New Sheriff in Town

Claremont City Manager Tony Ramos, Left, and Tinky Winky

By now, Tony Ramos will have taken the chair in the big office in City Hall. He was approved as a replacement for Jeff Parker by City Council late last month in one of the most ram-rodded railroaded maneuvers seen in this city, at least publicly, in years.

Ramos is a two-time bankrupt, most recently this summer where, on a salary north of $170K annually, he stiffed his creditors to the tune of 70 cents on the dollar. Perhaps now with his raise to $198K, car, and a bunch of other benefits, the bankruptcy trustee will take another look and bump up his repayment so he pays every cent he owes. He can afford it. (Remember, his domestic partner went BK earlier this ear with some $40K-$50K in debt in his own name. So the Ramos household is going into 2012 with a clean slate and a new cushy job. Nice to have friends in high places.)

In its most recent meeting, the Council lowered the signature authority of the City Manager from $75,000 to $25,000. This action was draped in the bureaucratic misdirection of providing "consistency" in the purchasing authority of the City Manager and department heads. Uh, why? The elephant in the room that no one would mention is that the lower authority is a tacit acknowledgement by Council (the only one) that Tony Ramos' management of finances might need--well--a little oversight.

It's not clear whether Ramos took the reins on Thursday, December 23, as indicated by the most recent City press release, or today, as the press release announcing Parker's resignation would imply. Whatever, you can be sure the decision was made with the best interests of Parker and Ramos in the fore.

* * * * * * *

The image leading this post was acquired from a public Facebook post by Tinky Winky himself.
It was not Photoshopped.

Ho-Hum; No News Today

10:30 p.m. The end of just another quiet day in Claremont. The city council approved Tony Ramos as new City Manager on a 5-0 vote. But then we had that two days ago.

King of Claremont

Preparations are moving apace for the coronation of King Tony I tonight at City Hall, 6:30 p.m.


See here, here, and here for background.

Some City Process Wonks are whining to us that, "Hey Insider, you goofball: it's not a done deal. Council didn't 'hire' Tony Ramos on Monday. It only approved a recommendation of the ad hoc committee." Well, yeah.

Make no mistake. The special meeting tonight to rubber-stamp the action in closed session will be one of the most useless, forgone-conclusion, scripted, eye-candy meetings that even Claremont has put on. And Claremont is the acknowledged world leader in U,F-C,S,E-CM.

We understand Tony is already measuring the drapes in that big corner office, and for Tony Ramos that is a task he can really get into.

If it doesn't go down as we say in our last post, we'll eat our bearskin hat.

By the way, a reader points out to us that the city of Riverside is just concluding a search for a new City Manager. That city's search attracted 42 candidates and 10 finalists. What a waste of time and effort on their part...

Ramos Hired

8:56 p.m. Monday, November 28. Word from the report-out from council's nearly 3-hour closed session is that Tony Ramos is hired as the next city manager. City will post details by Tuesday, 6 p.m.

The Fix Is In

Fast Track for Tony Ramos.
Eyewash and Window Dressing for the Public.
Another BK in Tony Ramos' Past...

By now it's common knowledge that the plan hatched last Monday (Nov 21) by at least 3 members of the city council is to "fast track" the appointment of Assistant City Manager Tony Ramos to the soon-vacant position of City Manager. A "Done Deal" the Courier calls it.

Why is this man smiling? Courier Photo.

Here's what passes for public participation and transparency in Claremont:

November 21: Closed session council meeting to discuss "vacancy"in CM position. Parker and Ramos orchestrate Amen-Chorus of reliable business-types touting Tony Ramos for CM in brief public comment prior to meeting. Those not in the know wondered, "Gee, here we just had a vacancy announced and already we are discussing a specific candidate. That's weird." "Surely this is just a process meeting of some sort."

November 22: Jeff Parker announces The Plan (during city manager's report at regularly scheduled Tuesday meeting):

Over Thanksgiving Holiday: Sam Pedroza and Larry Schroeder are to negotiate a contract with the sole and only candidate for the position: Tony Ramos.

November 28: Closed session council meeting scheduled to review and approve contract negotiated with Tony Ramos

November 29: Draft contract--already approved in closed session by city council--made available for public review with agenda for--

November 30: Special open meeting to publicly approve contract with Tony Ramos. Coronation to follow immediately.

Mayor Pro Tem Larry Schroeder has been known to remark, in the frustratingly interminable Claremont processes that unerringly ensue when dealing with problems of regular citizens that, "Heh, heh, Claremont is not 'slow', it's 'deliberate' Heh, heh." Oh, he just loves that line. Well, deliberation has nothing to do with this procedure.

From what we hear, probably all five council members pre-judged Ramos based on their personal assessment that he is a good guy and a go-fer for Jeff Parker of the first magnitude, and decided that all such extraneous process matters such as a search, candidates, vetting, background check, public participation, etc., could be dispensed with. Sam Pedroza seems to be the head cheerleader for this idea if you read the black letter of the Courier and Bulletin. And then they decided to negotiate with him from the enviable position of strength [sarcasm alert for you Democratic-club types] that he's their sole candidate.

Parker--the man behind the curtain--foresaw the problems that Ramos' BK would pose and helpfully hypnotized the council members that they were prohibited from considering it. Make no mistake; Parker has been working this one hard.

We have always thought that this is less about the fact of personal bankruptcy on Ramos' part, and more about the light that the bankruptcy shines on his judgment. What do we have on that score?

