irvine buyer
Active member
Wonder how the majority of veterans feel about this. Would they rather have the cemetery completed sooner or is this sacred location more important to most veterans.
19,140 signatures to overturn Irvine?s decision on veterans cemetery location
- Thread starter Funkie
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
"... It had been nearly a year since any progress was made until a lively council meeting in April. ....Councilman Jeff Lalloway, who wanted to keep the cemetery at the original 125-acre hangar site near the heart of the old El Toro base and pledge $38 million of city funds... Lalloway, along with then-Mayor Pro Tem Lynn Schott have loudly criticized the swap and are steadfast in building the cemetery at its original site. ...resident Ed Pope, along with former Mayor Larry Agran, launched a petition campaign to overturn the zone change ordinance..... in November, Pope, Agran and backers of the original site turned in to the City Clerk?s office ... signatures to force the City Council to overturn its decision or let voters to decide if they wanted to ....kill the land swap. ...the actions of the petitioners could jeopardize the future of the cemetery, especially now that there?s no more financial commitment to the original site from anyone.....The same day the signatures were filed, Agran quietly filed a lawsuit against the city that challenges the zoning ordinance required for the land swap....."
According to Larry's fishwrapper of a newspaperhttps://irvinecommunitynewsandviews.org/referendum/:
"For four years, from 2013 to 2017, the City of Irvine successfully pursued (Lie - the city staff stalled to a stand-still) establishing a Veterans Memorial Park and Cemetery on a 125-acre site within the City?s 1300-acre Great Park. (Lie - not ever or now within his great park)
With broad public support, City leaders gained all necessary State and Federal approvals (Lies - no actual state or VA approvals) for the project, including adoption (Lie - never adopted it was only a concept) of a 333-page State Concept Plan and Design for the $78 million project. In fact, in June of 2017, the City was just 10 days away from receiving a State Budget appropriation of $30 million to immediately (Lie - the ARDA was restricted until Dec 2017, and even then title to the property must be held by the state, which never was in any city plans) begin site cleanup and construction of the Veterans Cemetery in the Great Park. (Lies - construction will be done by CalVet/DGS since this is a state veterans cemetery. The city would receive no funds for a cemetery.)
Suddenly, at a ?special? June 6, 2017 City Council meeting ? called on just 24-hours notice at the behest of developer FivePoint Communities ? three members (Mayor Donald Wagner and Councilmembers Christina Shea and Melissa Fox) of the five-member Irvine City Council voted to do the following:
Reject the $30 million in State construction funding; (Lie - no $30M state funding, which the city would not have received in any event)
Abandon the Great Park Veterans Cemetery project; (Lie - a far better cemetery is ready to go! And saves $78M too)
Transfer ownership of the property from the City to developer FivePoint; (Lie - it is an acre-for-acre exchange, not a give-away)
Rezone the 125-acre site so FivePoint could build 812,000 square feet of office, commercial, industrial, and manufacturing development on the site. (Lie - nothing more than was previously approved)
Councilmembers Jeff Lalloway and Lynn Schott voted against (That is true) the radical property ?give-away.? (Lie - an exchange, not a give-away)
Shocked and outraged at the giveaway (Lie) of our Great Park Veterans Cemetery site (Lie) to developer FivePoint, thousands of citizens in the Irvine community rallied to the cause to Save the Veterans Cemetery in the Great Park (Lie) ? and stop the FivePoint land-grab and development scheme."
An historic citizen-led ?Referendum Petition? was launched, gathering the signatures of a record-breaking 19,125 Irvine residents in just 28 days ? qualifying the Referendum for the ballot in 2018. (Lies - the voters of Irvine were deceived - how does it feel now Irvine?)
Our Gang:
If the value of the exchange isn't equitable, then the term "giveaway" can subjectively be a valid term and not a lie.
Is the value of the land on both sides comparable? Is there adequate consideration on both sides?
An acre for acre exchange isn't necessarily equitable. 10 acres in Riverside does not hold the same value as 10 acres in Irvine. If you are simply using "acre for acre" as the basis to call someone a liar, then I suggest it may possibly be you who is dishonestly representing the situation. I am too ignorant to make such a charge, but am just pointing out a potential failure in logic.
