Out-of-district firms big donors to Claremont school district's Measure CL bond measure

Firms outside of the Claremont Unified School District's boundaries have contributed the bulk of the monetary support to get a school bond measure passed on Election Day. Full Story
Michael Keenan

Claremont, CA

#1 Oct 28, 2010
"I think this reflects what, for better or worse, is standard practice these days," Johnson said.

Bell had a 50 million dollar bond to do this and do that and nothing materialized. Seeing how the last school bond barely materialized could it not be argued that maybe this is a for WORSE trend.

The 2000 military bill trended with 2.7 trillion that went unaccounted for and for the next three budgets. That was a TREND that may explain why our kids now have NOTHING for their education now.

And now comes Golden State water asking the CPUC for a 40% water rate increase. I just wish my wages would TREND as much so I could keep up.
Steve

San Diego, CA

#3 Oct 28, 2010
Wake up Claremont the republican party plans to sell off America city by city is happening to you as we speak. All the secret money??? Meg witmen got outside money from big texas corps. I have news for you "Not in my town!" Vote this measure down or you will live to pay through your nose.
As for the needed repairs, the school distrcit have plenty of money the only thing is they use it on thier saleries. A superintendent can make as much as $800. per day while his assistants make around $700. per day. They should restructure these obscene saleries before coming back to the tax payers for more money. Why do these school employees have to make as much a 200% more than the public sector for the same positions. If you take a weak economy and these high saleries that never come down, you have a distrcit that is on the verge of a full meltdown. If the distrcit gets these bonds passed they will use any other revenue that comes in for an increase in saleries. The school distrcit can balance it's books in one week by reducing thier saleries to be in line with the public sector. This will bring the equity that is needed in this lobsided argument for more money for the distrcit. They would come out with millions to spare and the money to help programs run instead of closing programs and letting teachers go, so the superintendent can get his $800. per day rate. This is a crime!
Steve

San Diego, CA

#4 Oct 29, 2010
Michael Keenan wrote:
"I think this reflects what, for better or worse, is standard practice these days," Johnson said.
Bell had a 50 million dollar bond to do this and do that and nothing materialized. Seeing how the last school bond barely materialized could it not be argued that maybe this is a for WORSE trend.
The 2000 military bill trended with 2.7 trillion that went unaccounted for and for the next three budgets. That was a TREND that may explain why our kids now have NOTHING for their education now.
And now comes Golden State water asking the CPUC for a 40% water rate increase. I just wish my wages would TREND as much so I could keep up.
Michael Keenan wrote:
"I think this reflects what, for better or worse, is standard practice these days," Johnson said.
Bell had a 50 million dollar bond to do this and do that and nothing materialized. Seeing how the last school bond barely materialized could it not be argued that maybe this is a for WORSE trend.
The 2000 military bill trended with 2.7 trillion that went unaccounted for and for the next three budgets. That was a TREND that may explain why our kids now have NOTHING for their education now.
And now comes Golden State water asking the CPUC for a 40% water rate increase. I just wish my wages would TREND as much so I could keep up.
Good point and I have a question on this water issue. Why isn't California building desalination plants on our coastline? This would allow us to produce the needed water to prevent any drought season,creat many clean jobs, manufacturing would increase in this field, but most of all we could sell water to Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico. We would never have to worry about water rates ever again!
Kim

Chino Hills, CA

#5 Oct 29, 2010
This is ridiculous. More taxes. No Way.
concerned citizen

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#6 Oct 29, 2010
Add Redken realty on Foothill Blvd. in Claremont to the list of supporters who stand to gain something . They are the brokers for the abandoned old school district property on Baseline Rd. The school district planned on turning the property into an RV storage facility and make some money off that, but what happened to that genius plan. It is now being leased by the district with Renken as their brokers for $1 per square foot. Would you really want these geniuses (school board and district) handling your money?
Claremonter

Irvine, CA

#7 Oct 29, 2010
This is rediculous. Ar4e the people of Claremont that stupid now to vote for this tax burden. I hope not> Vote NO NO NO.
Claremonter

Irvine, CA

#8 Oct 29, 2010
ri that is
Do your research better

Claremont, CA

#9 Oct 29, 2010
Obviously Claremonter needs to go back to school. You don't live here so stay out of it. I send my kids to this school and will be happy to pay a 200. extra per year to improve the schools.
Claremonter