According to today's Daily Bulletin, Ramos' bankruptcy petition in March 2011 was dismissed (that is, he was given no relief from his creditors) because he failed to make certain post petition payments. See the article, here (but it may go behind a paywall soon). We are unclear whether this conclusion is the result of reporting by Wes Woods II, or simply an interpretation of the BK documents posted here or available after registration on www.pacer.gov. But the fact remains that it was dismissed and it appears that Ramos took the mere filing of the BK as a get-out-of-jail-free card with respect to those mortgage payments. His probable thought process: "If I'm going to go bankrupt anyways, it might as well be for a large amount as a small amount."

The Courier--in an excellent pair of articles last Wednesday--actually interviewed someone in the office of the BK Trustee in Orange County. It is clear from the Courier article that we mis-interpreted the wet-stamp on the court order posted last week.


From the above document (click to enlarge, and see in the box, middle of page, right), it appears that Ramos' BK was approved on July 21, 2011, and he actually was scheduled to pay $2125 on Aug 9, Sep 9, and Oct 9. Thus, by the time he had missed THREE monthly payments, on October 12, the Trustee threw in the towel and filed for a dismissal of the current BK. Said motion was later withdrawn, where it stands as this is written.

The Courier notes in it's article that last week, four months after the final court action on Tony Ramos' BK, he was behind more than half the amount due. He had paid $3592 of the $8500 now due the BK trustee, with the balance due by November 30.

We will post the Courier page here until the Courier objects. You should go out and buy the paper, or better yet subscribe to it. If the page is pulled, you should look in the Courier archives on its website. Look for the November 23, 2011 issue. Click image, right, to enlarge.

Pattern and Practice:
Not His First Rodeo

One of the advantages of crowd-sourcing is that there are a lot of minds working on the problem. We got a tip that the current matter is not Tony Ramos' first recourse to bankruptcy. Sure enough, in May of 1986, there was a Tony Ramos in West Covina with the same last four digits of our Tony's SSAN who was discharged under Chapter 7. We are reticent to get cross-wise with the bankruptcy court, so we will redact the SSANs and addresses. However, follow our instructions at the bottom of the prior post, search the LA BK court records for "Ramos", scan the list for "Anthony" and pull up the one-page record. Note the last four of the SSAN there match the last four of the SSAN when you search for the current case in the Central District BK court. That's our Tony.


One curious feature of this 1986 case is that Tony's attorney was Victor Tessier. Who is Victor Tessier? He was at the time a Pomona attorney doing quite well, thank you, and buying up troubled properties. His sons Jerry and Ed are the owners/operators of the Claremont Packing House and Lessees of the Padua Hills Theatre. Both venues are heavily entwined with City of Claremont finances and business perks. Jerry and Ed are involved, through family partnerships, corporations, or interlocking directorships, with the Hip Kitty, for example, which received--surprise--a Community Development Block Grant from the City of Claremont last year. And Tony--this will shock you--is the go-to guy for City economic development.

It's just like one big happy family. None dare call it cronyism. But the whole process involving Tony Ramos carries the odor of cronyism over due process and best practice.

It's our considered opinion that Ramos' is eminently unqualified to manage any city. This has nothing to do with the bankruptcies per se. But the insight the record gives to his breathtaking lack of judgment, as evidenced by his continually getting into the financial quicksand and more notably by his very recent, contemporaneous, and relevant actions in not strictly following the orders of the court--these traits make us think that Tony Ramos is a time-bomb waiting to explode.

We are watching very carefully how our councilmembers carry themselves on this one.

Bankrupt

City Council meets tonight in closed session to discuss the upcoming vacancy in the City Manager billet when CM Jeff Parker departs for Tustin, a 15 percent raise, and that much fatter pension when he retires.

Since the discussion will take place in closed session, we assume it will cover more than simple issues of process. In fact, Friends of Tony Ramos--including Jeff Parker and Mayor Sam Pedroza--are already in print pushing his candidacy.

Tony Ramos, from a Claremont Courier photo

"...A perfect fit for this community", Parker is quoted in the Courier [Saturday, November 19]. The Courier goes on to write, "Mr. Ramos is the 'natural candidate', according to Mayor Sam Pedroza." We hear there is quite a bit of lobbying going on behind the scenes.

The Courier goes on to address, obliquely and in the most genteel way, how "[c]ouncil would not comment on Mr. Ramos' personal bankruptcy filing last March and how that might affect his fiscal responsibilities as potential city manager. " Councilmember Nasiali is quoted, somewhat breathtakingly, that "bankruptcy is a personal matter, but I don't see that as having to be intermingled [with his potential responsibilities as city manager]."

As is frequently the case, the Courier is a bit behind the times. Not only did Ramos file for bankruptcy last winter (the case was heard in March and dismissed for reasons that don't appear in the public written record), but he re-filed again in May 2011. This second petition proceeded without serious apparent impediment through the summer (it was amended somewhat on July 15) and Ramos was adjudged a Bankrupt--if that is the term--under Chapter 13 on September 23, 2011.

While we don't agree at all with councilmember Nasiali, who erects an imaginary Chinese Wall between a person's private integrity and public integrity, we have purposely stayed away from the Ramos matter on this blog because it was--well--kind of distasteful to us. The Insider has received several emails asking, in sum, "what's the story on Tony Ramos' bankruptcy?" And, we have received numerous emails over the past six months pointing out certain facts, issues, and angles to the story.

Almost all of the documents relating to the Ramos bankruptcy are public records at the bankruptcy court in Riverside.