This isn't an attack. If you want to be more credible, it's better not to present us with logical fallacies.
P.S.
I have no dog in this race. I am happy wherever it goes or doesn't go.
How does it feel? I don't think Irvine really cares that much.
If you refer to the OP's link to the OC Register article from November of last year, the title of the article is "Petitioners submit 19,140 signatures to overturn Irvine?s decision on veterans cemetery location". Notice the word "location" in the title. The land swap was approved and the new Strawberry Field location greenlighted for the construction of the veterans cemetary.
Several posters claimed that the people soliciting the signatures were telling people that the signatures were needed to save the veterans cemetary. This was after the cemetary was approved at the Strawberry Field location. Now I read an article in the Irvine City News claiming that a YES vote on the June ballot is needed to save the veterans cemetary. Bill Cook is claiming that a NO vote on the June ballot means no veterans cemetary will be built. To quote Bill "Let me be blunt: The June 5 vote is NOT an either/or vote on the location of a veterans cemetary, but rather a yes/no vote on whether there will ever be such a cemetary".
Unless I am missing something, the land swap and the veterans cemetary has already been approved by the city of Irvine. In the OC Register article, Irvine mayor Don Wagner is quoted as saying "The cemetary was never in danger; they lied about saving the cemetary".
Is Bill Cook continuing the same line of misleading people, that was used to secure the 19k signatures, to get the veteran's cemetary built by the Irvine Blvd location? I thought the June 5 ballot was to vote as to where the veterans cemetary gets built. I just hope that the wording for the ballot is not crafted in a way that it would mislead the voter. It would be a shame if voters believing that they are trying to save the veterans cemetary end up voting to reverse the decision by the city of Irvine as to the cemetery's location.
Kangen.Irvine
Active member
Definitely agree. We happen to be in a situation where a WWII service member is in need of a final resting place. As a resident of Irvine for over 40 years with service ties to ETMCAS the preference is for a visible location available ASAP. The strawberry fields really fit that description and it is disappointing people were misled. I just hope the voting electorate will find a way to educate itself.
Our Gang
Active member
https://voiceofoc.org/2017/12/the-2017-battle-for-orange-countys-first-veterans-cemetery/Kangen.Irvine said:
"... It had been nearly a year since any progress was made until a lively council meeting in April. ....Councilman Jeff Lalloway, who wanted to keep the cemetery at the original 125-acre hangar site near the heart of the old El Toro base and pledge $38 million of city funds... Lalloway, along with then-Mayor Pro Tem Lynn Schott have loudly criticized the swap and are steadfast in building the cemetery at its original site. ...resident Ed Pope, along with former Mayor Larry Agran, launched a petition campaign to overturn the zone change ordinance..... in November, Pope, Agran and backers of the original site turned in to the City Clerk?s office ... signatures to force the City Council to overturn its decision or let voters to decide if they wanted to ....kill the land swap. ...the actions of the petitioners could jeopardize the future of the cemetery, especially now that there?s no more financial commitment to the original site from anyone.....The same day the signatures were filed, Agran quietly filed a lawsuit against the city that challenges the zoning ordinance required for the land swap....."
Our Gang
Active member
According to Larry's fishwrapper of a newspaperhttps://irvinecommunitynewsandviews.org/referendum/:
"For four years, from 2013 to 2017, the City of Irvine successfully pursued (Lie - the city staff stalled to a stand-still) establishing a Veterans Memorial Park and Cemetery on a 125-acre site within the City?s 1300-acre Great Park. (Lie - not ever or now within his great park)
With broad public support, City leaders gained all necessary State and Federal approvals (Lies - no actual state or VA approvals) for the project, including adoption (Lie - never adopted it was only a concept) of a 333-page State Concept Plan and Design for the $78 million project. In fact, in June of 2017, the City was just 10 days away from receiving a State Budget appropriation of $30 million to immediately (Lie - the ARDA was restricted until Dec 2017, and even then title to the property must be held by the state, which never was in any city plans) begin site cleanup and construction of the Veterans Cemetery in the Great Park. (Lies - construction will be done by CalVet/DGS since this is a state veterans cemetery. The city would receive no funds for a cemetery.)
