Readers’ comments: May 15, 2026

Thanks for all you do, Courier
Dear editor:
This is a long overdue message of appreciation to you, and all that you do at the Claremont Courier.
I am a Claremont resident and longtime reader of the Courier. I love the newspaper that you and the others put so much time, effort, and love into, and am immensely proud that the Courier is one of the few remaining local newspapers around. Having grown up in the San Gabriel Valley, I keenly understand the importance of having local news. In my opinion, it is a linchpin that helps keep a community together. I can’t tell you how many conversations I’ve had with fellow Claremont residents that began with, “Did you see the article about [insert topic] in the Courier?”
In particular, I wish to express my appreciation for your “Going There” articles. From your musings about aging, your heartwarming, nostalgic story about tracing your steps back to your grandfather’s home in Tehachapi, to the powerful and inspiring tribute you wrote for your late best friend Christine Moore, it has been a complete pleasure and privilege to read about these articles and learn more about you through them. At a time when local journalism is on life support and we are inundated with AI content, I have come to realize and appreciate just how unique and human it is to have stories like yours published. You give voice to some of us that, for various reasons, are unable to articulate due to our circumstances.
While I’ve never met Christine before, I’m sure she would have been happy and proud to have such a dear friend write so well and highly of her. I read “This death is not the end” three times to fully appreciate and absorb it all.
I hope that you continue these wonderful articles. Thank you again for all that you do.
Lawrence Murata-Shih
Claremont

Developer’s new South Village plan is a bait and switch
Dear editor:
Village South was supposed to be one of Claremont’s best opportunities to build a walkable, mixed-use, transit-oriented extension of the Village — the product of years of public planning and community discussion. Sustainable Claremont supported that vision because it brought together values essential to Claremont’s future: environmental sustainability, housing opportunity, active transportation, local economic vitality, public spaces, and thoughtful long-term planning.
The newly proposed revisions to blocks C, D, E, and F would substantially undermine that vision. The proposal would cut density from about 57 units per acre to 20, reducing it by roughly two-thirds. It would eliminate apartments, flat-style condominiums, ground-floor retail, and structured parking. It would narrow housing options, replace public-facing active streets with garage dominated private alleys, and weaken the project’s relationship to transit, the Village, and civic life.
Our position is not anti-development. We oppose these revisions because we believe wholeheartedly in the promise of Village South: new housing, thoughtful density, new residents, new businesses, public gathering spaces, and a true southern extension of the Village, not a scaled-back project that falls far short of the community’s vision.
Village South is the right place for well-planned density: near transit, jobs, services, and the Village. It is one of the few places in Claremont where the city can create housing for young adults, older adults, local workers, renters, first-time buyers, downsizing seniors, and people who grew up here but cannot afford to return.
We urge residents to encourage city staff and City Council to reject the applicant’s claim that these revisions are exempt from further review, to require appropriate CEQA review, hold public hearings, defend the adopted Village South Specific Plan, and bring the developer back to the table.
Now is the time for residents to speak up and urge the city to protect the Village South vision before this once-in-a-generation opportunity is lost.
The board of Sustainable Claremont

Dear editor:
I am a Claremont resident and am writing in response to Sue Schenk’s May 8 Viewpoint [“South Village is not what we signed up for”].
I strongly support Ms. Schenk’s points regarding the changes proposed by the developer to the design and layout of the original plans for South Village. The outcome of these changes would amount to a complete repudiation of the original criteria for this new addition to public space within the Claremont Village. For years, we have been looking forward to a new neighborhood that would complement and enhance the successful mix of residential with commercial spaces in the west Village. To now reduce this new area to a purely residential neighborhood, and to do so without further input from Claremont citizens,  is a brazen bait and switch.
What’s, a key criterion for the approval of the original plans for South Village was the creation of housing and living spaces for a mix of residents — young and old, singles and families, renters and homeowners. The proposed reduction of the number of homes from 500 to a paltry 140 is unacceptable for many reasons, but the key reason is Claremont is already running behind in building new affordable housing units required by the state of California. The loss of over 350 already approved new residences would be a severe setback.
As far as I can see, this reduction has been unilaterally proposed by the developer without a compelling justification. In my mind, it constitutes a substantial modification of the original contract with the Claremont community. South Village is an important addition to our civic space, therefore, process matters: at the very least, any proposed changes must be reviewed by the city, the public must be given opportunities for providing input, and a new EIR must be prepared.
Martina Ebert
Claremont

Dear editor:
I lived in several places in Claremont between 1983 and 2005: a tract home above Foothill that could have been anywhere and a small house on east Green Street in walking distance of the Village and the train station. I loved my Green Street house because it gave me direct access to the best of Claremont at a price I could afford.
When I moved back to Claremont — to Pilgrim Place — in 2022, I was delighted to see the plans for the South Village and excited to envision what it would bring to my old neighborhood. I liked the mix of types of houses for buyers and renters. I liked that the transit-oriented plan kept parking limited and streets active so that taking the train made sense. The shops on the ground floor and the welcoming outdoor spaces sounded like they would be fun to explore and would connect the South Village to the West Village. And I was impressed that it would be Claremont’s first LEED certified neighborhood.
The new plan that drastically reduces the number and variety of units, privileges cars over public transportation, and eliminates all the shops is a total disappointment. Please go back to the approved plan that feels more like our town and lets people of all income levels live in Claremont and especially in the Village!
Ann Taves
Claremont

Dear editor:
Claremont has a state obligation to produce more than 1,700 new housing units by 2029. Losing more than 350 of them at Village South is not compliant.
Claremont Community Development Director Brad Johnson has reported that such a loss in housing  units could trigger California’s No Net Loss law, forcing the city to significantly increase density somewhere else — somewhere less suited and less prepared — and within six months.
Village South is located in proximity to the Metrolink station and is one of the few sites in Claremont specifically designed to support this kind of density.
Please hold Village Partners to the already approved design.
Michael Tapia
Claremont

Dear editor:
I am writing to oppose Village Partners’ attempt to self-certify a CEQA exemption.
That decision belongs to the city and city staff already made it.
Village Partners’ revised project is not consistent with the Village South Specific Plan. Any revisions to the specific plan should require a legislative amendment; and where a legislative act is required, CEQA applies.
Cutting over 350 homes of different sizes and prices, eliminating all ground-floor retail (and the sales tax and jobs that go with it), and converting active streets to private garage alleys constitutes a different project, not a modification of what was approved.
The position city staff has taken is correct — don’t cave to the developer! Bait and switch is not good government.
The Rev. Sid Mohn
Claremont

Say more about sanctuaries
Dear editor:
I appreciated David Andrews’ idea of introducing us to the “city of sanctuaries” [“Interfaithfully: Sacred spaces abound locally, regionally,” May 1]. However, he introduced us to only one. Will he be doing further articles on the many more sanctuaries that he barely named, plus all those he didn’t name? I would love to know more about Temple Beth Israel, Our Lady of the Assumption, the Islamic Center of Claremont, New Life Pomona, The Presbyterian Church, Claremont United Methodist, Good Shepherd Lutheran, etc.
Karen Lull
Claremont

Awake in Hungary
Dear editor:
In the 2026 elections, the Hungarian people proved they are woke — i.e. awake and aware — which is the original meaning of “woke.”
Opanyi Nasiali
Claremont