It's Hard to Struggle by on an Income of $170,000 Per Year

Ramos' May 9 bankruptcy petition is essentially similar to his first one a few months earlier. It appears to have a bit more backup information.

(Use the controls under the window below to view the document)

Ramos Second Bk Eleven Documents

It shows a current monthly income of $14,282, annualized to $171,384. This is well over twice the relevant median family income for a California household of 4 ($78.869 from DOJ website). Still, $170K doesn't go as far as it used to although a lot of people would probably think they could scrape by on that.

Ramos' list of debts is noteworthy. It's not always possible to determine the time period exactly when these were incurred, but the list alone is rather daunting:

• City of Claremont, 557 Loan, $2287
• F&A Credit Union, auto loan on 2006 F150 truck, $13,208
• Specialized Loan Services, 2nd lien on home taken in 2005, $148,000
• Toyota Motor Credit, 2009 car loan on Camry, $19,614
• Wells Fargo, 1st mortgage on home, $457,308 (home value est. at $440K)
• IRS, 2008 Tax Debt, $3592
• ACS/CLC College Loan, educational, $1835
• Bank of America, credit debt, $6493
• Calvary Portfolio Svcs, collection agency for GE Money Bank, $11,533
• Capital One, credit debt, $2303
• Capital One (another acct), $4335
• Chase, $5415
• Chase (another), $3498
• Chase (yet another), $4494
• Collection Consultants, collection agency for Bear Valley Comm. Hospital, $1094
• Discount Tire, 2006 credit card (sweet wheels on some vehicle...) $1391
• Diversi[fied] Col[lections], collection agency for college loan, $2000
• Dr. Altwin, 2010 visit, $377
• Dscvr/glelsi [sic], educational,, opened 8/11/08, $2217
• Firstar, auto lease, $5152
• GEMB/Mervyns, $452
• Household Bank, credit card debt, $196
• Household Credit Services, credit debt, $2033
• Inland Valley Anesthesia, 2010, $519
• Inter Community Medical Center, 2010 medical bills, $457
• Kohls/Chase, credit card, $1261
• Lowes/MBGA, last active 3/19/2009, $8497
• National Credit Adjust, account HSBC, $4321
• Nordstroms, $4456
• Premier Family Medical, $67
• US Bank, $1102
• US Bank (another), $5152
• Wells Fargo Financial Bank, credit card, last active 3/27/2009, $890
  
• WFFNB, credit card, $3764

Simply put, Tony Ramos owes money, as the Dude said about Bunny in The Big Lebowski, all over town. The bankruptcy petition shows a couple of judgments against Tony for breach of contract.

That is not all. Apparently the Ramos household decided sometime last Fall or Winter to adopt bankruptcy as a business model. Tony's domestic partner filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in October and it was granted, relieving him of $40-some thousand in debt, as close as we can make it. This discharge of debt occurred in March.

Chapter 7 is the "you can't get blood out of a turnip" chapter and Tony's domestic partner was able to show virtually no income against large monthly expenses. Thus, his dischargable debts were made to go away.

Tony Ramos filed under Chapter 13 because of his disposable income. His 60-month repayment plan is as follows:

The amount of each monthly plan payment is $2125 for months 1 to 35. For months 36 to 60, the monthly plan payment is $2218. The due date is the 9th day of each month. The plan provides for the payment of 30% of allowed claims for general unsecured creditors.

This is a base plan with the debtor paying at least $129,825 of disposable income in the Plan. The debtor shall submit statements of income on an annual basis to the Trustee, which income shall be reviewed by the Trustee who may petition the court to increase the monthly plan payment for cause until such time as all allowed unsecured creditors, to the extent they are to be paid during the term of the Plan, are paid 100%


Without working knowledge of the details of bankruptcy law, it is a little hard to parse just how much debt is actually discharged. It also depends on the details of payments into the plan over the next 5 years. A good guess, subject to refinement, is a couple hundred thousand dollars.

In total, the Ramos household has discharged debts in the past year totalling--what?--nearly a quarter million dollars, plus or minus.

We assume, though there is no documentation in the Court record, that Tony has duly reported his 5% raise granted by Jeff Parker last August. Such reports would be between him and the Bankruptcy Trustee.

(There is an interesting addendum to this in the court documents. On October 12, three days after the first payment to the Trustee was due, the Trustee petitioned the Court for an order dismissing the bankruptcy in re: Anthony Ramos. The grounds are stated: "This motion is based on the following grounds: material default by the debtor with respect to the term of the confirmed plan by failing to make payments according to the plan (11 U.S.C. 1307(c)(6)."



So, immediately after getting a favorable judgement, Tony Ramos failed to make the first payment deadline. (It should be noted, on October 25 the Trustee moved to withdraw the above motion, so presumably Tony ponied up.)

Why rehearse these dreary facts?

The question is this: Is this the kind of person Claremont wants as its City Manager? We've heard several "justifications" for considering Ramos from people who should know better. First, "rather the crook we know than the crook we don't know; there are all kinds of crooked city managers out there and you really don't want them." Second, "If Tony knows we know, he'll be more likely to stay on the up-and-up." And finally, winning the sympathy vote, "Tony needs the City Manager job or he won't be able to pay off his creditors."