Irvine, CA

#10 Oct 29, 2010
Do your research better wrote:
Obviously Claremonter needs to go back to school. You don't live here so stay out of it. I send my kids to this school and will be happy to pay a 200. extra per year to improve the schools.
You are the one that don't live here. I have lived here for 25+ years, stupid. You live in Los Angeles and probably work for one of those large construction or architectural firms that donated money. Your firm will be the first to be paid back if this unnecessary bond is passed. Stay in your luxurious office and out of our business,
20 yr claremont resident

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#11 Oct 29, 2010
Do your research better wrote:
Obviously Claremonter needs to go back to school. You don't live here so stay out of it. I send my kids to this school and will be happy to pay a 200. extra per year to improve the schools.
I also live here, and think people do need to go back to school, if they think for one minute this money is going to be used for what they are saying. Besides the fact WE'RE still paying off the last bond. You know the old saying about "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" Well, I woke up to Claremont's political games a long time ago. Also, if you think it is only 200.00 a year you really do need to go back to school at least to brush up on your math!
DonW

Granada Hills, CA

#12 Oct 29, 2010
Note that the "Yes" group is spending all their money on businesses outside of Claremont. Do they need to go to northern California for printing, etc.? Aren't there perfectly good printing businesses here in Claremont?
RU Kidding

Claremont, CA

#13 Oct 29, 2010
If I had a set list of things that were to be done to improve our schools then MAYBE I would consider voting yes..BUT since there is not and the way the economy stands now NO WAY!
My children attend Claremont schools and will do so for quite some some to come...The schools are not run down and in need of urgent repair. The teachers DO need supplies and help within the classrooms...Lets give them the cash that has been collected by the Yes on CL campaign..
Where are all these companies when we need classrooms supplies?
Do we REALLY need a new FOOTBALL FIELD??
VOTE NO!!!!
Not a Fan of CL

Downey, CA

#14 Oct 29, 2010
Steve wrote:
Wake up Claremont the republican party plans to sell off America city by city is happening to you as we speak. All the secret money??? Meg witmen got outside money from big texas corps. I have news for you "Not in my town!" Vote this measure down or you will live to pay through your nose.
As for the needed repairs, the school distrcit have plenty of money the only thing is they use it on thier saleries. A superintendent can make as much as $800. per day while his assistants make around $700. per day. They should restructure these obscene saleries before coming back to the tax payers for more money. Why do these school employees have to make as much a 200% more than the public sector for the same positions. If you take a weak economy and these high saleries that never come down, you have a distrcit that is on the verge of a full meltdown. If the distrcit gets these bonds passed they will use any other revenue that comes in for an increase in saleries. The school distrcit can balance it's books in one week by reducing thier saleries to be in line with the public sector. This will bring the equity that is needed in this lobsided argument for more money for the distrcit. They would come out with millions to spare and the money to help programs run instead of closing programs and letting teachers go, so the superintendent can get his $800. per day rate. This is a crime!
This bond has nothing to do with the Republican party since it is not a significant factor in Claremont land of the checkbook liberal. It is about greed and mismanagement within CUSD and their friends. All one has to do is look at the top donors list..it says it all.
VOTE NO
P Olsen

La Verne, CA

#15 Oct 29, 2010
RU Kidding wrote:
...BUT since there is not and the way the economy stands now NO WAY!
RU Kidding shows a basic lack of understanding regarding the public works bidding process. The condition of the economy is precisely why this bond should be approved now. Any construction project that goes out to bid in the near future will come in far below what the cost would have been a few years back. Contractors are currently building projects at or near cost simply to stay current on payroll and debt service. If the people of Claremont wait until the economy recovers before completing necessary facility maintenance and upgrades they will pay far more for any given project as contractors will be able to command a higher price for their work.
Not a Fan of CL

