Save the Memorial Park! Vote No on Measure B ballot June 5th

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
5P will develop whichever land it's given. If the cemetery remains on the original site, they will build homes on the strawberry fields. If the cemetery is moved to the strawberry fields, they will build homes on the old site. The 10,000-home figure is a really inflated number... there's no way they could fit that many homes either plot of land. Still, they will be building homes regardless of the outcome--the only thing that changes is where.

I will be voting Yes on B, because it provides a happy medium between the desires of the veterans and the desires of the community. It is clear that the community would prefer the cemetery to be located further away from schools and homes, and the veterans would like for their final resting place to be on their old marine base (YES, the strawberry fields are considered to be a part of the old marine base). This isn't even considering the immense cost of building the cemetery at the original site, which reduces the likelihood of the cemetery ever getting built.
zubs said:
Yes on B ~ Vet Cemetery goes to strawberry fields.  10,000 more homes get built at the old site
No on B ~ Vet Cemetery goes to original site. 

So a Yes on B means 5 points will build 10,000 more homes? 
If not, what will 5 points do with the original cemetery site?

FYI: I saw all the yes and no on B signs up on Culver.  I saw more Yes on B signs then No's!
Click to expand...
 
But the No on B signs says "Stop developers from building 10,000 more homes".
Are you saying those signs are lies?

So 10,000 homes are coming no matter if you vote yes or no.
 
Villager said:
5P will develop whichever land it's given. If the cemetery remains on the original site, they will build homes on the strawberry fields. If the cemetery is moved to the strawberry fields, they will build homes on the old site. The 10,000-home figure is a really inflated number... there's no way they could fit that many homes either plot of land. Still, they will be building homes regardless of the outcome--the only thing that changes is where.

I will be voting Yes on B, because it provides a happy medium between the desires of the veterans and the desires of the community. It is clear that the community would prefer the cemetery to be located further away from schools and homes, and the veterans would like for their final resting place to be on their old marine base (YES, the strawberry fields are considered to be a part of the old marine base). This isn't even considering the immense cost of building the cemetery at the original site, which reduces the likelihood of the cemetery ever getting built.
zubs said:
Yes on B ~ Vet Cemetery goes to strawberry fields.  10,000 more homes get built at the old site
No on B ~ Vet Cemetery goes to original site. 

So a Yes on B means 5 points will build 10,000 more homes? 
If not, what will 5 points do with the original cemetery site?

FYI: I saw all the yes and no on B signs up on Culver.  I saw more Yes on B signs then No's!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

They will not be building homes at the Strawberry Fields location.  Not happening.
 
zubs said:
But the No on B signs says "Stop developers from building 10,000 more homes".
Are you saying those signs are lies?

So 10,000 homes are coming no matter if you vote yes or no.
Click to expand...

That 10K home thing is very misleading. That number refers to the total amount of homes slated for the whole GP. Larry Agran and his cronies spent hundreds of millions of dollars at the GP but had nothing to show for it except enriching their friends. Then Gov Brown pulled the rug out under the GP by taking back over a billon dollars of development funds. The City of Irvine was stuck with developing the GP without any money. They negotiated with 5P to fund the GP in exchange for doubling the number of houses from 5k to 10k.

So a YES vote on Measure B will NOT add 10k homes to the GP. Irvine already approved that number long ago.
 
iacrenter said:
zubs said:
But the No on B signs says "Stop developers from building 10,000 more homes".
Are you saying those signs are lies?

So 10,000 homes are coming no matter if you vote yes or no.
Click to expand...

That 10K home thing is very misleading. That number refers to the total amount of homes slated for the whole GP. Larry Agran and his cronies spent hundreds of millions of dollars at the GP but had nothing to show for it except enriching their friends. Then Gov Brown pulled the rug out under the GP by taking back over a billon dollars of development funds. The City of Irvine was stuck with developing the GP without any money. They negotiated with 5P to fund the GP in exchange for doubling the number of houses from 5k to 10k.

So a YES vote on Measure B will NOT add 10k homes to the GP. Irvine already approved that number long ago.
Click to expand...

That Larry Agran really did a number on the city didnt he -- Losing $1bn in development funds from the state ?  WTF
 
So what do you think 5 points will do with the old cemetery site if it's not residential?
 
This map should tell you more than all the mailers and partisan blog posts.

ocr-l-irvpetition-1026.jpg


Old site: good for a cemetery, good for housing/office development by FivePoint.

New site: bad for a cemetery, bad for housing, maybe okay for offices.

If you work for FivePoints or own their stock, vote Yes on Measure B.

If you live around the old site and want more homes/offices next to you, vote Yes.

If you don't think you have a skin in the game and live far enough from either site, consider this. If you don't understand the reasons why someone is pushing for something, assume that they are trying to pull something off.

As a general rule for our democracy and our referendums and measures, vote No on any measure or proposition you do not fully understand. FivePoint is paying for the campaign to pass Measure B, everyone knows it, and they are not hiding it: the councilmembers who favor the switch asked FivePoint to pay for the marketing of the campaign to pass it, and they agreed. If you don't know how you will benefit from Measure B passing, it means you will not.
 
ponzu said:
Old site: good for a cemetery, good for housing/office development by FivePoint.

New site: bad for a cemetery, bad for housing, maybe okay for offices.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the graphic.

Why is the new site bad for a cemetary?
 
Liar Loan said:
ponzu said:
Old site: good for a cemetery, good for housing/office development by FivePoint.

New site: bad for a cemetery, bad for housing, maybe okay for offices.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the graphic.

Why is the new site bad for a cemetary?
Click to expand...
For one, noise and dirt from the freeway for the mourners and the visitors? I try to put myself in the shoes of the visitors if not the souls who will be resting there.