These justifications, while given with all earnestness, sound silly. The City Manager is a role model, like it or not. How can Ramos have any moral authority with any employee, stakeholder, or group with a record flagrant with irresponsible management of his own finances as outlined in the court documents? And what about his propensity to cut corners, shave the rules or norms for Tony's benefit? (there is a statement buried in the court documents explaining away Tony's failure to keep up with his mortgage payments to the tune of some $18,000. He apparently didn't think he had to pay them when he had filed for bankruptcy.)

Would the City Fathers (they are all men, now) actually consider giving him a City credit card? And what about somebody, somewhere, who might have something they could hold over Ramos--a misstatement someplace, inadvertent or not. Really. This guy couldn't hold the lowest level security clearance because of the ripe possibility of being susceptible to extortion.

We don't necessarily begrudge a person caught in a financial bind not of his making. That's why we have bankruptcy laws instead of debtors' prisons. From appearances, though, Ramos' problems are entirely of his making, starting long ago and continuing over years. (For example, he's not really that underwater on his house. He owes $476K on the first and values it at $440K. The problem is the $148,000 plus he took out of it in 2005 and owes now as a second trust deed. Where did that go?)

Make no mistake. Tony Ramos' entire situation is the responsibility of one Tony Ramos.

Maybe in the current situation, Parker is right when he says Ramos "...is the perfect fit for this community." And the Mayor is right when he says, Ramos is the "natural candidate". Maybe to lead the City into bankruptcy, the town needs someone with first-hand experience.

* * * * *

The documents here are a matter of public record, available at the website pacer.gov. Registration and a credit card is required, though the document viewing costs is a nominal 8 cents per page. Even that is waived unless the download count is really large. The court is the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District, ECF. Court rules require that addresses and SSANs be redacted in subsequent publication.

Sam's Stadium

Claremont's Other Stadium

While on the subject of stadiums--or stadia if you took Mrs. Bell's fourth period Latin--what about the 75,000-seat stadium proposed in the City of Industry, just north of where the 57 freeway splits south from the 60? You may not think this has anything to do with Claremont, but read on.

We lead above with the developer's artist concept of how the stadium will look. Below we show the square mile or so of open space from approximately the same vantage.


As we understand it, this development is being proposed by Lakers and Kings owner Ed Roski, Jr., through his company, Majestic Realty, to host an NFL team to be named at a later date. (We steadfastly demur on any "Build it and they will come" clichés.)

What may not be entirely apparent from the images is that the stadium replaces a hill and is built somewhat down into where the hill was "to save constructions costs". So from the air this stadium would appear as a big pock or pustule on the Walnut Valley. See here for more propaganda on the stadium. We especially like the cross-section from the website, left (click to enlarge), showing how the entire hill that is there now is removed.

If you have driven south on the 57 to the 60, we are certain that you are familiar with the fact that the interchange--the 57 and 60 run together for a couple of miles--has become one of the worst traffic jams in the region. It's easy for traffic to be backed up at any time of the day, frequently to Sunset Crossing and often all the way to Temple. And northbound from Orange County? Fuggeddaboudit. More often than not you're on the brakes before you leave Brea.

Still, we are certain there is a cheery EIR on the project, somewhere, that states that the complex will have "no significant impact"--that's a favorite phrase--on traffic. Kind of like all the studies and staff reports here in Claremont on parking at the Colleges. Always "no significant impact", "no significant impact", for every project, and now parking is impossible adjacent to any college and their staff, faculty, students, and visitors are parking across College all the way to Harvard Avenue north of Sixth Street to Foothill. And soon Harvey Mudd will be parking on open space north of Foothill. But that's another post...

Claremont's Role in the NFL Stadium

In October 2008, Claremont councilmember Sam Pedroza instigated an agenda item at City Council asking for council approval of a resolution in support of the NFL stadium. A copy of the agenda report and resolution is here at the City website, or here on the proponent's website.

Dutifully, the ever-accommodating City Manager Parker regurgitated the developers' press-kit material into his staff report and presented it to council. (Really, it was Colin Tudor's work as shown in the footer on page two, but it was signed onto by Assistant City Manager Ramos as well. You'll have to read around in the developers' website to see where the verbiage in the staff report came from. Trust us: that's where they got it. See especially the FAQ, but the 6700 full-time jobs is right on the homepage.)

Let's just draw the curtain of modesty on the quality of the staff report by characterizing it as "thin".

With very little discussion--even though this was a matter of first impression for the council--Peter Yao and Ellen Taylor joined Sam Pedroza in voting approval of the resolution of support. Corey Calaycay knew something of the ramifications of the project and voted against the resolution, and Linda Elderkin knew she was being flim-flammed by the staff report and voted no, for lack of information:

click to enlarge; full minutes of meeting here, p. 6

In February (sorry we didn't post, we were distracted by our own city council election), at a meeting of the Industry City Council covered by camera in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Sam Pedroza spoke in favor of the stadium (see below, or click on the link to the Tribune just above, start the slideshow, and contain your excitement until slide 8 appears).

click to enlarge

As things stand today, the developer is trying to buy off Diamond Bar's traffic congestion objections for $20,000,000 . If there's no significant impact, why the baksheesh? And the City of Walnut is filing a lawsuit amid a flurry of council recall petitions.

