Political views and Claremont hypocrisy


Image courtesy of Google Maps

Claremont is a beautiful little city with small suburban houses, trees sprawled everywhere, and beautiful streets. When looking around, it is even more picturesque with a perfect plaza and gorgeous college campuses. If one travels far up north, they will be in majestic hills with multi-million dollar houses and a view of the whole city. Claremont is well-managed, has a great community, and is generally accepting due to its liberal ideals. However, despite the niceties, the policies inside are not as “lovely and liberal” as they are cut out to be. This can be seen in a multitude of ways, whether it be affirmative allocation, a lack of affordable housing, or in Claremont’s social services.
One of the biggest views for liberals, especially in California where the housing costs are high, is affordable housing. The Claremont city government wants to accept affordable housing and brings up acts that would help progress, however the residents–typically the richer ones–block them. This is one thing that is so ironic about Claremont: the city’s residents hold themselves like they are the best at fighting against inequality, yet they oppose measures like affordable housing.
Claremont has a long history of doing this, whether it be denying, delaying, or voting against these affordable housing proposals. Many Claremontians in actuality just do not want low income families to “sully” their city. When in 2019, Claremont signed a lease to give a beat up and abandoned La Puerta Park to Trumark homes, an affordable housing agency, Claremont residents were furious. The park was once a school, but then got shut down and turned into a park. When looking at the plot of land, all one can see is grass which is only used for soccer. However any of the other multitudes of parks in Claremont could also be used for soccer. Citizens signed petitions that would “stop the destruction of Claremont history”, yet what they are really signing is a form full of Claremont hypocrisy. Claremont is so caught up in its luxury that it forgets the inequality in its city.
Due to the pressure Claremont receives, it only ever gets to allow affordable housing without pushback in South Claremont, creating a rift between the communities. Southern Claremont having all the apartments and having typically cheaper homes. Although it compares the financially stable and the rich, barriers and borders are still made.
Another way Claremont likes to keep its prestige is by not advocating for homeless shelters. Now up North, there is not as big of a homeless population, but in the South, one could see a homeless person walking around the village or the usual two to three at Vista Park. Claremont does have a homeless shelter page for aid, but what is ironic is that all the shelters listed are in Pomona or Upland, which are cities that are associated with less wealth then Claremont. Once again, Claremont shows that it does not want a less wealthy population to “ruin” their city.
Claremont does not only like to diminish affordable housing but also take away average low income jobs. An example is the city law that keeps fast food restaurants out of Claremont, which is an average low income provider’s job. The lack of Jack in the Box and Wendy’s locales has always been a shame to Claremont citizens. Claremont may pretend to be more healthy, but when lining up the dots, it seems that Claremont really just wants to keep out poorer people. The city tries to cut back on any business or plot of land related to low income communities, which is unfortunate, since many teenagers have to drive out far to get a good paid In-N-Out job.
The most evident truth that can be seen however is the city’s issues with diversity. It is not just a coincidence that the most diverse communities are considered the worst. For example, southern Claremont has the highest Hispanic and Latino population and also has the lowest academically performing schools. Affordable housing in southern Claremont allows for more diversity while it is heavily lacking in richer communities that are away up in the hills. Perhaps Claremont is not so liberal after all.
Yes, liberals typically have better social services and allow for more social mobility,but liberals are failing to live up to their beliefs in various other aspects. It is time for self-professed liberal Claremont residents to take a long look in the mirror and see that they need to start acting on their beliefs instead of just spouting slogans and showing up for protests. When Claremont acts like the way it usually does, it is truly saying “we agree with this but not in our backyard”.