Downey, CA

#16 Oct 29, 2010
P Olsen wrote:
<quoted text>
RU Kidding shows a basic lack of understanding regarding the public works bidding process. The condition of the economy is precisely why this bond should be approved now. Any construction project that goes out to bid in the near future will come in far below what the cost would have been a few years back. Contractors are currently building projects at or near cost simply to stay current on payroll and debt service. If the people of Claremont wait until the economy recovers before completing necessary facility maintenance and upgrades they will pay far more for any given project as contractors will be able to command a higher price for their work.
Great argument! Lets give CUSD more money to mismanage because we can get work done cheaper! First ee should not be financing routine maintenance. The list of projects should be well defined and justified. The bond read like they are promising something for everyone and the reality is they will run out of money long before most of it is done. The ones who stand to benefit are the same ones that are funding the bond. Not just No but F NO on this bond.
Claremont Homeowner

Claremont, CA

#17 Oct 29, 2010
They mismanaged the first bond and now the CUSD wants us to trust them with twice as much money?...Fool me once, shame on YOU, fool me twice , shame on ME!

No on CL (Claremont Loses)!
Jeff Hammill

Ontario, CA

#18 Oct 29, 2010
I love the "construction costs are so low now" argument by the Pro CL people. Nothing would be started for 4-5 years so the relevant analysis is what will the costs be then? Nobody knows. The defenders of Measure Y say they failed because costs went up and who could have anticipated that? Excuses, excuses and double talk. The voters are smarter than that!
P Olsen

La Verne, CA

#19 Oct 29, 2010
Jeff Hammill wrote:
I love the "construction costs are so low now" argument by the Pro CL people. Nothing would be started for 4-5 years so the relevant analysis is what will the costs be then? Nobody knows. The defenders of Measure Y say they failed because costs went up and who could have anticipated that? Excuses, excuses and double talk. The voters are smarter than that!
I am neither "pro" nor "anti" on this bond issue as I have no connection whatsoever with CUSD and couldn't care less about Claremont. The fact remains CUSD likely has projects in various stages of development some of which could be bid quickly if funding became available.
Opanyi

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#20 Oct 30, 2010
RU Kidding wrote:
If I had a set list of things that were to be done to improve our schools then MAYBE I would consider voting yes..BUT since there is not and the way the economy stands now NO WAY!
My children attend Claremont schools and will do so for quite some some to come...The schools are not run down and in need of urgent repair. The teachers DO need supplies and help within the classrooms...Lets give them the cash that has been collected by the Yes on CL campaign..
Where are all these companies when we need classrooms supplies?
Do we REALLY need a new FOOTBALL FIELD??
VOTE NO!!!!
"Where are all these companies when we need classrooms supplies?" Yes indeed. These companies are generous with their donations only when they envision a big pay-off. They do not open up their check books unless they expect a lucrative contract. They could have some credibility if they donated money to the Claremont Educational Foundation (CEF) during its annual fund-raising drives. But they sure are quite generous when they stand to gain tremendously from the bond should it be approved. "RU Kidding" is quite right, the Yes on CL committee should donate the big company donations to CEF instead of squandering tens of thousands of the $$ on fancy and glossy brochures that say nothing about the expensive $95 million debt and which the committee is sending out daily. These daily mailings are not only devoid of meaningful information, they are also very annoying. They are like a bad song played on a broken record.
Do your research better

Claremont, CA

#21 Oct 30, 2010
Claremonter wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one that don't live here. I have lived here for 25+ years, stupid. You live in Los Angeles and probably work for one of those large construction or architectural firms that donated money. Your firm will be the first to be paid back if this unnecessary bond is passed. Stay in your luxurious office and out of our business,
No I live here in Claremont have for a long time and have kids in the schools now. I don't work for any firm that has any contract with any school district. I have toured the schools and talked to the teachers. There are very real desperate fixes and upgrades that need to happen. 240-300 a year is a small price to pay to fix the schools. Are schools need to be upgraded. YES ON CL

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Claremont Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Illegal signs all over town 5 hr this old town 34
Erica thinks association with Harrold cause vot... (Jan '11) 5 hr Copper Head 63
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 8 hr Bruin For Life 28,702
Glendora CA white supremacists 11 hr Klanners 5
Douglas Tessitor home town trash 22 hr Best at 4
Glendora city council has lowest ratings ever 23 hr x is the vote 18
ERICA LANDMANN-JOHNSEY supported by MARK SMITH,... (Jan '11) Sat Another clabboard... 43

Claremont News Video

Claremont Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Claremont People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:59 pm PST