An outsider’s viewpoint, again

I was dismayed to see that the COURIER decided to again give the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights space in Viewpoint for their opinions and misinformation. We know what their viewpoint is. In the future, I hope their opinions will be relegated to the shorter “letters to the editor” format.

CAPPPR promotes Golden State Water Company’s position that it alone should decide if it wants to sell its public water utility monopoly in Claremont.

They both also take the position that eminent domain is not the proper course of action for the city to acquire Golden State Water Company’s system and rights to water for delivery in Claremont even though GSW has stated that it is “not for sale at any price.” 

Both Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution and the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution allow private property to be taken by eminent domain for a “public use.” The project needs not to be actually open to the public to constitute a public use. Instead, generally only a public benefit is required.

CAPPPR and GSW evidently think that ready access to potable water is not a public benefit.

To rephrase Ms. Sembello’s closing statements, instead of a costly eminent domain fight, Golden State Water Company would be better served to try and work with Claremont to address and resolve these issues jointly.

Taxpayers of Claremont should invest in reliable, quality water at reasonable rates for current and future generations by acquiring Golden State Water Company's system and rights to water for delivery in Claremont.

Parker G. Emerson