Coalition to Preserve Claremont's Character Wins a Round.
Two Initiative's On the Ballot in March?
The Oaks Initiative An Ordinance?
August 24, 2000
Rev. August 24, 2000 4:10 PM


by Terrance Dwyer

The Coalition to Preserve Claremont's Character/Friends of the Bernard Field Station presented the City of Claremont with 3200 signatures aimed at putting the future of the proposed Keck development before the voters in March 2001. The question now is, will the University Consortium be content to sit back and let the voters decide the future use of college land? They've professed a willingness to work with the people of Claremont on this issue but they've also declared their devotion to the 80 year old "Blaisdell Plan.

The City has provided little support for preservation of this parcel. The City staff and committees have endorsed the development and backed the University Center's intent to build. The Environmental Impact Report assailed by critics as "boosterish" and "technically flawed", was still certified by the Architectural Committee and accepted by the city council.

The Friends of The Bernard Field Station appealed the certification. Of the appeal, City Advanced Planner Belle Newman stated "the council rejected each and every issue raised in the appeal", the "staff believes that the appeal has no merit." No merit! She finishes with a request that council "deny each and every issue raised in the appeal." Don't mess with the Architectural Commission. Resolution? Appeal denied. Game, set, match.
Ms. Newman presents the City's position.

End of story except for the troublesome petitions signed by 3200 people who disagree with Ms. Newman, the city staff and the council and want this put to a vote.

The City/College alliance has been and will continue to be a tough, costly adversary for Coalition founder Carol Gil and her group. And historically, in the Inland Empire, the bulldozer is mightier than the ballot. Maybe this time it will be different.

A source close to the city told ClaremontCA.com to expect two things. First, the city will mount a campaign in opposition to the measure using the cudgel of unenforcability and the likelihood of
an expensive lawsuit with the University Consortium if the
initiative is approved. Sound familiar?

2nd, CUC will certainly back away from it's position of "the people's will be done, it's only the fringe that oppose us." Ms. Gil and her group have been working within the established rules; no development agreement, no construction. But now Ms. Barham-Hill,
CEO of the University Consortium was quoted as saying in yesterday's Daily Bulletin "We believe we can move forward even without a development agreement". They don't need no stinking badges.

Much has been made of the "unfeasibility" of alternate sites, the economics being a primary reason. Would it cost $1M, maybe $2M more to move the development to the east? To kick-start Keck, the grad school offers free tuition and a stipend for the 2 year Masters program. A free Masters degree in Bio-science. The 28 inaugural students times an average $30,000 tuition equals an $840,000 subsidy per year. A $1.68M giveaway from the school the City protects from "economic unfeasibility".

And finally, The Oaks; another group burned playing by the rules. The Oaks initiative is also scheduled for the March ballot. If both the Coalition's and Oak's initiatives end up on that ballot, voters interests might be piqued enough to raise voter turnout.

When the city initiated an outside review of the Oaks initiative and consequently missed the deadline for placing that initiative on the November ballot as promised, some speculated that the city cynically preferred a March date because the lower March voter turnout worked against the initiative.

Coincidentally, Paul Herzog, coordinator of The Oaks Project, Claremont initiative drive, told CLaremontCA.com today that Claremont officials are considering making a city ordinance of the the Oaks initiative. Is this the strategy of embrace-dilute-destroy or a sincere desire for reform?

Still, it appears that both initiatives will end up on the March ballot.
A lot can happen before then.