J
jmoney74
Guest
200+ low income 55+ apartments.. I can see it now. Hanging their big old underwear on a clothesline on the balcony! oh man! Hang it in your bathroom like Test does.
jmoney74 said:SoCal said:Just fyi, I just received the regular emailed newsletter from our school with district news, SVUSD, saying that they are "eagerly anticipating the addition" of new students from the areas discussed here in this thread. I haven't kept up with this thread, so, forgive me if I'm repeating info already posted.
Yeah they want more kids because they are losing funding. It's already been documented.
test said:aquabliss said:test said:aquabliss said:If anything they should make it known up front for other 5P developments instead of muted threats to take a bite out of PP residents property values.
The city already approved TWO low income apartment projects to sandwich PP between. PP residents property values are already in the dump.
Oh shoot you're right, just like all the low income apartments listed here:http://www.cityofirvine.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=10323
Have sunk the property values of Woodbury, Northwood, Turtle Rock, etc.
Woodbury has how many market homes to low income homes, and PP has how many? Oh shoot.
notTHEoc said:In case this from oc register last week wasn't linked or posted yet
"
It also wouldn?t affect many residents, only future residents, said Irvine Unified Trustee Mike Parham. He said the territory the board has suggested giving up does not include the Great Park Neighborhoods and Pavilion Park developments.
...
An Irvine Unified spokesperson said the district has no intention of breaking the mitigation agreement between FivePoint and the district.
"
notTHEoc said:It also wouldn?t affect many residents, only future residents, said Irvine Unified Trustee Mike Parham. He said the territory the board has suggested giving up does not include the Great Park Neighborhoods and Pavilion Park developments.
GH said:notTHEoc said:It also wouldn?t affect many residents, only future residents, said Irvine Unified Trustee Mike Parham. He said the territory the board has suggested giving up does not include the Great Park Neighborhoods and Pavilion Park developments.
I'm confused. If they are not giving up the Great Park Neighborhoods, what are they giving up then if the HS is not built on time ? Woodbury ? Portola Springs? Stonegate ? Maybe he meant we are not giving up Pavillion Park, but for future Great Park neighboorhood, its up in the air to pressure 5P to get their acts together.
notTHEoc said:It seems there is deep tension right now between IUSD and TIC for TIC not having provided any land for HS#5 despite all the TIC development over the last 15 years. Originally, the last 2 GP hoods were expected to go to SVUSD, but when you look at the map now, actually all GP hoods will go to IUSD. That was a win and +ive surprise for 5P and it suggests IUSD cozying up to 5P. It makes sense there would be backchanneling now to move SG into IUSD. I think it is just a ploy though to get TIC to provide the land for HS#6, but we'll have to wait and see what happens.
There are facts in there - would this qualify as "just doing fact-based analysis?"
http://irvinecommunitypoll.org/poll-results/irvines-next-high-school-final-results/Tribune said:I came across this facebook post:
For those of you that want to have an input in choosing location for the 5th high school:
{{
Irvine Community Poll
Let Irvine's leaders know how you feel about the location of our City's next High School.
The Irvine Community Poll is dedicated to taking the pulse of the Irvine community.
WWW.IRVINECOMMUNITYPOLL.ORG
}}}}
bones said:GH said:notTHEoc said:It seems there is deep tension right now between IUSD and TIC for TIC not having provided any land for HS#5 despite all the TIC development over the last 15 years. Originally, the last 2 GP hoods were expected to go to SVUSD, but when you look at the map now, actually all GP hoods will go to IUSD. That was a win and +ive surprise for 5P and it suggests IUSD cozying up to 5P. It makes sense there would be backchanneling now to move SG into IUSD. I think it is just a ploy though to get TIC to provide the land for HS#6, but we'll have to wait and see what happens.
There are facts in there - would this qualify as "just doing fact-based analysis?"
I could be wrong, but looking at the map that Goriot posted from OC register, the parcel of land in just below the "red zone" that is assigned to SVUSD are great park land, and if the red zone area are the one that is currently being disputed, that unfortunately includes PP.
actually no it doesn't. red is below irvine blvd. pull up google maps and overlay it. plus the quotes in the article say specifically pp = iusd.
SoCal said:Just fyi, I just received the regular emailed newsletter from our school with district news, SVUSD, saying that they are "eagerly anticipating the addition" of new students from the areas discussed here in this thread. I haven't kept up with this thread, so, forgive me if I'm repeating info already posted.