Emergency Operations

Hear the loud alarum bells -
Brazen bells!
What a tale of terror, now, their turbulency tells!
In the startled ear of night
How they scream out their affright!
Too much horrified to speak,
They can only shriek, shriek,
Out of tune,
In a clamorous appealing to the mercy of the fire,
In a mad expostulation with the deaf and frantic fire,
Leaping higher, higher, higher,
With a desperate desire,
And a resolute endeavor
Now -now to sit or never,
By the side of the pale-faced moon.
Oh, the bells, bells, bells!
What a tale their terror tells
Of despair!
How they clang, and clash, and roar!
What a horror they outpour
On the bosom of the palpitating air!
Yet the ear it fully knows,
By the twanging
And the clanging,
How the danger ebbs and flows;
Yet the ear distinctly tells,
In the jangling
And the wrangling,
How the danger sinks and swells,
By the sinking or the swelling in the anger of the bells -
Of the bells,
Of the bells, bells, bells, bells,
Bells, bells, bells
In the clamor and the clangor of the bells!

We tried to remind ourselves just where that $1.8 million Emergency Operations Center fit in the list of Claremont priorities. It just didn't ring a bell--or alarum, or siren, or whatever would be appropriate in the circumstance.

Here is a list of priorities from one of last year's City Council study session on the subject. This list came from an agenda report dated July 22, 2008, from City Manager Parker to the Council. No EOC that we notice:

click to enlarge

You can go through the entire agenda report yourself; we see no mention of an EOC in any of the funded or unfunded Capital Improvement Projects for FY 2008-9, or 2009-10, either.

And yet we have Congressman David Dreier, presumably as a result of lobbying by staff or council, showering down $1.8 million for an EOC in Claremont. (We could be wrong, but we thought the City Hall was reconstructed nearly a decade ago with FEMA money for something very near that purpose, and the Citrus Room was designated the EOC.)

This is just the kind of Federal waste that people of all political stripes rail about. From the Right: big money for a project neither necessary nor desired by the community. From the Left: big money for a rich community at the expense of nearby poorer ones. (the same analysis of the Omnibus Earmark Act found, for example, two projects benefitting Pomona totaling $875,000 (for ground water cleanup in South Pomona and the construction on the 71 south of Mission Blvd.)

Claremont, with a population of some 35,000 receives $1.8 million (more than $50 per capita) for an unnecessary frill. Pomona, with a population of about 150,000, receives $875,000 (not quite $6 per capita) for projects that more directly affect the health and safety of the community.

Whose life is going to be made better knowing that Jeff Parker, Tony Ramos, and Paul Cooper have a comfortable place to go, with lots of neat radios and computers and large LCD screens, when the Big One hits? They have the mobile command center trailer already. And what scarce staff resource is going to honcho this money and this project?

(Proposed answer to previous question: Most likely this is a make-work project to fund a couple more city staff members during the upcoming lean times; don't look for it to pencil out in any cost- benefit way.)

In the meantime, we have gotten copies of the proposed drawings for the EOC. When Jeff Parker shows up at Council meeting tonight in a Starfleet uniform, you'll know we are right.

click to enlarge

* * * * *

The stanza introducing this post is from 'The Bells', by Edgar Allan Poe

City Makes a Bid for a B.I.D.

Special Districts. Ahh, the sound of those two words is music to the ears of any city staffer. A new pot of money to dole out; a new sandbox to play in.

Comes now the Business Improvement District (B.I.D.)


You may remember this idea was alluded to last November, after Assistant City Manager Tony Ramos reported the disappointing results of the Rose Institute survey of local business: the agenda report said there appeared to be little support for a Transient Occupancy Tax and Business Improvement District. (It is interesting to note that nowhere in the Rose Institute Survey appeared the phrase, "Business Improvement District", though there were questions on the idea of a Transient Occupancy Tax, which went down 3 to 1 in the survey.) Ramos must've been thinking B.I.D., however, since he mentioned it in his report to City Council as a concept that would require "more education" of the business community.

(We guess that the idea may have been that a Transient Occupancy Tax, paid for by visitors and not by businesses, would've funded the district; but more likely the businesses figured that they would be assessed as well.)

Anyway, we hope there is a good turnout at the Wednesday and Thursday meetings noticed in the flyer above. Maybe even a few retailers will attend. And perhaps ask a few good questions of the attorney in charge of the Chamber of Commerce. Or the City staff members who will doubtless be hovering about.

Just remember this: its all about priorities. If the City is serious about supporting business, the City will pony up some cash.

It's the Branding, Stupid

Boy were we wrong! We thought that the city of Claremont and its economic development projects were facing the same problems as the rest of the country, but Tony Krickl reported in yesterday's Claremont Courier that the folks in City Hall have figured out that our economic woes are simply a matter of packaging:

Businesses are slowly trickling out of Village West, leaving behind empty storefronts and leasing signs on their doors.

Red Line Leather in the Packing House is long gone. Boutique Peyton Gray and children’s clothing store Chloe & Hunter recently closed down. Celley’s on Indian Hill Boulevard will follow in the coming weeks, said Storeowner Marcelle Sanam. The owners of Stone Cold Creamery and Maui Wowi are looking to sell, while others are barely staying afloat.

While much of the hardships of the $22.5 million redevelopment project are blamed on the dismal economy, some shopkeepers have complained that the city has not done its part to promote the area as a vibrant shopping destination.

In response, city officials are in the process of discussing a “branding study” that they hope will re-define the city and draw in visitors and their sales tax dollars from around the region. City staff estimated the project would cost $50,000 to hire an outside consulting firm to come up with the brand and another $50,000 to promote and advertise the new brand.

“We have a lot to offer,” said Assistant City Manager Tony Ramos, speaking at a meeting of the Economic Development Committee on Tuesday. “We’re a very unique town. This is not a marketing plan for businesses, it’s a branding of the community.”

