Sam Pedroza is Claremont's new mayor

Claremont has a new Mayor.

Sam Pedroza was selected to head the city council over the next year at last night's council meeting. After serving 4 years on the council, Pedroza was next in line to take over the leadership position.

"I'm very much looking forward to working together because that's the only way we're going to make things happen," Pedroza said of the new council.

Outgoing mayor Linda Elderkin gave a teary farewell speech before stepping off the dias for the final time.

"I have come to understand through wonderful experience what is meant by the often used phrase: 'It has been an honor and a privilege'," she said.

New city council members Opanyi Nasiali and Joe Lyons were also sworn into office last night. The new-look council will get down to business next Tuesday, beginning with a closed session discussion on salary negotiations with the city's labor unions.

The council will also discuss a contract on the Claremont Safe Routes to School program and hear a report card and background report on Claremont Sustainability.

More on lawn signs

My lawn sign post from Wednesday drew some attention from readers. After talking with Sam Pedroza again the following day, it turns out volunteers with the Democratic Club of Claremont was putting up signs for Pedroza and Robin Haulman, both Democrats, in the yards of DCC members. But if members were not home when DCC volunteers showed up, the signs went up in their yards anyways.

Strangely enough, I got a voice message the morning after my post from Rudy Mann, who complained that someone put a lawn sign from candidate Opanyi Nasiali, a Republican, in his front yard. Mann is the husband of DCC president Zephyr Tate-Mann and an active volunteer in the club.

We've been playing phone since then, so I haven't had the chance to ask Mann if he was one of the volunteers putting up lawn signs in DCC member's yards without asking permission first. If so, it seems odd to me and a bit ironic that he's complaining about an unwanted lawn sign while his DCC was going around doing the same thing to its members.

Unwelcome lawn signs

Complaints about lawn signs are a long tradition in Claremont during election season. Either they go missing from people's yards or are placed on public property illegally. In the last couple of days, we're hearing complaints from residents about candidate's lawn signs popping up in their front yards without their permission.

Gwen Brown, who lives on Scripps Drive, came home yesterday to find lawn signs from city council candidates Sam Pedroza and Robin Haulman in her front yard. They've since been taken down and put in the garage.

"I would appreciate if I was asked first before a political sign went up on my property," Ms. Brown said. "I really take offense to a controlling political party trying to push an opinion on me."

In another neighborhood in north Claremont, the same 2 candidate's signs appeared in another resident's lawn.

"I do not know anything about Robin Haulman, never met nor do I know her," said the resident, who asked not to be named. "Sam I am aware is on the city council now but I was surprised that someone had the hutzpa to plant their signs in my yard without asking permission. I have nothing personally against either one but thought it was rather rude."

Pedroza responded that he always asks before putting up a lawn sign or provides them to people who specifically ask him for one. He doesn't know who may have put up the signs without the residents' permission.

Haulman added that she has a release form for residents to sign stating they want a lawn sign and agree to take one.

"No one should be indiscriminately putting up signs without getting their express permission beforehand," Haulman said.

Pedroza noted that lawn sign shenanigans are a constant problem in Claremont elections and wished the problems could be avoided.

"If I didn't have to do signs, I wouldn't," Pedroza said. "They're more trouble than they're worth."

Smoking ban rejected

"I choose free will." - Mayor Pro Tem Sam Pedroza, quoting a song from Rush.

The proposed outdoor ban on smoking in Claremont was not passed on Tuesday night. The city council voted 4 to 1 against the prohibition measure, citing potential negative impacts on businesses and a lack of evidence that second-hand smoke in outdoor settings is any sort of health risk.

Nearly 20 speakers addresses the council on the issue during the meeting, most of whom were opposed to the ban. One speaker, Ed Tessier, mocked the idea, saying the council should next ban strong smelling perfumes, the Metrolink because it causes pollution and crying babies.

Only Councilmember Larry Schroeder supported the proposal, saying that "the public good often trumps the personal choice."

Both Councilmember Peter Yao and Mayor Pro Tem Sam Pedroza questioned why the item was even on the council's agenda. Back in 2008, the council already discussed banning smoking in the public plaza and decided against it at that time.

They criticized the Community Services Commission for wasting the time of an already understaffed city staff with an item that was clearly not a priority for the city council.

Linda Elderkin is Claremont's new mayor

New Mayor Linda Elderkin presents outgoing mayor Corey Calaycay with a plaque from the city.

