Columbus Grove: why live there

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1223677172]Which begs the question... will Woodbury eventually fall quite a bit too?



Like I've been asking all over the place... it just sees like the newer houses in Irvine built from 2002 and on with a higher starting base seem to be more resistant to the price drops.



Psychologically... I can see people justifying a 40% drop on a $1mil house if it was built in the 90s for less than $300k... but a 40% drop on a $1.2mil house built in 2006?</blockquote>


When Woodbury starts to fall, it will be like a dam breaking. Same for Turtle Ridge, Quail Hill and Northwood II. There are so many overextended homeowners in these areas, and almost all of them have some form of toxic financing. These areas will get blasted.
 
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1223684063]So... a Dow-like dam? Scary.



What I'm wondering is will there be any buyers (with enough cash/credit) to scoop up these homes.</blockquote>


There may not be. That is why prices often overshoot fundamental valuations to the downside when bubbles burst.
 
[quote author="rickhunter" date=1223640120]Exactly,



If you cant see it or smell it, why specifically target CS and CG as the only homes that would be affected?

I know, because they make you sign these forms if you buy there. That should scare those people that buy there.

But does it make Westpark any safer? Does it make the older homes across Edinger from CS any safer?

I just dont get that. It makes no sense why this toxic stuff would know any borders.



It's TOXIC! It's dangerous. And the only way it will affect you is if it gets in the water supply?

And if it gets in the water supply, all of Irvine, etc is doomed!



So to the bloggers here, why keep targeting CS and CG?



[quote author="CalGal" date=1223633802]

Seriously, you want to avoid it. Just because you can't see it or smell it, doesn't mean it's not affecting you.</blockquote></blockquote>




The toxins do not have to be in the water supply to affect you. It can be in the air, fulminating from the ground. It could even be in the air in sub-effective doses, but react with air pollution to get into your lungs in a biologically effective dose. It can be in the soil and get on your skin. It can be on the soil and get on your pet, and get on you when you rub the cat or dog. It can build up in your kid over years of playing in the yard.
 
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1223684063]So... a Dow-like dam? Scary.



What I'm wondering is will there be any buyers (with enough cash/credit) to scoop up these homes.</blockquote>


<em>IPO raises his hand...</em>
 
[quote author="freedomCM" date=1223693193][quote author="rickhunter" date=1223640120]Exactly,



If you cant see it or smell it, why specifically target CS and CG as the only homes that would be affected?

I know, because they make you sign these forms if you buy there. That should scare those people that buy there.

But does it make Westpark any safer? Does it make the older homes across Edinger from CS any safer?

I just dont get that. It makes no sense why this toxic stuff would know any borders.



It's TOXIC! It's dangerous. And the only way it will affect you is if it gets in the water supply?

And if it gets in the water supply, all of Irvine, etc is doomed!



So to the bloggers here, why keep targeting CS and CG?



[quote author="CalGal" date=1223633802]

Seriously, you want to avoid it. Just because you can't see it or smell it, doesn't mean it's not affecting you.</blockquote></blockquote>




The toxins do not have to be in the water supply to affect you. It can be in the air, fulminating from the ground. It could even be in the air in sub-effective doses, but react with air pollution to get into your lungs in a biologically effective dose. It can be in the soil and get on your skin. It can be on the soil and get on your pet, and get on you when you rub the cat or dog. It can build up in your kid over years of playing in the yard.</blockquote>


I want to raise one point that has been missed on this thread in considering the environmental concerns for these locations... The reason there are homes there is that the sites have been investigated by environmental professionals, using guidelines established by and with oversight from state and Federal health and environmental agencies. Their reports have then been made public and reviewed by multiple other environmental professionals at these agencies, and by the developers lawyers. These reports are still available for public review, and anybody that is considering purchase should take advantage of that, then form their own opinion.



Now, pick a "more desirable" residential development, in Irvine or elsewhere, and ask the question -- what do you know about the potential environmental hazards there? Have soil samples been collected and analyzed? Groundwater? Soil vapor? Has there been oversight and approval of the development by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or similar agency? Are there any reports you can obtain and review, or have a qualified, unbiased, professional review for you?



The question I pose to you, is whether the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. Qualified professionals have extensively investigated the former Tustin military site and their work is part of the public record. The risk assessment process has deemed them to have no significant risk for their occupants. Since no risk assessment process has been completed for any of the "more desirable" locations, you can't say the same for them.