Phew! What a relief! We thought we were in real trouble there for a second. It's a good thing the city paid the Rose Institute of Claremont McKenna College to conduct that survey of local businesses.

The Claremont City Council received the Rose Institute survey at their last meeting on October 28th. The staff's survey summary, by the same Assistant City Manager Ramos quoted in the Courier yesterday, painted a sunny picture of today's business scene that didn't seem to square with the Courier's article :

Claremont business owners reported a relatively stable year in gross receipts. The survey asked owners whether their gross receipts increased or decreased over the past yea.r An overwhelming 60 of businesses reported an increase or said their receipts were about the same as the year before. 33 of businesses indicated their receipts had decreased while 7 did not know whether their sales were up or down or refused to answer the question. There was very little difference between Village and non-Village business sales in gross receipts over the past year.

Since Claremont's city staff directed the parameters of the survey, it was also unsurprising to see the Rose Institute polling businesses about and increase in the city's Transient Occupancy Tax - the tax charged to guests at hotels and motels within the city limits:

SUMMARY

The Rose Institute of Claremont McKenna College conducted a business climate survey. The purpose of the survey was to determine how Claremont's businesses are fairing in today's economy; if businesses have plans for expanding or relocating, what role businesses believe the City should play in marketing businesses within the City; and, if businesses would be willing to provide financial support for funding a citywide marketing campaign. The ad hoc survey committee has reviewed the survey results and is recommending that additional education be provided to the business community regarding transient occupancy taxes (TOT) and business improvement districts (BID).

Why a TOT increase? Because the city wants to use the money raised to pay for its efforts at marketing (branding) the city. It would be unpopular to tax businesses for that, so they decided to find people can't vote and charge them instead.

The transient occupancy tax gets passed on to folks like the parents of students at the Claremont Colleges, who presumably will get to help pay for marketing the city of Claremont without necessarily receiving commensurate benefits.

Typical of Claremont city staff's thinking is the fact that although the Rose Institute survey showed that only 16% of the 283 businesses contacted indicated they would support an increase in the TOT, staff did not conclude the tax increase was a bad idea. No, instead Assistant City Manager Ramos wrote:

In addition, survey results suggest that many business owners may not understand what the transient occupancy tax is and how it mayor may not affect their business. A greater effort at clarifying the exact nature of the transient occupancy tax and how that tax would fund future marketing campaigns to the benefit of all the businesses in Claremont may be an option well worth further consideration by the City and the Chamber of Commerce.

To translate into English: Business owners are to stupid to realize how much City Hall will benefit from this tax. We need to manipulate them a little more. They'll come around like they always do.

The Rose Institute's survey carries this conclusion about the city's proposed TOT increase

It is possible that business owners would be more likely to support such a measure if it was clear that the tax burden would fall on transient visitors who stay in local accommodations. It should also be noted that many local hotels cater to visiting parents or relatives of students at the Claremont Colleges and this clientele is unlikely to be strongly discouraged by city tax rates.

In other words: Let's stick it to the college families. They can afford it.

When are we ever going to figure this out? It's the credibility, stupids.

Tonight's Council Meeting

The Claremont City Council meets again tonight, beginning with another one of their closed sessions at 5:15pm at City Hall. Do you get the impression this is where the real business of the people gets done?

The Council reconvenes at 6:30pm in the Council Chambers for its public session. Here's what's on tap tonight:


CLOSED SESSION

In their ultra-secret bunker, the City Council will:

• Meet with their labor negotiators, City Manager Jeff Parker, Assistant City Manager Tony Ramos, and personnel manager Shawna Urban to discuss negotiations with the Claremont Professional Employee's Association.
  
  
• Discuss the Protect Our Neighborhood lawsuit against the City and Claremont McKenna College.
  
  
• Meet with Jerry Tessier regarding price and terms for the Padua Theatre renovation.

REGULAR SESSION

When the Council reconvenes, they'll give a report on their closed session actions, then jump into the regular part of the meeting, beginning with public comment. Among the agenda items are:

• A second reading of the residential parking ordinance.
  
  
• Authorizing City Manager Parker to sign a lease agreement with Tri-City Mental Health to lease that agency the city's Youth and Family Support Center facility.
  
  
• Awarding a $2.2 million contract with Mega Way Enterprises of Pomona to build Phase 1 of the Padua Ave. Park. According to the staff report, Phase 1 will include one unlit soccer field and 52 parking spaces.
  
  Additionally, the staff report says that the City is expecting to receive $850,000 from the San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy for aspects of habitat restoration and water conservation. The city's agenda report seems to indicate that if the City receives the money, staff wants the council to shift $850,000 of money already budgeted for Phase 1 and go forward with Phase 1A, which is the lit soccer field and 58 more parking spaces.
  
  This money transfer keeps the RMC's hands nominally clean when it comes to taking out the sensitive habitat they are supposed to be saving, but in reality it allows the City to go forward not only with removal of habitat but also with introducing sports field lighting that is not in keeping with the City's Draft Sustainability Plan or the rural area lighting restrictions for Northeast Claremont.
  
  The report says the total for Phases 1 and 1A is $3,667,859. If the City receives the RMC money and goes forward with Phase 1A, it will have to appropriate another $527,000 from the City's General Fund Reserve to build Phase 1A with its lit field.
  
  The RMC was supposed to vote on granting the $800,000 to the city yesterday, and the staff report seems to indicate that the deal was a done one ahead of time, so it's likely that the council will be voting on raiding the General Fund Reserve for that extra $527,000 to go forward with Phase 1A.
  