There's a new mayor in town. Linda Elderkin became Claremont's mayor at last night's city council meeting. Elected in 2007 and a Claremont resident since 1994, Elderkin takes over the reigns from outgoing mayor Corey Calaycay.

"I am delighted to be the mayor because I love Claremont so much," she said. "I really believe strongly I never would have run for council anywhere else. Where Corey said he grew up here, I grew up here as a community person."

Calaycay received a plaque and flowers from the city and was thanked for a job well done. As mayor, Elderkin will lead city council meetings and represent the city at public events. Sam Pedroza, also elected in 2007, will take over as Mayor Pro Tem.

Every March, the city council votes on who will serve as Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem for the upcoming year.

How out of touch are city leaders?

There were a couple of eyebrow-raising incidents at Tuesday night's city council meeting that might make one wonder if some of our city leaders are out of touch with what's going on in town.

The first incident happened when the council was voting to relax some of its overbearing signage laws that regulate every little detail about how businesses can advertise their goods and services with signs. For example, banners can only be used to promote a new business or a change of ownership. And window signs can take up no more than 15 percent of window space.

With the holiday shopping season coming up and with businesses struggling to keep their doors open, the Chamber of Commerce pushed for an urgency ordinance to relax some of these restrictions. Being able to advertise and promote their businesses a little more freely might go a long way at this time of year.

The urgency ordinance needed a supermajority vote or it would fail. Luckily for business owners, 4 council members voted in favor. But one did not. That was Larry Schroeder.

"I just don’t want to give up the charm of our Village, the small town charm, for a possible short-term gain,” Schroeder said.

During his campaign for the city council last year, Schroeder's platform was largely based on promoting economic development in the city and fiscal responsibility on the council.

But now it appears "charm" outweighs economic viability for city businesses whose owners are desperate to find new and creative ways to attract more customers. Anyone who has listened to Claremont's business owners knows that signage restricts has been a serious problem. I would think a councilmember interested in economic development would know that by now.

Besides, I think business owners in the Village have some sense of what's appropriate and what isn't. As Councilmember Sam Pedroza noted, "Our businesses know how to do business. I highly trust that businesses know what's good for them and if they're going to be tacky, they're not going to be very successful in this town."

In any case, the ordinance passed. Businesses will have more free reign to use A-frame signs and banners throughout December 31, 2010. In the meantime, city staff will be reviewing Claremont's outdated signage laws in order to bring them into the 21st Century.

The other curious incident happened when the council was discussing the bailout of the Claremont Museum of Art. City Manager Jeff Parker was describing some the key businesses in the Packing House other than the museum.

"[The museum] has been one of the cornerstones [of the Packing House] along with the restaurant that unfortunately had the fire and the other restaurant on the other end, the Mediterranean restaurant, and the Hip Kitty and the children's cooking school there."

Does the city manager honestly not know the names of The Forks, Casablanca and The Young Chef's Academy - businesses he sees as "the cornerstones" of the Packing House? Maybe he was just drawing a blank at the moment. I certainly hope so.

The Forks has been shut down since December 2008 because of an electrical fire. Problems with securing money from their insurance company have delayed the owners from re-opening. But they are hoping to be up and running soon. I'm planning to get a complete story on The Forks and their future plans in an upcoming issue of the Courier.

Calaycay's Christmas lights solution goes "down in flames"

Last week, the city council spent about half an hour discussing whether to create a new law that would force all residents of the city to remove any holiday displays within one month after the holiday. That's right, if your Christmas lights, pumpkins and other festive decorations are outside too long, city code enforcement would be knocking on your door.

For a long list of reasons, the council voted down the ordinance. In nicer words, council members called the ordinance pointless, unnecessary and even questioned its constitutionality.

So why is the city council wasting time to consider such a proposal? Hundreds of residents have holiday lights mounted on their houses all year round and it's never been an issue before.

Keep in mind, it's not just a 30-minute discussion at the council meeting. City staff has to research the item, write up a staff report and ordinance and a present its findings to the council.

The Planning Commission also had to consider the item. Like the council, the commission overwhelmingly opposed the ordinance, saying it wasn't in the best interest of the city.

Not to mention the fact that the city council has already discussed this matter before, and chose not to take action. Many of the same issues were brought up at both meetings.

The answer is that the mayor has some power to set the agenda for council meetings, picking and choosing items that interest him/her. In this case, Mayor Corey Calaycay brought this item before the council after no doubt hearing an earful from one unhappy resident.