Yes, the legal system has addressed numerous situations where people's health has been damaged by environmental contamination of their homes, water supplies, and air. The vast majority were from unsuspected contaminants (e.g., contaminated well water), or from exposure to substances formerly thought to be safe (e.g., asbestos). A thorough site investigation, as has been conducted for the former Tustin Marine Base, identifies, quantifies, and addresses such concerns.



I am no more qualified than any other reasonably intelligent person to judge CS or CG (or any other development) from the standpoint of schools, location, construction, neighbors, congestion, feng shui, ethnic diversity, price, taxes, paint color etc., etc. But I AM qualified to defend the process by which a former industrial site is rendered suitable for development. Been there, done that. In California, it's a complicated, lengthy, public process, with many levels of protection built in, with public health and safety being the paramount concern. Again, I've had no involvement in the developments in Tustin or Irvine. What I am defending is the process that these developments have been subjected to. The unsupported speculation on the "danger" represented by living there is simply B.S.



Finally, I challenge anyone with actual knowledge of any environmental risks that have not been disclosed to potential buyers, or any fraud or errors in the assessment process, to let the folks at DTSC know. Or call up the OC Register and tell them. Or PM me and I'll take it to the agency. But be prepared to support you charges with facts. Not just some unsupported speculation heard at the office water cooler or in a bar, and not some kind of "I'm no expert but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night" kind of expertise.
 
[quote author="GoIllini" date=1223702442][quote author="freedomCM" date=1223693193][quote author="rickhunter" date=1223640120]Exactly,



If you cant see it or smell it, why specifically target CS and CG as the only homes that would be affected?

I know, because they make you sign these forms if you buy there. That should scare those people that buy there.

But does it make Westpark any safer? Does it make the older homes across Edinger from CS any safer?

I just dont get that. It makes no sense why this toxic stuff would know any borders.



It's TOXIC! It's dangerous. And the only way it will affect you is if it gets in the water supply?

And if it gets in the water supply, all of Irvine, etc is doomed!



So to the bloggers here, why keep targeting CS and CG?



[quote author="CalGal" date=1223633802]

Seriously, you want to avoid it. Just because you can't see it or smell it, doesn't mean it's not affecting you.</blockquote></blockquote>




The toxins do not have to be in the water supply to affect you. It can be in the air, fulminating from the ground. It could even be in the air in sub-effective doses, but react with air pollution to get into your lungs in a biologically effective dose. It can be in the soil and get on your skin. It can be on the soil and get on your pet, and get on you when you rub the cat or dog. It can build up in your kid over years of playing in the yard.</blockquote>


I want to raise one point that has been missed on this thread in considering the environmental concerns for these locations... The reason there are homes there is that the sites have been investigated by environmental professionals, using guidelines established by and with oversight from state and Federal health and environmental agencies. Their reports have then been made public and reviewed by multiple other environmental professionals at these agencies, and by the developers lawyers. These reports are still available for public review, and anybody that is considering purchase should take advantage of that, then form their own opinion.



Now, pick a "more desirable" residential development, in Irvine or elsewhere, and ask the question -- what do you know about the potential environmental hazards there? Have soil samples been collected and analyzed? Groundwater? Soil vapor? Has there been oversight and approval of the development by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or similar agency? Are there any reports you can obtain and review, or have a qualified, unbiased, professional review for you?



The question I pose to you, is whether the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. Qualified professionals have extensively investigated the former Tustin military site and their work is part of the public record. The risk assessment process has deemed them to have no significant risk for their occupants. Since no risk assessment process has been completed for any of the "more desirable" locations, you can't say the same for them.



Yes, the legal system has addressed numerous situations where people's health has been damaged by environmental contamination of their homes, water supplies, and air. The vast majority were from unsuspected contaminants (e.g., contaminated well water), or from exposure to substances formerly thought to be safe (e.g., asbestos). A thorough site investigation, as has been conducted for the former Tustin Marine Base, identifies, quantifies, and addresses such concerns.



