Jeff Parker, Restaurant Critic

We have commented before that the Claremont "City Manager Update" has in recent months become somewhat laughable with its puffery. Before it became just another obligatory PR vehicle, it would contain real information for the councilmembers to keep them up to date on events in the city. It would inform council about things such as significant police contacts, street closures, infrastructure work--things that constituents might be asking them about.

Now, however it has degenerated into a weekly piece flogging the town for another Money Magazine award, or perhaps recognition from the California League of Cities.

The example at hand today is city manager Jeff Parker's comments on the Three Forks Chop House (click on the image or here for a larger version). He lifts a review from gayot.com and makes this comment:

The review...gave it [Three Forks Chop House] one of the highest ratings, 14/20.

We here are no experts on restaurant ratings, but 14/20 didn't seem all that stellar to us. So we went to gayot.com and checked the website's rating scale. Take a closer look by clicking on the image.

It seems that a rating of 14/20 merits only one chef's hat. Far from being, as Parker asserts, "one of the highest ratings", this rating is in the bottom half of the numerical ratings. Of course, the rating system appears to be skewed to the high end--a little "grade inflation" in the restaurant criticism biz. Aren't there any "poor" restaurants? We've been to some in Claremont that would reasonably fall into that category, if fairly defined. But maybe if you are a restaurant critic, like Jeff Parker, with a city credit card, it doesn't pay to visit poor restaurants.

Just to be clear: Parker tells the City Council and the community that the restaurant received "one of the highest ratings". In fact, it received one star out of a possible four.

This is not all that different from Parker's comments at the council meeting. We watched the rebroadcast of the September 25 council meeting, and heard Parker "justifying" the use of $1,000,000 in general fund money for Johnson's Pasture after he made sure council knew that--we paraphrase--"the city never admitted any wrongdoing in the $17.5 Palmer Canyon fire settlement".

Everything is perfect in Claremont, the best of all possible worlds.

More on Claremont as the Fifth Best Place to Live

We don't really understand Money magazine's methodology. If any reader can fathom it, an explanation would be very much appreciated. In all, it seems to be a list of towns you never heard of.

The Insider can read the Money FAQ as well as the next guy. Here is Money's explanation with our comments:

First, "start with places that have populations above 7,500 and under 50,000."

[OK, that may give us the "best places" with populations between these somewhat arbitrary and capricious limits. You now have 2,876 towns]

Next, "screen out retirement-oriented communities, places where income is less than 90% or more than 180% of the state median and towns that are more than 95% white."

[How did Claremont make this cut with Pilgrim Place, the Gardens, the Manor, Sunrise, and the Village? The Insider isn't going to touch the racial bit. Now we have 974 towns.]

Third, "eliminate towns with low education scores, high crime rates, declines or sharp increases in population, projected job losses or lack of access to airports or teaching hospitals."

[OK, now we have a more or less mainline stable population of smart working non-criminals at least 6% of color who either take airplane trips or frequent nearby teaching hospitals...that must be us alright. Well, there are 678 total towns now.]

From these towns, "rank remaining places based on job, income and cost-of-living data; housing affordability; school quality; arts and leisure opportunities; ease of living; health-care access; and racial diversity."

[These all sound good. It would be interesting to compare Claremont's housing affordability with that of others on the list. "Ease of Living"? Sounds like Peter Yao's first campaign with the "good life"--notably absent from his second. And the Insider is beginning to think this "racial diversity" thing is a surrogate for "lots of nearby ethnic restaurants." Now we have 466 towns; must've lost a few in the ranking.]

From here, the researchers "gather more data on job markets, housing prices, schools and ambience. Interview community leaders and residents by phone."

[Here's where the "Kentucky windage" is put in. We wonder what data are available on "ambience". Did you get a phone interview? The Insider regrets to report he is "out of the loop." Now they have 70 towns.]

Next, the protocol demanded that they "visit and do more interviews. Assess the sense of community, vibrancy of town center, natural surroundings, amenities, real estate and congestion."

[More subjectivity. All we can say is that they must not have visited during rush hour on the 10 or 210. And let's have a look at the "sense of community data". They are down to 25 towns now...]

Finally, "give [Potemkin Village] the nod, based on data and qualitative findings."

[More of those pesky subjective slippery squirmy qualitative findings. And now the towns are one...]

In all, we find the methodology pretty useless, but then we have never been accused of being the sharpest tool in the shed. Probably its as accurate as the apparently-spiked Forbes article on crime at Pomona College would have been. For your information and a little context, herewith the top 10 "Best Places to Live":

1. Potemkin Village

2. Stepford

3. Cudahy

4. Lumberton

5. CLAREMONT

6. Pleasantville

7. Oz

8. Greensburg, Kansas
9. Jonestown
10. Port Moresby