That unhappy resident is Robert Swartz, who's been in an ongoing dispute with his neighbor Richard Viselli. Each year Viselli transforms his home into an over-the-top Christmas lights show. Nothing would make Swartz happier than having the show completely shut down.

So 2 neighbors can't resolve their differences, one goes and complains to the Mayor and now everyone in the city has to take their Christmas lights down?

Even if this ordinance was approved, little would be resolved between the neighbors. The brunt of the conflict between them is about the actual lights show. Swartz complained at the meeting about Viselli setting up lights several months before the holiday. There's nothing in the ordinance that would regulate either of these things.

"We expect people to take their trash cans in at the end of the day, I figured it wasn't too far removed from what we already have in Claremont that we could at least investigate this as a possible solution to the problem," Calaycay said.

When it was clear the proposal was "going to go down in flames," he added, "To those neighbors who were hoping that this might work, I apologize. And to those who think this is the most stupid idea in the world, I also apologize to you."

The council voted 4 to 1 against the new law.

"I hope this doesn't come back [to the council]," Councilmember Sam Pedroza said. "I hope this is something that you guys figure out and take care of it."

I couldn't agree more.

COURIER vs City softball match

Today the COURIER will take on the city in a friendly softball match. Everyone is invited to come out and support the COURIER team (or the city, if you are so inclined). The city's team features Councilmember Sam Pedroza and several city staff members.

It should be a fun time for all. You might want to be want to bring a lawn chair and something to drink, it's hot out there! The game is at Larkin Park, 660 N. Mountain Ave., beginning at 6 p.m.

Claremont swap meet?

At the last city council meeting, the council voted to allow a Village business owner to place a display just outside his business.

The display from men's clothing store, Tally For Men, consists of a couple mannequins, a table displaying the store's latest products and a clothing rack.

We all know the shop from the massive and disingenuous "Clearance Sale" signs that owner Michael Talaee draped across the store's front windows for months on end. Strange marketing plan if you ask me, but maybe the gimmick got a few extra people to walk into his store.

In any case, it was an unusual item to be on the city council's agenda. These kinds of squabbles will generally be worked out between business owners and city staff well before the council has to step in.

But Talaee insisted on having his outdoor display despited being cited repeatedly by city code enforcement. Then the Planning Commission got involved and voted heavily against the outdoor display. Talaee appealed the decision, which is why the council got involved.

Tally For Men recently moved from a location on Second Street to a spot on the west side of Indian Hill Boulevard. Talaee had been complaining about a lack of foot traffic on Second Street and other problems with the management of the Village Expansion project.

From nearly the beginning, Talaee was threatening a lawsuit against Jonathan Tolkin, developer of the Expansion, in order to weasel out of his lease. We covered the issue back in February 2008.

Threatening his landlord with lawsuits and fighting with the city over the outdoor display, Talaee doesn't seem like the nicest fellow to deal with. Nonetheless, he got 3 out of 5 council members to vote his way.

Perhaps the pressure to appear business friendly in tough economic times got to Mayor Corey Calaycay, and council members Peter Yao and Sam Pedroza.

"Do we prefer seeing an empty building there or do we welcome a business that has proved to be successful in Claremont by surviving 5 years?" asked Yao at the meeting.

But some observers are questioning their decision, calling it "short sighted." It could very well set a precedent in the Village and across the city with outdoor displays popping up everywhere.

We'll see if applications start pouring in for similar outdoor displays from other businesses. Hopefully, Claremont's Village doesn't begin to look like a swap meet instead of its current upscale look.

The council's unique decision making process

It was quite a pathetic display in the civic process by the Claremont city council tonight. Not because of the decision they eventually came to, but the process they used to arrive there.

The council had a special meeting tonight to consider changes to the affordable housing project on College Avenue. The council had 2 options to consider.

Option one was to leave the project at 45 units for families and 30 units for seniors. Option 2 would lower the density by taking out some family units and replacing them with the smaller senior units.

I’ve never seen a race to make a motion before, but that’s exactly what happened. The first to make a motion wins.

Being the first councilmember to make comments after hearing from the public, Sam Pedroza won the race and his motion carried. The motion carried unanimously, even though 3 out of 5 council members were in favor of the alternative.

Pedroza was in such a hurry to make his motion so he could win the race that he didn’t even bother to share his thoughts about why he’s making the motion or hear what his colleagues had to say.