I am no more qualified than any other reasonably intelligent person to judge CS or CG (or any other development) from the standpoint of schools, location, construction, neighbors, congestion, feng shui, ethnic diversity, price, taxes, paint color etc., etc. But I AM qualified to defend the process by which a former industrial site is rendered suitable for development. Been there, done that. In California, it's a complicated, lengthy, public process, with many levels of protection built in, with public health and safety being the paramount concern. Again, I've had no involvement in the developments in Tustin or Irvine. What I am defending is the process that these developments have been subjected to. The unsupported speculation on the "danger" represented by living there is simply B.S.



Finally, I challenge anyone with actual knowledge of any environmental risks that have not been disclosed to potential buyers, or any fraud or errors in the assessment process, to let the folks at DTSC know. Or call up the OC Register and tell them. Or PM me and I'll take it to the agency. But be prepared to support you charges with facts. Not just some unsupported speculation heard at the office water cooler or in a bar, and not some kind of "I'm no expert but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night" kind of expertise.</blockquote>


Nice post. People who do not work with CEQA do not realize the level of study and public disclosure involved.
 
[quote author="GoIllini" date=1223702442][quote author="freedomCM" date=1223693193][quote author="rickhunter" date=1223640120]Exactly,



If you cant see it or smell it, why specifically target CS and CG as the only homes that would be affected?

I know, because they make you sign these forms if you buy there. That should scare those people that buy there.

But does it make Westpark any safer? Does it make the older homes across Edinger from CS any safer?

I just dont get that. It makes no sense why this toxic stuff would know any borders.



It's TOXIC! It's dangerous. And the only way it will affect you is if it gets in the water supply?

And if it gets in the water supply, all of Irvine, etc is doomed!



So to the bloggers here, why keep targeting CS and CG?



[quote author="CalGal" date=1223633802]

Seriously, you want to avoid it. Just because you can't see it or smell it, doesn't mean it's not affecting you.</blockquote></blockquote>




The toxins do not have to be in the water supply to affect you. It can be in the air, fulminating from the ground. It could even be in the air in sub-effective doses, but react with air pollution to get into your lungs in a biologically effective dose. It can be in the soil and get on your skin. It can be on the soil and get on your pet, and get on you when you rub the cat or dog. It can build up in your kid over years of playing in the yard.</blockquote>


I want to raise one point that has been missed on this thread in considering the environmental concerns for these locations... The reason there are homes there is that the sites have been investigated by environmental professionals, using guidelines established by and with oversight from state and Federal health and environmental agencies. Their reports have then been made public and reviewed by multiple other environmental professionals at these agencies, and by the developers lawyers. These reports are still available for public review, and anybody that is considering purchase should take advantage of that, then form their own opinion.



Now, pick a "more desirable" residential development, in Irvine or elsewhere, and ask the question -- what do you know about the potential environmental hazards there? Have soil samples been collected and analyzed? Groundwater? Soil vapor? Has there been oversight and approval of the development by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or similar agency? Are there any reports you can obtain and review, or have a qualified, unbiased, professional review for you?



The question I pose to you, is whether the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. Qualified professionals have extensively investigated the former Tustin military site and their work is part of the public record. The risk assessment process has deemed them to have no significant risk for their occupants. Since no risk assessment process has been completed for any of the "more desirable" locations, you can't say the same for them.



Yes, the legal system has addressed numerous situations where people's health has been damaged by environmental contamination of their homes, water supplies, and air. The vast majority were from unsuspected contaminants (e.g., contaminated well water), or from exposure to substances formerly thought to be safe (e.g., asbestos). A thorough site investigation, as has been conducted for the former Tustin Marine Base, identifies, quantifies, and addresses such concerns.



I am no more qualified than any other reasonably intelligent person to judge CS or CG (or any other development) from the standpoint of schools, location, construction, neighbors, congestion, feng shui, ethnic diversity, price, taxes, paint color etc., etc. But I AM qualified to defend the process by which a former industrial site is rendered suitable for development. Been there, done that. In California, it's a complicated, lengthy, public process, with many levels of protection built in, with public health and safety being the paramount concern. Again, I've had no involvement in the developments in Tustin or Irvine. What I am defending is the process that these developments have been subjected to. The unsupported speculation on the "danger" represented by living there is simply B.S.



