Talk:Alta Loma, Rancho Cucamonga, California
|WikiProject California / Inland Empire||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
The supposed chauvinism of Alta Loma residents is unfortunately supported by all the additions to this article rather than to Rancho Cucamonga. I can't decided whether to copy the salient stuff to that article, or simply put a pointer here, something along the lines of "Many Alta Loma residents can't get over the fact that their community belongs to an incorporated city with a different name; please see the article they created to learn more about the northern part of Rancho Cucamonga." My statement is not original research; this article is the reference.--Curtis Clark 04:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I live in alta Loma and keeping the name has nothing to do with not getting over the fact we belong to the city of rachno cucamonga, the simple fact is no one cares and it would cost more than its worth to make anything offical, it more so has to do with tradition of the three towns or something like that. Had it ever been that case it is not any longer Vidit 03:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe the problem lies with those who can't get over it that the residents of Alta Loma simply prefer to maintain their connection to their former unincorporated community, its history and identity. It's the name-fascists' and the legalist blow hards who scream and beat their chests demanding we conform. They are like a bad extrapolation of the fire chief in Fahrenheit 451. Shall we purge all reference to Alta Loma? Will that suffice, or shall we burn the street signs? While Alta Loma does not exist as an incorporated city, it certainly exists as prima facie city. That existence is evidenced by the simple fact that there is an Alta Loma Elementary, Junior High, and High School, and that my mail comes addressed as "...Alta Loma, CA 91701" as delivered from the Alta Loma Post Office on Amethyst to my street whose sign contains an Alta Loma insignia. Recently, I received an Alta Loma Yellow Pages. They seem to differentiate it from Rancho Cucamonga which has its own version. The paper has an "Alta Loma" section for real estate. My co-workers often ask around Christmas time how they might get to "Christmas Tree Lane" (Thoroughbred) in ALTA LOMA to see the lights. I have seen many maps (including ones published by the USGS) that list Alta Loma, Rancho Cucamonga, and Etiwanda separately. The news is people commonly view these areas as separate entities regardless of the legal description. Maybe instead of desperately trying to shove the incorporated name down our throats, the legalists should simply celebrate the diversity of the city and the interesting fact that we have three distinct sections with their own identities that together make up a well run and balanced community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mk1Mod0 (talk • contribs).
- There is no longer a problem this issue was over 20 years ago. While if some one tried to have is fully incorporate we would not listen to them because no one cares anymore about what we want to call ourselves. The proposition TODAY would be ignored, it's just not a big issue; it would only cause inconvenience today if we wanted to make a change then have everyone acknowledge said change. If there are any people who, RIGHT NOW, appose to the names they haven’t said anything in a long time. And I doubt that anyone would care to listen to what they have to say. There are also those who would fight these people to the end if they tried anything like this. Eventually they will die out but I seriously doubt a change would ever be made, regardless of what some one says. The city most likely wouldn’t waste its time in the first place. Vidit 06:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)