Suddenly, at a ?special? June 6, 2017 City Council meeting ? called on just 24-hours notice at the behest of developer FivePoint Communities ? three members (Mayor Donald Wagner and Councilmembers Christina Shea and Melissa Fox) of the five-member Irvine City Council voted to do the following:
Reject the $30 million in State construction funding; (Lie - no $30M state funding, which the city would not have received in any event)
Abandon the Great Park Veterans Cemetery project; (Lie - a far better cemetery is ready to go! And saves $78M too)
Transfer ownership of the property from the City to developer FivePoint; (Lie - it is an acre-for-acre exchange, not a give-away)
Rezone the 125-acre site so FivePoint could build 812,000 square feet of office, commercial, industrial, and manufacturing development on the site. (Lie - nothing more than was previously approved)
Councilmembers Jeff Lalloway and Lynn Schott voted against (That is true) the radical property ?give-away.? (Lie - an exchange, not a give-away)
Shocked and outraged at the giveaway (Lie) of our Great Park Veterans Cemetery site (Lie) to developer FivePoint, thousands of citizens in the Irvine community rallied to the cause to Save the Veterans Cemetery in the Great Park (Lie) ? and stop the FivePoint land-grab and development scheme."
An historic citizen-led ?Referendum Petition? was launched, gathering the signatures of a record-breaking 19,125 Irvine residents in just 28 days ? qualifying the Referendum for the ballot in 2018. (Lies - the voters of Irvine were deceived - how does it feel now Irvine?)
Our Gang said:
Our Gang:
If the value of the exchange isn't equitable, then the term "giveaway" can subjectively be a valid term and not a lie.
Is the value of the land on both sides comparable? Is there adequate consideration on both sides?
An acre for acre exchange isn't necessarily equitable. 10 acres in Riverside does not hold the same value as 10 acres in Irvine. If you are simply using "acre for acre" as the basis to call someone a liar, then I suggest it may possibly be you who is dishonestly representing the situation. I am too ignorant to make such a charge, but am just pointing out a potential failure in logic.
This isn't an attack. If you want to be more credible, it's better not to present us with logical fallacies.
P.S.
I have no dog in this race. I am happy wherever it goes or doesn't go.
Isn't that what you are doing?Our Gang said:
How does it feel? I don't think Irvine really cares that much.
irvine buyer
Active member
In the February Irvine City News, there is an opinion article by Bill Cook claiming that the June ballot is for whether a veterans cemetary gets built in Irvine. He claims that a YES vote on the ballot means the cemetary gets built in the Strawberry Fields location and a NO votes mean that no veterans cemetary gets built in Irvine. I thought that the vote was for whether the cemetary gets built by Irvine Blvd or by the Strawberry Fields.
Having somewhat followed the developments of this petition and what some claim to have been misleading information used to secure the 19k signatures; I am wondering if this article is an attempt to mislead the voter. Using common sense alone, I cannot understand why a ballot would be needed in June if the sole purpose of the ballot was to determine if the veterans cemetary gets built by the Strawberry Fields. My understanding is that approval has already been granted. Can someone with more knowledge on this subject please chime in.
Having somewhat followed the developments of this petition and what some claim to have been misleading information used to secure the 19k signatures; I am wondering if this article is an attempt to mislead the voter. Using common sense alone, I cannot understand why a ballot would be needed in June if the sole purpose of the ballot was to determine if the veterans cemetary gets built by the Strawberry Fields. My understanding is that approval has already been granted. Can someone with more knowledge on this subject please chime in.
irvine buyer
Active member
spootieho said:
If you refer to the OP's link to the OC Register article from November of last year, the title of the article is "Petitioners submit 19,140 signatures to overturn Irvine?s decision on veterans cemetery location". Notice the word "location" in the title. The land swap was approved and the new Strawberry Field location greenlighted for the construction of the veterans cemetary.