Finally, I challenge anyone with actual knowledge of any environmental risks that have not been disclosed to potential buyers, or any fraud or errors in the assessment process, to let the folks at DTSC know. Or call up the OC Register and tell them. Or PM me and I'll take it to the agency. But be prepared to support you charges with facts. Not just some unsupported speculation heard at the office water cooler or in a bar, and not some kind of "I'm no expert but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night" kind of expertise.</blockquote>


it's a pleasure to read an intelligent post once in a while. i have not the time, smarts and skills to do so myself, but i'm smart enough to weed out the B.S. from the rest. thanks for taking your time to make an educated post - most likley followed by some sort of bong hit from no_vas
 
[quote author="GoIllini" date=1223702442]The unsupported speculation on the "danger" represented by living there is simply B.S..</blockquote>


Are those unsupported speculations you refer to the ones in the disclosures they require buyers to sign which indicate there could be risk in eating fruit from trees grown in the soil or drinking groundwater? Why would people need to sign disclosures based off unsupported speculation?
 
I don't think environmental concerns are the main reason for the VOC / TIC price differential. For long time OC residents, do you remember the Ford Aerospace plant in Newport Beach? They built missles there since the 1940s long before there was any environtal laws or consciousness. That was where the ubiquitous Sidewinder missle was invented and first produced. In the late 1990s, Ford Motor Company tore the plant down and turned it into a residential development called One Ford Road (located at Jamboree and Eastbluff). The disclosures re One Ford Road were even more horrifying than VOC and included similar warnings about not eating anything grown there. As far as I know, the prices at One Ford Road are not any lower than nearby TIC villages like Big Canyon and Eastbluff with no toxic issues.
 
I'm no Holiday Inn expert but while it's true the same level of studies may not have been conducted at other areas... a certain level of environmental hazard assessment must have been done at any future homesite (or else the city and the homebuilders are idiots).



But is it better to deal with the devil you don't know because you can sue his pants off for not knowing?



It just scares me that I have to sign several different legal documents acknowledging I am aware of the risks at Neighborhood X which could possibly limit my ability to seek recourse in case of future problems.



The fact that they used the most advanced ToxicityFinder? is of no condolence to me when I have a 3rd arm growing out of my forehead and my lawyer says "Well... you signed this thing that says you accepted that risk."



(I realize I'm being hyperbolic... but this is what goes through the average buyer's mind when presented with Disclosures 1402-3.B Parts 1 through 14)
 
The VOC/TIC differential comes partly from the fact that VOC needs to finish selling and therefore lowered prices to get inventory to move. TIC threw the builders under the bus by halting all production which is why they're bailing left and right. TIC is not lowering prices to reflect reality, and therefore nothing is selling, but that doesn't mean that the prices are actually being held up. Woodbury is collapsing from the bottom up, and the more expensive products are just lagging behind because they stopped making them. Everyone acknowledges this about Portola Springs, but the blinders are on whenever Quail Hill or Woodbury are mentioned.



In 10 years, Woodbury will just be another likeable Irvine neighborhood. Still very nice, but nothing remarkeable or premium, because TIC will start up some new concept down the street that is the "new premium". Then, Woodbury's "town square" concept complete with faux New Orleans French Quarter details will seem old and out of date, because some other concept will take over. The unthemed monuments as BK put it, in CG are fine by me because in 20 years a stone pillar is just a stone pillar. Westpark's 1980's tile murals were probably very fashionable at the time but they didnt age too well.



10 years ago, Oak Creek was the premium place-to-be, now its just another neighborhood. Its nice, don't get me wrong, but not the premium it was before.



As for the disclosures, I got some more explanation on that before buying, and the danger is in deep rooted trees that could reach the water table. That disclosure would apply to all of Irvine that is affected by the toxic plume... which is most of Irvine. The fact that VoC put that "CMA" in their documents doesn't mean that its not true across the street... or across the freeway in everyone's beloved Northwood. Sorry.



I don't believe that CG will meet or overtake the TIC properties in price, but the premium is going to diminish greatly as TIC starts to actually move inventory.
 
[quote author="Goofy" date=1223708858]

As for the disclosures, I got some more explanation on that before buying, and the danger is in deep rooted trees that could reach the water table. That disclosure would apply to all of Irvine that is affected by the toxic plume... which is most of Irvine. The fact that VoC put that "CMA" in their documents doesn't mean that its not true across the street... or across the freeway in <strong>everyone's beloved Northwood</strong>. Sorry.</blockquote>


Don't eat the fruit in Woodbridge... Fortunately, groundwater doesn't flow uphill, so those lovely Irvine neighborhoods northwest of the base should be unaffected.



