Golden State cuts its losses

Dear Editor:

Opinions about the city’s recent MOU with Golden State Water clearly differ, but what I see is Golden State recognizing it had made some bad choices, deciding to cut its losses, and trying to find a way to turn the change in course to its advantage.

Consider that releasing paid signature gatherers loose on the community was backfiring, and that trying to make the city look less than transparent was highlighting GSW’s opaqueness. Additionally, the MOU released to mislead and confound the concerned public was being recognized as a collection of empty, misdirected or pointless promises. Carefully laid plans were having unintended, troublesome consequences.

If the door-to-door couples were causing more harm than good, why not frame abandonment of that campaign as a good-will gesture, getting something in return? If sending expensive mailers to Claremont households was reminding residents of the depth of Golden State’s pockets, and that it was Claremont residents who filled those pockets and paid to propagandize themselves, find a distraction. Call off lawsuits showing little promise of gain, get quicker access to city reports that might provide ammunition for a different lawsuit, and claim to be the hero. If even a few buy it, GSW could be ahead.

Perhaps I’m too cynical, but I doubt GSW would have dropped the lawsuits and stopped their petition campaign if they thought they were gaining ground. I think they underestimate our insight.  Claremont residents understand the benefits of owning their own water system: water for the public, not for profit.

Sally Seven