  The Daily Bulletin's Wes Woods II had an article on the Padua Park agenda item in today's paper.
  
  
• Considering the Police Commission's recommendation for the Corey Nursery site at 1650 N. Monte Vista as the best location for the proposed new Claremont Police Station. The Council is also being asked to direct staff to seek funding for the station, which is projected to cost between $20-25 million.
  
  
• Considering recommendations from the Architectural and Planning Commissions on streamlining approval of wireless communication towers. Not enough of these in town, and the do generate a steady revenue stream.
  

• An appointment to the Human Services Commission to replace Commission Chair Gwen Carr, who recently resigned her position. Carr was a casualty of former Human Services Chair Valerie Martinez's Preserve Claremonster scheming. No good deed goes unpunished is the lesson here. Maury Feingold will replace Carr on the commission.

Policing Claremont

The Claremont Police Department will be hosting another DUI checkpoint tonight from 6pm to 2am Saturday morning at an undisclosed location somewhere in town.

The CPD website says:

The Claremont Police Department will be conducting a DUI/Drivers License checkpoint on Friday, August 29, 2008 from 6 pm until 2 am, at an undisclosed location within the city. In an effort to reduce the number of persons killed and injured in alcohol involved crashes, DUI checkpoints are conducted to identify offenders and get them off the street, as well as educate the public on the dangers of impaired driving. Funding for this operation is provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Claremont doesn't seem to have the sorts of problems with these things that Pomona has had, where there's been a real community debate over how the checkpoints are conducted. On Thursday, August 21st, a Pomona community forum to discuss traffic checkpoint policies turned ugly and resulted some heated words between off-duty police officers and some civilian participants. The Daily Bulletin reported:

POMONA - Hours after off-duty police officers engaged in a shouting match with participants at a community meeting, members of the Pomona Habla/Pomona Speaks coalition began taking steps Friday to file formal complaints against the officers.

Coalition representatives met Friday and decided to file complaints with Police Chief Joe Romero's office and the City Council in addition to seeking an independent investigation of Thursday night's incident, said coalition member Arturo Jimenez.

The coalition will also file complaints at the state level, he said.

"We are going to be filing a complaint with the state Attorney General's Office and calling for his involvement," Jimenez said, adding that various state agencies will also be contacted.

Thursday evening's actions on the part of the officers were out of line, Jimenez said.

"What happened (Thursday) was a horrible intimidation tactic," he said.

* * *

Policing of a different sort may be in order for Claremont parks after yesterday's meeting of the Claremont Community Services Commission Parks and Facilities Committee meeting. The committee yesterday discussed a proposed ordinance to ban smoking in city parks. Daily Bulletin reporter Wes Woods II, who seems to be the new Claremont beat reporter, had an article that laid out the party line on the issue:

Colin Tudor, senior management analyst in the City Manager's Office, said he composed the ordinance after council members and staff had heard concerns from people about second-hand smoke in parks.

"It was not a specific instance," Tudor said. "I think it was more a general concern that had come up."

If the ordinance is approved today, it would go before the Community Services then the City Council at the end of September or early October.

An agenda report from Community Services Director Scott Carroll and Assistant City Manager Tony Ramos said Mayor Ellen Taylor had presented the idea to the commission.

On Wednesday, Taylor said the idea came to her after she attended a spring conference and "I thought, 'Wow.' I thought it was a good idea. I asked our city if we could do it, and they said sure."

Taylor said she was concerned about the health of children from second-hand smoke and people who drop cigarettes that wash into storm drains.

As we've noted before about Mayor Taylor, whose image needs some burnishing, it's all about the kids.

Village Business News

We wrote yesterday about Warren Buffett saying the economy is in recession and that the downturn would be longer and deeper than most people have been thinking, and those problems certainly extend to local businesses.

We've written about the challenges confronting places like Wolfe's Market and PFF Bancorp, and Tony Krickl had an article in Saturday's Claremont Courier about the the pressure local business owners are putting on the city of Claremont to help draw more foot traffic to the Claremont Village and to the Village Expansion area.

(The Krickl article isn't online yet, so we can't link to it.)

According to Krickl, the city is taking steps that include a "way finding" signage program directing motorists to the downtown areas. The sign program, Krickl wrote, was hung up at the last City Council meeting because the council couldn't agree on the style of the signs.

The article also said:

The council recently approved $21,500 for a professional polling survey of Claremont businesses. The survey would cover how businesses are faring in today's economic climate, what role businesses believe the city should play in a marketing program and whether businesses are willing to financially support a citywide marketing campaign.....

"All that's going to be a huge help," said Joan Bunte, owner of Stamp Your Heart Out and Chairman of the Village Marketing Group. "[The survey] will be a big asset to have that info available to us as we try to move forward on different projects.

In addition, the city has earmarked $50,000 in the next budget cycle for a branding study that would clearly define "who is Claremont and what message we want to go out to the rest of the world," [Assistant City Manager Tony] Ramos said.

The article noted that Claremont merchants have complaints about the lack of clear planning for the Village Expansion:

"To date, Village West has not even had a grand opening," [Chas] Seward said. "...Key locations are standing vacant, businesses have already moved, and/or closed and professional signage has been virtually non-existent.

City Manager Jeff Parker said a grand opening could still be in the works once some of the key locations in the expansion are occupied. That could happen over the summer.