After a request from Councilmember Peter Yao, he did make some comments. In the name of compromise with area residents, Pedroza pushed for a project with less density and less family housing units.

The project will now have 36 family housing units rather than the 45 that were originally planned. The trade off was an increase of 10 senior housing units, upping the number to 40 from the original 30.

Yao, Mayor Pro Tem Linda Elderkin and Councilmember Larry Schroeder all wanted to keep the project in its original form. But Elderkin seemed more concerned with having consensus on the council than voting for her beliefs. When it came down to the vote, Yao and Schroeder followed suit.

One thing fiscally prudent mayor Corey Calaycay did not mention is that the changes he supported will cost the city an additional $485,000. After squabbling with Yao about Pedroza’s motion, Calaycay threatened to kill any consensus if the motion on the floor was changed.

So in summary, the city council decided to squeeze 9 low income families out of Claremont and pay half a million bucks to do it.

On a positive note; they did it by unanimous decision, even though a majority wanted no changes at all. Good work council.

And your new Mayor is ...

Corey Calaycay is the new Mayor of Claremont or "the guy who was born to be Mayor" as Councilmember Sam Pedroza put it. He was sworn into office last night by retired State Senator Bob Margett, Calaycay's former boss.

Linda Elderkin was nominated for the Mayor Pro Tem position, which she happily accepted. There was no wrangling over who would get the 2 posts this time around.

After the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem nominations, all 5 council members spoke positively about Claremont's future and working together to accomplish goals for the city.

New Councilmember Larry Schroeder mentioned some of his hopes for the city, including the "arduous task of attracting and retaining businesses in Claremont."

"With hard work, we will have a thriving local economy that provides jobs, provides shopping opportunities and sales tax revenue to our community," he said.

Also at the meeting, outgoing Mayor Ellen Taylor bid the community a farewell. During her speech, she outlined a lengthy list of accomplishments for the council during her tenure in office. She lamented over some goals not accomplished, like the affordable housing project on Base Line Road.

She was showered with flowers and thanks from community members and city staff before leaving the podium for the final time. She was able to have an early dinner with her husband on a Tuesday night, a rarity for her over a very busy last 4 years.

With her work on the Youth Master Plan, the board of Tri City Mental Health Center, on senior programs and her support of youth sports, Taylor was praised as a champion of Human Services in Claremont by fellow council members.

For a full report on the evening, be sure to pick up a copy of Saturday's paper.

Deciding Claremont's Mayor

At tonight's city council meeting, Corey Calaycay and Larry Schroeder will be sworn into office, a new Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem will be chosen and a farewell is planned for Mayor Ellen Taylor, who will preside over her final council meeting. Taylor will likely have a few words to say about her tenure in office.

There is no set guidelines for determining who will be the next Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem based on tenure or any defined criteria. One council member will nominate a fellow councilmember and then a vote takes place.

The mayor is largely a ceremonial post. They moderate the council meetings and act as the face of the city at public functions. But all council members eventually want the position, if nothing more than to tell their grandkids that they were once Mayor of Claremont. Over the last couple of years, there has been some wrangling on the council over who gets what position.

In 2007, Calaycay nominated Taylor for the mayor position, even though Peter Yao made it well known that he wanted the post for a second straight year. Calaycay explained his rationale in nominating Taylor over Yao. The position should be rotated annually so that all council members (including himself) have a better chance to serve as mayor during their tenure in office, Calaycay argued.

Taylor declined the nomination, knowing that Yao wanted to serve one more year as Mayor. She nominated Yao for Mayor, who accepted, and she became the Mayor Pro Tem.

A year later, Mayor Pro Tem Taylor was bumped up into the Mayor position, following the traditional pecking order. When voting came up to nominate the Mayor Pro Tem, Yao nominated Sam Pedroza instead of Calaycay, who had 2 years seniority over Pedroza on the council.

Yao never offered an explanation for the snub of Calaycay. Perhaps Yao harbored some lingering resentment from Calaycay's decision the previous year to push Yao out of the Mayor spot earlier than he'd hoped.

In any case, Pedroza respectfully declined the position, and Calaycay was then nominated for Mayor Pro Tem. He accepted.

We'll see tonight if any more jostling goes on. Calaycay's supporters have been calling him "the next Mayor of Claremont" throughout the campaign. He would be the logical choice, having already served 4 years on the council and earning the most votes in the recent election.

If Calaycay becomes Mayor, Pedroza would make the most sense as Mayor Pro Tem, having received the most votes in 2007.