I don't think a cemetery by the freeway will bother anyone. Nor will it benefit anyone. It's sort of out of the way in plain sight. On the other hand, a cemetery near homes and schools... I don't live there but if I try picturing it, I see it almost as a park. A golf course with crosses if you want to be crass. Vast open space that does not bother anyone. One thing Irvine needs more of is open spaces. If a cemetery is the price of keeping the land free of roads and development, it's a small price to pay. I have to try very hard to get into the mindsets of people opposing the cemetery near them. It's not exactly a homeless camp. One would have to be very easily spooked by the word, the idea of a cemetery to overlook the benefits it can bring to the area.
 
ponzu said:
This map should tell you more than all the mailers and partisan blog posts.

ocr-l-irvpetition-1026.jpg


Old site: good for a cemetery, good for housing/office development by FivePoint.

New site: bad for a cemetery, bad for housing, maybe okay for offices.

If you work for FivePoints or own their stock, vote Yes on Measure B.

If you live around the old site and want more homes/offices next to you, vote Yes.

If you don't think you have a skin in the game and live far enough from either site, consider this. If you don't understand the reasons why someone is pushing for something, assume that they are trying to pull something off.

As a general rule for our democracy and our referendums and measures, vote No on any measure or proposition you do not fully understand. FivePoint is paying for the campaign to pass Measure B, everyone knows it, and they are not hiding it: the councilmembers who favor the switch asked FivePoint to pay for the marketing of the campaign to pass it, and they agreed. If you don't know how you will benefit from Measure B passing, it means you will not.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. There's just too much shady "politics" going on with 5P. This is a corporation after all and they're after profits not compassion. They have shareholders to answer to. Corporations are not charity nor are they driven with a positive moral compass. They're end goal is the same. Rack up their stock prices and please their shareholders. Remediate and make shit work. Cut deals that favor them and sugar coat it so it looks good.

The average irvine citizen has ZERO clue as to what is going on behind close-door sessions between 5P and the city council.
 
Voting NO on Measure B will not solve the traffic problems around the GP. The 10k homes are coming online regardless of the upcoming vote.

A NO vote would likely drive property values down, hurt veterans by delaying building efforts, and will cost tax payers more to prepare the land.

A YES vote on measure B would be a reasonable compromise.
 
The City Council approved this location back in 2014. If this was a bad site, waste of money, blah blah blah, why da fuq did they approve it? Were they on crack?

Make no mistake, they changed their minds after a few years later when a "better" proposal came to light, one that would benefit the developer more than the people that actually live in this effin' city. There is a lot more at stake than just "waste of tax payer money" "remediation cost".  This is outright politics and greed at work: Ever heard the saying. No such thing as a free lunch in America. 5Point ain't no saint.


Advocates for the proposed cemetery and memorial said in recent weeks they detected a reluctance on the part of the council majority to move forward, given concerns expressed about the impact on nearby home sales by developer FivePoint Communities.

The developer is planning to sell most of its units to buyers from Asia, and a cemetery near the neighborhood is considered bad feng shui.

https://voiceofoc.org/2014/07/irvine-council-designates-land-for-veterans-cemetery/
 
i1 said:
Burn That Belly said:
The City Council approved this location back in 2014. If this was a bad site, waste of money, blah blah blah, why da fuq did they approve it? Were they on crack?

Make no mistake, they changed their minds after a few years later when a "better" proposal came to light, one that would benefit the developer more than the people that actually live in this effin' city. There is a lot more at stake than just "waste of tax payer money" "remediation cost".  This is outright politics and greed at work: Ever heard the saying. No such thing as a free lunch in America. 5Point ain't no saint.


Advocates for the proposed cemetery and memorial said in recent weeks they detected a reluctance on the part of the council majority to move forward, given concerns expressed about the impact on nearby home sales by developer FivePoint Communities.

The developer is planning to sell most of its units to buyers from Asia, and a cemetery near the neighborhood is considered bad feng shui.

https://voiceofoc.org/2014/07/irvine-council-designates-land-for-veterans-cemetery/
Click to expand...
Why is the past history relevant or whether this helps/hurts 5P relevant? Don?t you be forward looking and try to make the right decision for residents for the future?

If people were saying there is something better about the original site, I?m fine with that but all I hear from No on B is ?I hate developers. I hate 5P. There must be something shady I don?t know about so I?ll vote No? regardless of obvious facts.
Click to expand...

Because humans always think that the "grass is always greener on the other side" when it never is. It just seems so "convenient" that 5Point would offer up the land *AND* pay for parts of the cemetery. Personally, from a "business" point of view, the original land is more valuable than the one sandwiched in between two freeways. You know this, plenty of people know this 10-20 years down the line when GP is fully built out and they build some mini-lego land there. 

Basically, the city has a parcel of land that is like a '67 Shelby GT500 that is broken and doesn't run. 5Point is saying 'Here, I'll give you a brand new 2018 GT350 and we'll do a swap. I'll even throw in free oil changes".  What the city doesn't know is that the '67 Shelby is worth a heck of a lot more when restored properly.  A brand new shiny GT350 with 0 miles on it is sure as hell tempting next to a broken down rusting '67 Shelby GT500 but truth be told, I rather have a restored Shelby. "Eleanor" !
 
Another one-note ramble from Magic Belly J1zz. Does a car enthusiast buy a rusty 67 Shelby if it costs $77 million to restore? If yes then how about another bond added to your EW taxes? Won't just be the GP residents paying for it!

Even if restored by the city, the relative "value" of the land would be irrelevant, since it is already earmarked to be a cemetery. The opportunity costs are already known.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top