Readers’ comments: May 22, 2026

New South Village plan is a bait and switch
Dear editor:
One word response regarding the proposal to scale down the already approved Village South development plan: No.
Opanyi Nasiali
Claremont

Village South developer needs to hear from Claremonters
Dear editor:
The recent shenanigans of Village Partners, Inc. has left me wondering what the citizens of Claremont can do to fight back against the unethical practices of real estate developers.
I do not know what the most effective strategy might be, but I think the least we can do aside from submitting comments to our own city government at cveirs@claremontca.gov, is to contact the developer directly en masse, write letters to the editors of their local newspapers, and contact the Better Business Bureau.
Village Partners headquarters is 4350 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Their phone number is (959) 998–9318. The local newspapers in Newport Beach include The Orange County Register (email: opinion@scng.com), the Newport Beach Independent (email: christopher@firebrandmediainc.com), and Stu News Newport (email: lana@stunewsnewport.com). The BBB’s Pacific southwest office can be reached by phone at (714) 930–7803 or via email through their website, bbb.org/local-bbb/pacific-southwest-central-inland-california.
I hope that many of us will get involved and hold the real estate company accountable for its actions.
YouYoung Kang
Claremont

Not on board with new South Village plan
Dear editor:
As a 46-year resident/homeowner of the City of Claremont, and present resident of Pilgrim Place, I feel compelled to voice my concern over the pending proposal by Village Partners to forego public hearings, City Council review, and California Environmental Quality Act environmental assessment regarding the South Village Specific Plan. Given the extensively documented site pollution by trichloroethylene, or TCE (a cancer-linked solvent) into dry wells on the property, and it’s detection into local groundwater above EPA safe drinking water limits, I urge city officials to reject the developer’s request, and move forward expeditiously with all legal oversight within its jurisdiction. 
Whatever one’s views on housing density, or other controversies surrounding the proposed development, the fact that the ground beneath the site may not be environmentally safe to build upon should prove caution enough to trigger any and all oversight legally available to the city. For close to half a century I have taken pride in the way in which my city has judiciously balanced development interests with the health and safety requirements of its residents. Advancement of this important development should not come at the expense of fundamental needs and rights of community members. Thank you for your consideration.
Rose Ash
Claremont

Not on board with new South Village plan
Dear editor:
I’ve lived in Claremont for almost 40 years. During most of that time the Chevy dealership on Indian Hill has been vacant — not generating sales tax for the city and not a great look as people drive into town.
When plans were approved for something new on that rusty, blighted site I was delighted; things would finally get cleaned up and the area would be used for something positive! Now the developer has changed their mind. We don’t need a row of three-story townhomes most of our kids, grandkids, and many who work in Village offices and shops in town can’t afford to live in.
Keep Claremont an interesting, safe place to walk, visit, and shop, with ground-floor retail like the rest of the Village.
Diana Miller 
Claremont

Not on board with new South Village plan
Dear editor:
Claremont South Village Specific Plan needs you to actively, or passively, address your support.
The developer, Village Partners, is proposing changes that are not consistent with the approved master plan that will have mixed housing, walkable streets, transit connections, and retail. The plan must also clear up water and soil pollution.
To meet the state of California density requirements the South Village project must also provide housing within easy access to public transit.
Claremont must either find a developer who is willing to address these needs or shift to a capable development group that will.
Claremont needs a sustainable urban area to address climate and reduce emissions. We can accommodate bicycles and enjoy shade trees in Claremont.
Claremont has a long heritage of development. We have a core provided by the Garner House at Memorial Park, which is currently celebrating its 100th anniversary. Padua Hills Theatre, and property, provided an interface to the Claremont Wilderness Park. The Packing House is now a focus for Village west. The Vortox building can be redeveloped in the south Village.
We need to work as a community for Claremont. The City Council, Sustainable Claremont, the planning and architectural commissions are all involved. We need to visualize future needs. We need the discipline of many people who are users and merchants — providing a creative community.
Let’s interconnect with dignity.
Mark von Wodtke
Claremont

Not on board with new South Village plan
Dear editor:
I am strongly opposed to any actions by the developer to alter the plans for the South Village to build row houses instead of building out the mixed-use plan that the city approved. Claremont does not need more cookie-cutter condos. It needs more affordable housing and an array of other sizes and shapes for housing options. On Indian Hill Boulevard, the city needs an enlargement of the “Village,” not a mass of little boxes made of ticky-tacky (from an old song).
Claremont is known for its walkability and sustainability, not just for the residents of the south Village area but for all who live and work in Claremont. Who else besides residents will walk row after row of townhomes? With nice spacious garages, who in the row houses will make public transportation their primary option for transit?
While I applaud the state for taking steps to streamline processes for review and approval of new developments, these changes should not be implemented ex post facto or as a blunt instrument that overrides other competing policy interests. A balancing test should be required for all developments where there are competing policy interests.
If preserving the existing plan means fighting the state too, then the city should do it. It will have the support of many other small and medium cities. And it should develop a strong litigation plan a whole lot smarter than what was deployed in some other fights in court. I need not elaborate.
John W. Tulac
Claremont

New meter, higher bill: what gives, GSW?
Dear editor:
My water bill has always been relatively low. No complaints. Recently, Golden State Water Company installed a new water meter on my property. There was no prior warning or notice; I just happened to walk outside and see a man already in the process of inspection/installation. He mentioned that the water might be off for a maximum of 20 minutes; in reality, he finished in under three minutes.
Within two weeks of installation, I began receiving letters from GSW stating that my house probably has a leak. The first bill I received after installation was approximately $100 more than usual; the most recent bill is approximately $120 more than usual. I have not changed my water usage habits in any way.
I am on a fixed income and I cannot afford nor justify this sudden rate increase, especially immediately after a new meter was installed. I believe Golden State’s new meter may be in error and I believe I’m entitled to have it replaced and/or tested for accuracy. If the replacement meter reveals the same substantial increase, I will accept the new data and adapt somehow.
I would like to be notified in advance of this replacement so I can be present to ensure a different, new meter is installed.
Keith Thomas
Claremont

Mexican Players story was problematic
Dear editor:
John Neiuber, your Courier article, “The Padua Hills Theatre and the Mexican Players,” [May 15] appalled me with its perpetuation of white colonialism superiority and assumptions, historical erasure — and flat-out racism. The Garners “knew many Mexican boys and girls in the Claremont area who seemed to have a natural talent for singing and dancing” (italics mine) who then were enlisted to perform. Shades of extolling African-Americans for “having rhythm.”
While reading the piece, I recalled being at Padua Hills Theatre a few years ago for the Claremont Heritage event honoring that history — and being welcomed by my old friend and barrio activist, the late Alfonso Villanueva, who proudly recounted his family’s history of engagement with the theater.  So I was expecting that perhaps Al would be mentioned in this history, or at least some Mexican names would be included. Nada. Nary a peep. Nothing. Only Bess Garner Bess Garner Bess Garner. Did none of these uncounted production talents have names?
Shame on you.
Julie Steinbach
Claremont