My side of the line
The affordable housing issue

By Rebecca JamesCourie
Editor-in-Chief

The affordable housing issue will be bantered about at the city council meeting this Tuesday, January 8. I say bantered about because we anticipate a long evening of pros and cons and then (God help us all) the vote that will determine the future of young children of low-income families.

We’ve heard it all—especially here at the COURIER—just by talking with people and through all the letters to the editor. (No, not all were published because even COURIER owner Martin Weinberger said he didn’t publish all letters that kept talking about the same issue.) But we did publish enough to let the world know that this is an emotional issue. I recently mentioned this to someone who looked at me and said, “Ya think?!”

But, why does it have to be emotional? It’s actually very simple. Both the EIR and AQMD have told the city council not to do it—for obvious reasons, the air quality will not be healthy. Of course, we can refer back to the idea of having families sign a waiver saying they know of the health risks. I, for one, would love to hear how that waiver would read:

“I, the undersigned, do hereby relinquish all responsibility over the health of my children, their children and their children’s children so that, when they succumb to cancer and/or irreversible asthmatic and/or emphysema attacks that completely incapacitate them for life and force them to apply for welfare and create a total dependency on welfare that is passed on to their children and their children’s children, the city will not be responsible for any and all conditions thereto experienced by me, my family and their offspring. I fully understand that I can never hold the city of Claremont responsible for the fact that I, or my children, could be totally dependent upon welfare for the rest of our lives and I will not be physically able to contribute in a meaningful way to the betterment of mankind.”

What a mess! Let’s supply low-income housing to folks who truly want to provide for their families but, at the same time, let’s put them in a spot that will disable them and their children as well. Yep, that’s the ticket! Kick ‘em when they’re down!

In a world filled with technology and information at our fingertips, it’s amazing that—even though they are presented with the facts—some city council members will blindly go forth like a pit bull biting down, locking its jaws and not letting go.  It’s my understanding that they have 5 years in which to meet state requirements for low-income housing.  Why the hurry now?  Is it because some council members merely need a feather in their caps before retiring from the council?  If so, please reconsider the legacy you are leaving.

Earlier in December, I heard a council member say affordable housing on Baseline Road was “morally the right thing to do.” In the pure sense of providing affordable housing, I would agree. But, with the caveat of poor health and sick children attached to this project, I would not.

Perhaps we should ask the council members if they would have their children or grandchildren live in the proposed project with the threat of cancer looming over their heads.