CA 91711