Active Claremont June Meeting on Larkin Place
Community Testimonials
A Letter to the Claremont City Council 5-15-22
From a respected resident, a former psychiatric hospital administrator, Asst. Director of Behavioral Health for San Bernardino County and a retired police officer from Los Angeles County.
Click image to read->
Letter to Editor: Low-Income Housing
April 21, 2022
Dear editor:
Your editorial of Friday, April 15 does an injustice to those of us opposed—not to a residence for low-income and “unhoused” people in Larkin Park, quite the contrary—but to Jamboree’s proposed funding source which requires that people with ongoing drug use, and/or mental illness cannot be denied residence, and further, cannot be evicted for such. It is proposed as a “permanent supportive housing” facility” that must admit people with ongoing drug use issues. Furthermore these people will come from agencies that serve eastern L.A. County.
I have attended several meetings of the group that is trying to influence the characteristics of such a facility, and no one there has voiced any objections to the construction of the facility for low-income and/or homeless persons, especially veterans, older folks and homeless persons that are indigenous to Claremont, who will not be sought as residents for the proposed facility. I do not speak for that group, but have in fact heard their much support for a facility in the proposed site that would accommodate people as these.
But to locate a facility that must accommodate current drug-users and persons with mental illness, where counseling is optional, where up to three unvetted visitors per unit are permissible for two weeks out of every month (but which has no apparent means of enforcing that rule—evictions are not allowed), to have all this in close proximity to El Roble Intermediate School (not to mention its nearness to other schools and retirement communities) seems madness, not just “complaining NIMBYism.”
Robert Borton
Letter to Editor: Larkin Place commentary
April 28, 2022
Dear editor:
In response to articles, “Residents hear from developer during Larkin Place meeting,” dated April 7, and “Is Claremont coming to a crossroads,” the following concerns should be brought to light.
On January 25, the Claremont City Council thoughtlessly voted to provide funding to Jamboree Development to develop a low-income permanent housing project without any communications and input from the Claremont residents.
It is disturbing how the city and Jamboree are describing this project as low-income permanent housing.
The real description should be described as a huge no income nonpermanent group home.
Putting a low, low income project sandwiched between a senior citizen retirement community, a soccer field where young kids frequently wander, a baseball, softball field frequently played with young boys and girls, a junior high school, and daycare center all within 600 feet of the proposed Larkin center is absolutely ludicrous.
The facility can house up to 87 people per HUD rules, and these people can have unvetted overnight guests potentially for up to 14 days per month, every month.
“Housing First” funding states illegal drug use is not grounds for eviction, and tenant drug rehabilitation and mental health counseling is optional.
There are no measures in place to assist in keeping nearby parks, schools, and streets clean and clear of drug paraphernalia such as used needles and inadvertently abandoned drugs.
The city council claims that this project is a “by right” development. But this doesn’t mean that the city council should take a hands-off approach. Clearly, the city has a responsibility to ensure that the project should harmoniously meet the spirit of bringing in appropriate and sensible low-income housing, and balance it against the safety concerns of the community. Clearly, the city council has not demonstrated “due diligence.”
One of the exceptions that the city can intervene on this project is to demonstrably show that the project would not have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety of Claremont residents. They have not demonstrated this.
Clearly, the city council has an opportunity to influence the type of low-income housing that is brought into the community. There are several other family friendly low-income projects that could be considered. Why isn’t the city council being an advocate for developing a project that would consider the concerns of the residents in the community? Saying that the city council has their hands tied is a poor excuse and clearly passing the buck onto the state.
This is a powder keg ready to explode. Moreover, if the city council were to approve a drive access easement through the parking lot east of the Larkin Park soccer field to this project, this creates further safety issues for park users and young children.
Is the city ready to assume the liability of these risks? I implore the city council to take another look at this and reconsider the health and safety needs of the community and regain their credibility.
Sincerely,
Paul M. Gendron
Claremont
Housing Claremont, members of Pilgrim Place, and Jamboree are related in support of Larkin Place and comprised of some of the same individuals
LA County Supervisor Kathryn Barger in an informational Special Session with Claremont City Council. A constructive discussion on how one size does not fit all, you can’t force it on residents, and why