Several posters claimed that the people soliciting the signatures were telling people that the signatures were needed to save the veterans cemetary. This was after the cemetary was approved at the Strawberry Field location. Now I read an article in the Irvine City News claiming that a YES vote on the June ballot is needed to save the veterans cemetary. Bill Cook is claiming that a NO vote on the June ballot means no veterans cemetary will be built. To quote Bill "Let me be blunt: The June 5 vote is NOT an either/or vote on the location of a veterans cemetary, but rather a yes/no vote on whether there will ever be such a cemetary".
Unless I am missing something, the land swap and the veterans cemetary has already been approved by the city of Irvine. In the OC Register article, Irvine mayor Don Wagner is quoted as saying "The cemetary was never in danger; they lied about saving the cemetary".
Is Bill Cook continuing the same line of misleading people, that was used to secure the 19k signatures, to get the veteran's cemetary built by the Irvine Blvd location? I thought the June 5 ballot was to vote as to where the veterans cemetary gets built. I just hope that the wording for the ballot is not crafted in a way that it would mislead the voter. It would be a shame if voters believing that they are trying to save the veterans cemetary end up voting to reverse the decision by the city of Irvine as to the cemetery's location.
Our Gang
Active member
CITY ATTORNEY'S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF ORDINANCE 17-08
This measure involves two approximately 125-acre properties within the City's "8.1 Trails and Transit Oriented Development" zoning district. Both properties are on the former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro and are located near, but outside, the boundaries of the Orange County Great Park.
The first property is privately-owned and located near the intersection of Bake Parkway and interstate 5. The City's Zoning Code assigns this property to a sub-district known as "Development District 2," which generally envisions an area-wide employment center. ln Senate Bill 96 (2017) the State of California directed the Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet) to acquire, study, design, develop, construct and equip this property with a state-owned and operated Southern California Veterans Cemetery. Senate Bill 96 refers to this property as the "Bake Parkway site."
The second property is City-owned and located adjacent to Irvine Boulevard, between Ridge Valley and Alton parkway. This property, referred to as the "ARDA Transfer site," is not assigned to a specific Development Distract in the Zoning Code.
ln October 20I7,the City Council adopted Ordinance 17-08 (Measure), which
(1) simplifies the process for development of a state veterans cemetery in the 8.1 Trails and Transit Oriented Development zoning district, and
(2) effectively "swaps" the requirements applicable to the Bake Parkway site and the ARDA Transfer site.
Specifically, the Measure would create a "state veterans cemetery" land use category and add that use as a permitted use throughout the 8.1 Trails and Transit Oriented Development zoning district. Further, while both properties would remain in the 8.1 zoning district, the Measure would remove the Bake Parkway site from "Development District 2," and would assign the ARDA Transfer site to a newly-created "Development District 9," which has a sub-district character statement nearly identical to that of Development District 2.
As a result of a 2010 statutory development agreement between the City and the owner of the Bake parkway site (Owner), the Measure will not be binding on the Owner unless and until a "Veterans Cemetery Land Swap Agreement" (Cemetery Agreement), executed by the City and the Owner in October 2017, becomes final. The Cemetery Agreement generally provides for the City's acquisition of the Bake parkway site in exchange for its conveyance of the ARDA Transfer site to the Owner. Following that exchange, the City would immediately convey the Bake Parkway site to CalVet for use only as a veterans cemetery and for interim agricultural uses.
After the City Council's adoption of Ordinance 17-08, the Measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters.
A ?yes" vote would approve the Measure adopted by the City Council, in which case it would go into effect, and would be binding on the private property owner when the Cemetery Agreement is final.
A ?no" vote would reject the Measure adopted by the City Council, in which case the pre-existing zoning designations would remain in place.
This measure involves two approximately 125-acre properties within the City's "8.1 Trails and Transit Oriented Development" zoning district. Both properties are on the former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro and are located near, but outside, the boundaries of the Orange County Great Park.