Some city officials admit that the Expansion thus far has not been as successful as they had hope but argue it is hard to compare it to projects like Victoria Gardens [in Rancho Cucamonga] or The Shoppes in Chino Hills.

Adding to their structural problems - finding downtown Claremont, poor planning with the Village Expansion, competition with larger outdoor malls, attracting out-of-area customers - the dragging economy and rising fuel prices have consumers watching their pennies more carefully and driving less.

Local News

There's some bad weather due in later today, so be careful out there. The rain is supposed to begin this afternoon and continue on through Sunday. Snow levels are supposed to drop to 4,000 by Sunday.

Here's the National Weather Service warning for the next few days.

* * *

Will Bigham writes in the Daily Bulletin that some Claremont businesses are not satisfied with the Village-centric nature of the latest city and Chamber of Commerce marketing campaigns. They've formed their own group called the Claremont Marketing Group to promote businesses located outside of the Village.

This complaint of our town being overly concerned with the Village is not new. It colors everything from the dissatisfaction of South Claremonters with how their part of town has been maintained to the affordable housing discussion - why no affordable housing component in the Village Expansion? Aren't they just segregating the lowest income people to outlying areas of town, away from transit and shopping?

With the exception of the Claremont Auto Center and the Old School House redevelopment, businesses outside the Village seem to feel neglected. The Bigham article reported:

Ruby Schmer, founder of the Claremont Marketing Association, said the group is courting businesses north and south of the Village, as well as home-based firms.

Schmer, owner of Biz2Biz Design & Printing, said she plans to send all non-Village merchants an association membership application in the next two weeks.

When the Village Expansion opened, Schmer said, "It made it more challenging because that's where the city and developers put the most money. So obviously a lot of advertising dollars, business-wise, need to go there.

"But we need to make sure that businesses' advertising goes outside the Village."

Schmer and several other non-Village business owners were rankled by a recent ad campaign, paid for by the Claremont Chamber of Commerce and City Hall, that promoted holiday shopping in the city.

The first newspaper ad of the campaign featured background images of the Laemmle Theatre, the Packing House, and Casablanca Mediterranean Bar & Grill - all in the Village Expansion.

Assistant City Manager Tony Ramos and Claremont Chamber of Commerce CEO Maureen Aldridge are both quoted in the article as saying the recent marketing campaign represented all Claremont businesses.

Tempest in a Teapot

Late Tuesday afternoon, just hours before the 5:15 Claremont City Council closed session, the Affordable Housing agenda item that suddenly had appeared, just as suddenly disappeared. Here is the notice of cancellation.

The reason give was that there was a "Notice Problem".

Well, yeah.

We alluded to it in our post of yesterday, pointing out that unless you inhabited City Hall or the City website or--we suppose--had garrulous and informed friends, there'd be no way to know about it. (Without getting too self-referential, we suppose you also would have known if you had read the "Claremont Insider" assiduously--always a good idea.)

There was a bit of confusing discussion of the timing of the Affordable Housing issue. Mayor Yao thought it had come up Saturday; Acting City Manager Ramos said it had come up Friday. Our question: if it had come up Friday, why hadn't it been included in the closed session agenda posted on Friday? Inquiring minds want to know.

On the matter of substance, we also wonder what the issue was. We posed three possibilities yesterday, and our reader posed another. Somehow, we doubt that we are on the mark and suspect that there was some $$$$ issue that somehow came up. After all, the agenda item did list Mr. Marc Gelman, the developer from Enhanced Affordable Development, in a way that implied he was to be a participant. We don't think that Council would have needed him to help discuss air quality issues.

We also don't think the "Notice Problem" had to do with not adequately informing the community about the meeting. Why accept a simple explanation when a more complicated conspiratorial one will do?

All of this is like reading tea leaves or chicken entrails, we realize. Or maybe it's more like Kremlin-watching. Still, when the City fails to provide detailed information, it leaves a vacuum that can best be filled by wild irresponsible speculation.

Get Well Soon

The Foothill Cities Blog first reported last Friday that Claremont City Manager Jeff Parker would be taking a medical leave soon for unknown reasons.

The Daily Bulletin confirmed that today:

City Manager Jeff Parker will be absent from City Hall for a few weeks over the holiday season while he recovers from a medical operation, Mayor Peter Yao said.

Assistant City Manager Tony Ramos will assume Parker's duties during the recovery period, Yao said.

"He's going to be facing an operation either late in November or the first part of December, and probably will be laid up for a couple of weeks," Yao said.

We wish Parker a speedy and uneventful recovery and hope he'll be back at work after the holidays with no ill-effects from his operation. If you want to pass on your own get-well wishes, give City Hall a call at (909) 399-5460 or email them at the citizen feedback line.

While we've certainly had our differences with Parker (Paystubgate, for instance), we also believe that both he and his assistant, Tony Ramos, are capable of doing good work and certainly represent an upgrade in competence over the previous administration.

We observed that in the numerous problem issues facing the city (affordable housing, the new police station, Padua Sports Park, the water company purchase), staff is not necessarily the root of the problem. Rather, it's our opinion that the current city administration has been handcuffed by the stubborn interference of the usual Claremont 400 suspects (Ellen Taylor, Helaine Goldwater, Diann Ring, Judy Wright, the League of Women Voters, Valerie Martinez, Paul Held, to name a few).

Left to their own devices, we suspect that Parker and Ramos would come up with better solutions to all of these issues. But the 400 knows what it knows and not much else, facts be damned. So, the range of possible solutions is significantly limited, and we are all the worse for it.