Candidate for
Council Member; City of Claremont

Four years ago, I ran for Claremont City Council with specific ideas and goals for our community. Many of you supported me because you agreed with my thinking. As we enter the next critical phase in Claremont's future -- a time when our revised General Plan will map out our priorities -- I have strong beliefs about how Claremont can continue to be socially progressive while also staying financially sound. Today I ask you for your support in addressing these important issues. Since being elected to the Council, I have worked to effect progress in the areas I initially identified as shared concerns: the need for improved police relations with the community, particularly with black and Latino residents and visitors; enhanced transparency of the City's economic development decisions; improved City/colleges relations; and giving greater voice to groups I felt were not always well represented when priorities were being set at City Hall -- particularly parents of school age children. I maintained the goal even when the means changed, and I was willing to occasionally be the unpopular person in the room. As a result of our efforts, I claim some credit for these:

Substantially increased access to City documents through the City website; especially the agendas and information packets for Council and commission meetings, and audio streaming of the Council meetings;
Progress in problems with police-citizen contacts, principally the racial profiling study and related complaint processes;
Rescission of the 1999 Employee of the Year Awards;
Keeping additional land available for El Barrio Park at Claremont Boulevard south of 6th Street.

Today we have more frequent and regular discussions between college administration and City Hall; increased student participation in City policy process; and our Civil Liberties Education and Reporting (CLER) Program.

I know that some in the community have concerns about the recent council decision regarding compensation for the city manager and senior staff. It should be understood what was done and why. Claremont is a "pay for performance" city. This means that for senior management, the bonus is supposed to be an incentive for outstanding performance. Three years ago I voted against a bonus for Mr. Southard. At that time, several goals were set for Mr. Southard. These goals have been met or exceeded. At the same time, city management has improved the city's financial condition while that of most other cities has deteriorated. Village Expansion, City Yard and substantial increases in the sales tax base are difficult and complex transactions. I am familiar with the difficulties since I spent several years as a real estate construction lender earlier in my career. I also know that if they were not well executed, they would put the city at serious risk. Thanks to city staff, these projects were well researched and are being competently completed. Southard's bonus is for his initiation and execution of these substantial undertakings over the past three years.

The improvements in our City indicate that the outlook for Claremont is good. While we have a well-run City in good financial condition and physical shape, we face special challenges as we enter our next stage of development. When completed, the General Plan will suggest priorities for modifying land use in certain parts of town. Implementing these changes will mean contending with external forces that are largely out of our control -- principally increasing land prices and shrinking supply of undeveloped property. Congested freeways and heightened importance of mass transit will also have an impact on decisions about best use, as was the case in our downtown Village area when the railroad converted from freight to commuter service.

Claremont is also challenged to close the gap between its self-image as a socially progressive city and the real Claremont. The best example might be our housing market. Put bluntly, can we actually complete a low-income housing development north of Arrow Highway? The supply of "affordable" homes will not come from market forces in Claremont; it will only result from a persistent and insistent Council.

When the time comes to address these issues, we will want to meet our priorities. The best way to control outcomes is to control the land. That is how Claremont was able to determine what would go into the Village expansion. Controlling land usually involves writing big checks. However, even with its healthy finances, Claremont will probably need partners (such as private developers) to deal with these challenges. It is imperative that we have a Council that can make commitments to sizable and complicated multi-year arrangements. Will our Council be a good business partner?

Our City needs and deserves progressive leadership with competent investment decision-making. Claremont voters will decide whether we will have a Council capable of making the decisions necessary to meet the real challenges we can already see in front of us. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Llewellyn Miller