The first property is privately-owned and located near the intersection of Bake Parkway and interstate 5. The City's Zoning Code assigns this property to a sub-district known as "Development District 2," which generally envisions an area-wide employment center. ln Senate Bill 96 (2017) the State of California directed the Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet) to acquire, study, design, develop, construct and equip this property with a state-owned and operated Southern California Veterans Cemetery. Senate Bill 96 refers to this property as the "Bake Parkway site."
The second property is City-owned and located adjacent to Irvine Boulevard, between Ridge Valley and Alton parkway. This property, referred to as the "ARDA Transfer site," is not assigned to a specific Development Distract in the Zoning Code.
ln October 20I7,the City Council adopted Ordinance 17-08 (Measure), which
(1) simplifies the process for development of a state veterans cemetery in the 8.1 Trails and Transit Oriented Development zoning district, and
(2) effectively "swaps" the requirements applicable to the Bake Parkway site and the ARDA Transfer site.
Specifically, the Measure would create a "state veterans cemetery" land use category and add that use as a permitted use throughout the 8.1 Trails and Transit Oriented Development zoning district. Further, while both properties would remain in the 8.1 zoning district, the Measure would remove the Bake Parkway site from "Development District 2," and would assign the ARDA Transfer site to a newly-created "Development District 9," which has a sub-district character statement nearly identical to that of Development District 2.
As a result of a 2010 statutory development agreement between the City and the owner of the Bake parkway site (Owner), the Measure will not be binding on the Owner unless and until a "Veterans Cemetery Land Swap Agreement" (Cemetery Agreement), executed by the City and the Owner in October 2017, becomes final. The Cemetery Agreement generally provides for the City's acquisition of the Bake parkway site in exchange for its conveyance of the ARDA Transfer site to the Owner. Following that exchange, the City would immediately convey the Bake Parkway site to CalVet for use only as a veterans cemetery and for interim agricultural uses.
After the City Council's adoption of Ordinance 17-08, the Measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters.
A ?yes" vote would approve the Measure adopted by the City Council, in which case it would go into effect, and would be binding on the private property owner when the Cemetery Agreement is final.
A ?no" vote would reject the Measure adopted by the City Council, in which case the pre-existing zoning designations would remain in place.
Our Gang
Active member
Save the Veterans Cemetery in the Great Park Major funding from Irvine Community News & Views, LLC and Larry Agran says: ?Relying on hundreds of Irvine volunteers, the Committee to Save the Veterans Cemetery in the Great Park managed to gather nearly 20,000 Irvine resident signatures on petitions in just 28 days?
(Harvey Liss admits in print to "50 volunteers", the rest were "not always knowledgeable" mercenaries.)
In reality, this is what happened:
From: irvineconfidential / oc-initiative-wars-getting-rich-getting-subpoenaed
The other day one of our readers inadvertently tipped us off that there might be a connection between the bomb that dropped over the DA issuing a subpoena of the petitions used in the failed recall attempt against Newport Councilman Scott Peotter and other signature gathering efforts in Orange County. Turns out, there is.
Meet Angelo Paparella, the man getting rich off of the ballot initiatives plaguing Orange County. Paparella runs PCI, the LA-based signature gathering firm that ran the Peotter Recall Campaign AND the Referendum to block the veterans cemetery land swap. In the 2016 election cycle Paparella?s firm, PCI, pulled in $9 million in revenue alone from California signature gathering efforts.
The current speculation is that the DA is looking into potential forgeries of signatures. Why would anyone do that? Simple. Signature gathering firms are paid $6-$10 per signature for their work. That?s how Paparella and his hired hands make their dough. Multiply that by the 12,000 signatures needed to qualify an initiative and that?s $72,000-$120,000 for a few weeks work. Holy cow, we?re in the wrong line of work!
Is Paparella?s firm the target of the DA?s investigation? We don?t know yet, but it seems pretty clear that the DA is going to be cracking down on fraudulent petitioning activity in Orange County. Keep that in mind when you are accosted by the nonstop petitioners outside your Target, Trader Joe?s, Von?s or Starbucks: They are likely paid to be there, and by giving them your signature you?re putting money in their pocket.
(Harvey Liss admits in print to "50 volunteers", the rest were "not always knowledgeable" mercenaries.)