But as we've seen before, logic isn't always the rule of thumb on the city council, so anything is possible.

Reflections on the Landrum shooting

Reporting on the 10 year anniversary of the Landrum shooting was in some way a very difficult story to cover.

The incident was so emotional and disturbing for a community that always seems to strive for perfection.

One reason the Landrum incident was so distressing was that the event exposed some of the hidden imperfections within the city that nobody wanted to acknowledge or even knew existed. Imperfections like transparency in government and how city leaders should respond when faced with a real crisis.

The fact is, nobody truly knows what happened that night 10 years ago, except Officers Kent Jacks and Hany Hanna, who were involved the shooting. Everyone else was just caught up in the aftermath.

I interviewed Karen Rosenthal, who was not mayor when the incident happened but was throughout much of the aftermath. As the voice of the city, Rosenthal was certainly in a difficult position and struggled with being thrown into that role during the crisis.

Rosenthal cried while I interviewed her. Her emotions, which still exist today, personify how lasting an impact the incident had on the community, and all the raw emotions that it invoked.

The greatest criticism of Rosenthal throughout the aftermath was for being insensitive to Landrum and his family and making public statements about his character and personal life that many felt were irrelevant.

Does it matter that he fathered 2 children to 2 different women at the age of 18, as she brought up during our interview? Even going so far as to call him a “rapist, by the legal definition” because the women were underage.

I don’t think so. The young man died under circumstance that could possibly have been avoided. His personal life, aside from any criminal record that he may have had, should not be judged or criticized.

By bringing up these points in public and in statements to the media, along with her "dripping contempt she showed for protesters at public meetings", as one observer noted, Rosenthal made herself appear callous, and likely cost her another term on the council.

When Glenn Southard named the officers Employees of the Year award and released the criminal record of Obee Landrum, he displayed his intent to take an extremely defensive stance over the issue. This did not sit well with those close to him and observers in the community.

With all the poor decisions that he made during the crisis, it calls to question his decision-making abilities on other, less important issues. The city of Claremont may very well be better off without him.

As far as the police, it's hard to say if racial profiling was ever an unwritten policy or a regular practice. Councilmember Sam Pedroza once said after doing a ride-along with police that he felt it was more profiling based on the type of car rather than who was inside.

Regardless, "perception often makes something a reality", as another observer noted. And there was certainly the perception in the community that racial profiling was a very real thing amongst the police. The Police Department was forced to react to that perception and made positive steps to re-building its standing in the community.

Has the city moved on? Yes. Is Claremont a better place? I certainly think so.

Claremont’s civil society rallied to improve on its weaknesses. Let’s hope that if another crisis hits this city, that we will respond better in the future.

A slippery slope during tough economic times

The city council did away with deferred compensation benefits for city council members last night. Council members will still have access to health insurance coverage, unlike other part time city employees. They also get a $400 per month stipend and $30 per Redevelopment meeting they attend.

Only Ellen Taylor and Peter Yao spoke out about the issue. No big surprise there, as they are the only active council members taking health benefits.

“Not everybody has a situation where they are covered by insurance, or if they are, they may be paying for it on their own and they can’t get out of their coverage because they’re afraid once they get out of it, they won’t be able to get back into coverage,” Taylor said. “And they may be using that deferred money to pay for the coverage that they are paying for themselves.”

That’s true. We all know that private health insurance is extremely expensive, especially when you get older.

But council members may just sign up for health care through their spouse after leaving the council. Then they could take deferred compensation money (about $40,000 after 4 years) and buy a new car.

I think the latter scenario is what irks citizens the most when the deferred compensation topic pops up. Many people see the council position as a volunteer job and want to believe that city council members have only idealistic reasons for signing up.

Unfortunately, there are some ulterior motives at play. Things like resume boosters (Calaycay, Pedroza), health benefits (Yao, Taylor), influence, control, etc.

Yao downplayed the benefit of getting rid of the deferred compensation. “I think this is probably more a gesture than a cost saving,” he said.

I’m not sure where Yao is coming from here. If all 5 council members were to do the deferred compensation, it would amount to about $50,000 per year. That seems more than just a “gesture” to me.

For now, deferred compensation is off the table for council members. It could always be reinstated in the future when times get better, as Taylor urged the council.

“It is not a wasted benefit for people,” she said. “Just because you don’t need it, doesn’t mean that somebody else doesn’t need it.”