Viva Northwood Pointe! Long live Northpark!



<img src="http://www.ipoplaya.com/tox.jpg" alt="" />
 
[quote author="ipoplaya" date=1223617381]

If you moved to Columbus Grove, the low hum of the power lines and traffic would provide some nice white noise to drown out any such obscenities :)



You're right, someone's negatives could be someone else's positives!</blockquote>


Don't forget about the fresh water scents coming from Peters Canyon and when mixed with the exotic aroma of the waste management center creates a truly exquisite inhalation experience for the residents. Not to mention the fine particles released into the air from the concrete factory that creates an effective sunblock when your kids are playing outside.
 
[quote author="ipoplaya" date=1223705721][quote author="GoIllini" date=1223702442]The unsupported speculation on the "danger" represented by living there is simply B.S..</blockquote>


Are those unsupported speculations you refer to the ones in the disclosures they require buyers to sign which indicate there could be risk in eating fruit from trees grown in the soil or drinking groundwater? Why would people need to sign disclosures based off unsupported speculation?</blockquote>


Those disclosures probably arose from the findings of the various studies required under the CEQA process. That is clearly a substantiated risk. Where it starts to get speculative is when people theorize on what will happen based on the presence of these toxins. Will this create a cancer cluster? Etc.
 
[quote author="ipoplaya" date=1223711969][quote author="Goofy" date=1223708858]

As for the disclosures, I got some more explanation on that before buying, and the danger is in deep rooted trees that could reach the water table. That disclosure would apply to all of Irvine that is affected by the toxic plume... which is most of Irvine. The fact that VoC put that "CMA" in their documents doesn't mean that its not true across the street... or across the freeway in <strong>everyone's beloved Northwood</strong>. Sorry.</blockquote>


Don't eat the fruit in Woodbridge... Fortunately, groundwater doesn't flow uphill, so those lovely Irvine neighborhoods northwest of the base should be unaffected.



Viva Northwood Pointe! Long live Northpark!



<img src="http://www.ipoplaya.com/tox.jpg" alt="" /></blockquote>


oh what a reliable source.... www.toxnews.org .... the goverment must have taken down that site.... consipracy here i come....
 
[quote author="ipoplaya" date=1223711969][quote author="Goofy" date=1223708858]

As for the disclosures, I got some more explanation on that before buying, and the danger is in deep rooted trees that could reach the water table. That disclosure would apply to all of Irvine that is affected by the toxic plume... which is most of Irvine. The fact that VoC put that "CMA" in their documents doesn't mean that its not true across the street... or across the freeway in <strong>everyone's beloved Northwood</strong>. Sorry.</blockquote>


Don't eat the fruit in Woodbridge... Fortunately, groundwater doesn't flow uphill, so those lovely Irvine neighborhoods northwest of the base should be unaffected.



Viva Northwood Pointe! Long live Northpark!



<img src="http://www.ipoplaya.com/tox.jpg" alt="" /></blockquote>


I was actually interested in VOC for awhile (still considering it), and had come across one of the threads here discussing this toxic soil stuff. The above map, without the ToxNews addons, is actually posted on the Irvine Ranch Water District site. Look for DeSalter project. Public knowledge.



http://www.irwd.com/FreePrograms/brochures/G06_IDP_2008_Brochure.pdf



Again, this "toxic plume" involves a lot of Irvine between the 5 and 405. Note, that this extends from the El Toro Marine base. Not the Tustin Marine base. Looking at the map, the plume does not quite reach the Tustin Marine base...



So my question is: Are the various disclaimers referring to the contaminated water table (i.e. Toxic Plume from El Toro), or is it the result of contaminants in the ground already from the Tustin Marine Base?



I wouldn't be surprised if it was one or the other. So yeah, the neighborhoods north or south of the El Toro Y seem to be "more safe." I was bugged about this for the longest time, but if you think about it, how long have the older neighborhoods between the Y been around? How long have the contaminants been leaking into the ground from BOTH of these bases? What's the cancer rate of this older section of Irvine?