In reality, this is what happened:
From: irvineconfidential / oc-initiative-wars-getting-rich-getting-subpoenaed
The other day one of our readers inadvertently tipped us off that there might be a connection between the bomb that dropped over the DA issuing a subpoena of the petitions used in the failed recall attempt against Newport Councilman Scott Peotter and other signature gathering efforts in Orange County. Turns out, there is.
Meet Angelo Paparella, the man getting rich off of the ballot initiatives plaguing Orange County. Paparella runs PCI, the LA-based signature gathering firm that ran the Peotter Recall Campaign AND the Referendum to block the veterans cemetery land swap. In the 2016 election cycle Paparella?s firm, PCI, pulled in $9 million in revenue alone from California signature gathering efforts.
The current speculation is that the DA is looking into potential forgeries of signatures. Why would anyone do that? Simple. Signature gathering firms are paid $6-$10 per signature for their work. That?s how Paparella and his hired hands make their dough. Multiply that by the 12,000 signatures needed to qualify an initiative and that?s $72,000-$120,000 for a few weeks work. Holy cow, we?re in the wrong line of work!
Is Paparella?s firm the target of the DA?s investigation? We don?t know yet, but it seems pretty clear that the DA is going to be cracking down on fraudulent petitioning activity in Orange County. Keep that in mind when you are accosted by the nonstop petitioners outside your Target, Trader Joe?s, Von?s or Starbucks: They are likely paid to be there, and by giving them your signature you?re putting money in their pocket.
All of these newspapers and blogs are partisan one way or the other. Irvine Community News, Irvine Confidential, Irvine City News, "The Standard" etc are biased one way or the other. Don't listen to ANY OF THEM!! Make your own decision based upon the summary or text of the initiative.
STOP READING FAKE NEWS!!
Personally, I do not want the land swap to go through. I will be voting NO on the measure. I hate that 5 points pulled the cemetery into city politics for their own benefit. If 5-points was really in it for the good of the community (Irvine & Veterans), then donate the land off Bake to the veterans and let Irvine residents keep the land in north Irvine for park land. Supporters of the cemetery off Bake are emotionally vested because of the years of work they have put in to get a cemetery built in OC. I get it. If the land in north Irvine isn't good enough for them, then try the Tustin Air Station. Those giant blimp hangers can be seen from everywhere.
I also do not like the way city council biases their survey (aka SUGGING) and text of the ballot initiative itself leads to inference and can lead voters to the answer they want. I spoke on this very subject at a recent city council meeting. Of course they paid not attention to me and the ballot text remains biased. So sad.
STOP READING FAKE NEWS!!
Personally, I do not want the land swap to go through. I will be voting NO on the measure. I hate that 5 points pulled the cemetery into city politics for their own benefit. If 5-points was really in it for the good of the community (Irvine & Veterans), then donate the land off Bake to the veterans and let Irvine residents keep the land in north Irvine for park land. Supporters of the cemetery off Bake are emotionally vested because of the years of work they have put in to get a cemetery built in OC. I get it. If the land in north Irvine isn't good enough for them, then try the Tustin Air Station. Those giant blimp hangers can be seen from everywhere.
I also do not like the way city council biases their survey (aka SUGGING) and text of the ballot initiative itself leads to inference and can lead voters to the answer they want. I spoke on this very subject at a recent city council meeting. Of course they paid not attention to me and the ballot text remains biased. So sad.
zubs
Well-known member
So after all the talk about the great park veterans cemetery and the vote that was to move it back to the original site, what's the status now?
Is it going to be moved near Gypsum Canyon off 91?
I find it funny how big of a deal this cemetery discussion ballooned with youtube videos from Gang Chen and what not. After voting it back into the original spot.... now nothing. I guess the vets gave up on it.
Limbo 4ever.
Is it going to be moved near Gypsum Canyon off 91?
I find it funny how big of a deal this cemetery discussion ballooned with youtube videos from Gang Chen and what not. After voting it back into the original spot.... now nothing. I guess the vets gave up on it.
Limbo 4ever.