Claremont COURIER/Friday, March 8, 2013
The Claremont Courier (United States Postal Service 115-180) is published once weekly by the Courier Graphics Corporation at 1420 N. ClaremontBlvd., 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 postageis paid at Claremont, California 91711-5003. Single copy: One dollar. Annual subscription: $52.00. Send all remittances and correspondence about sub-scriptions, undelivered copies and changes of address to the Courier, 1420 N. Claremont Blvd., Suite 205B, Claremont, California 91711-5003. Tele-phone: 909-621-4761. Copyright © 2013 Claremont Courier
one hundred and fifth year, number 17
420 N. Claremont Blvd., Ste. 205BClaremont, CA 91711
(909) 621-4761Office hours: Monday-Friday9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Publisher and Owner
Photo Editor/Staff Photographer
Reporter At Large
Kathryn Dunn, Jenelle Rensch
Office Manager/ Legal Notices
City not swayed by threat
Dear Editor:As reported recently in the ClaremontCOURIER, the city of Claremont has re-ceived several requests seeking to obtaincopies of documents related to the city’spotential acquisition of the water systemin Claremont.Documents that are either produced orreceived by the city are generally subjectto the California Public Records Act(PRA). Like all requests the city receivesfor copies of documents and correspon-dence, the city has responded to these re-quests in accordance with state law.This specifically applies to the city’s re-sponse to the recent public records re-quests submitted by the ClaremontCOURIER and by the northern Californiaadvocacy group mentioned in the article.As the article correctly points out, this par-ticular group is also seeking copies of cor-respondence the city may have receivedfrom certain Claremont residents, referredto as “activists.” The reference made bythe advocacy group stating that the cityhas violated the Public Records Act iscompletely inaccurate.The city of Claremont will continue toprovide documents to any individual orgroup in accordance with state law.Last, the article indicates that the advo-cacy group is threatening legal actionagainst the city if we do not meet each of their demands and timeframes.The city of Claremont will continue tocomply with every provision of the PublicRecords Act, and the city will not beswayed by the threat of legal action.
Dear Editor:It’s been several weeks now and I havetried very hard to learn to love the newmonument signs at the Old School House,but I can’t do it.I completely understand the desire of the merchants to have some signs withtheir names visible from the street, butwhat we have now looks like a leftoverfrom Halloween and that gets in the wayof my reading any of the text.Why couldn’t we have had 2 shortersigns with the same pastel orange as theCitibank sign, and the same backgroundcolor? Why do the names have to be a jumble of sizes, fonts and colors with aminimal border around the words? All of this makes the sign very hard to read.Why not use the same font and color forall the text? Isn’t the point to make it easyfor people driving by to read?A lot of people worked hard to try topreserve the OSH and to make sure it wasrenovated in keeping with its history andwith Claremont values.These signs seriously interfere withthose goals and provide an object lessonin what can go wrong when you allowlarge signs without sufficient restrictionson design.I may be in the minority, but to me thesesigns seem to create visual pollution with-out achieving their advertising goals verywell, and to move the city toward lookinglike every other town.I hope we can rethink how the rulesshould be applied.