Given the "demand" for Irvine (which I'll admit I've bought into), if there have been health issues associated with this Toxic Plume, I'm sure they'd have surfaced by now. As has been mentioned above by GoIllini, health issues have likely been thoroughly vetted by the govt (and TIC). I'm a bit tired of people bagging on VOC solely on the basis of the toxic soil, as they seem to turn a blind eye on the rest of the other affected Irvine areas. Talk to me about the concrete factory, the waste re-distribution plant, smells from the adjacent "river," or noise and pollution from Jamboree. But CRIKEY. The soil thing is, as the author of this wonderful blog put it, is another form of pure speculation! There are disclaimers on EVERYTHING.
 
[quote author="It?s a dry heat..." date=1223724124][quote author="ipoplaya" date=1223711969][quote author="Goofy" date=1223708858]

As for the disclosures, I got some more explanation on that before buying, and the danger is in deep rooted trees that could reach the water table. That disclosure would apply to all of Irvine that is affected by the toxic plume... which is most of Irvine. The fact that VoC put that "CMA" in their documents doesn't mean that its not true across the street... or across the freeway in <strong>everyone's beloved Northwood</strong>. Sorry.</blockquote>


Don't eat the fruit in Woodbridge... Fortunately, groundwater doesn't flow uphill, so those lovely Irvine neighborhoods northwest of the base should be unaffected.



Viva Northwood Pointe! Long live Northpark!



<img src="http://www.ipoplaya.com/tox.jpg" alt="" /></blockquote>


I was actually interested in VOC for awhile (still considering it), and had come across one of the threads here discussing this toxic soil stuff. The above map, without the ToxNews addons, is actually posted on the Irvine Ranch Water District site. Look for DeSalter project. Public knowledge.



http://www.irwd.com/FreePrograms/brochures/G06_IDP_2008_Brochure.pdf



Again, this "toxic plume" involves a lot of Irvine between the 5 and 405. Note, that this extends from the El Toro Marine base. Not the Tustin Marine base. Looking at the map, the plume does not quite reach the Tustin Marine base...



So my question is: Are the various disclaimers referring to the contaminated water table (i.e. Toxic Plume from El Toro), or is it the result of contaminants in the ground already from the Tustin Marine Base?



I wouldn't be surprised if it was one or the other. So yeah, the neighborhoods north or south of the El Toro Y seem to be "more safe." I was bugged about this for the longest time, but if you think about it, how long have the older neighborhoods between the Y been around? How long have the contaminants been leaking into the ground from BOTH of these bases? What's the cancer rate of this older section of Irvine?



Given the "demand" for Irvine (which I'll admit I've bought into), if there have been health issues associated with this Toxic Plume, I'm sure they'd have surfaced by now. As has been mentioned above by GoIllini, health issues have likely been thoroughly vetted by the govt (and TIC). I'm a bit tired of people bagging on VOC solely on the basis of the toxic soil, as they seem to turn a blind eye on the rest of the other affected Irvine areas. Talk to me about the concrete factory, the waste re-distribution plant, smells from the adjacent "river," or noise and pollution from Jamboree. But CRIKEY. The soil thing is, as the author of this wonderful blog put it, is another form of pure speculation! There are disclaimers on EVERYTHING.</blockquote>


As was already previously stated, VoC is built directly on the same areas as the old marine base housing units. The houses were torn down and VoC built in its place. So people had already been living there for decades before VoC.
 
Tustin Villas = Columbus Square

Marble Mountain = Columbus Grove Irvine

Moffett Meadows = Columbus Grove Tustin

north of Moffett Meadows = Tustin Field



<img src="http://5txwww.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p6ztOKcQDIiinmC3ox3v-Aw7Swvgg_q4_iUI5QnUIT4iPLMohozTBF4Rh2qaBwjic442viyhDREk/tustin.jpg" alt="" />



"The U.S. Navy is selling Tustin Villas, along with two other military housing units, to help recoup costs associated with moving troops and equipment to other locations. The three subdivisions contain more than 1,200 townhomes, duplexes and multifamily units that once housed Marines and their families. Some older units will be torn down to make way for new development, but the base reuse plan calls for medium- and low-density residential development on the land.



The sale of Tustin Villas, Marble Mountain and Moffett Meadows?the latter two named, respectively, for a helicopter base in Vietnam and the father of Navy aviation?will do more than help the Navy generate cash."
 
FYI,



I am doing a post for tomorrow (December 18) on 78 Fringe Tree in Columbus Grove. One of the great friends of the IHB lives on that street...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top