Burn That Belly
New member
x
Save the Memorial Park! Vote No on Measure B ballot June 5th
- Thread starter Burn That Belly
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
The irony is strong in this one.
Five Points is NOT giving $40,000,000 to Irvine, as claimed. The horrible site next to the freeway is vastly inferior, which is the only reason Five Points is trading.
Houses built on the former site will carry a huge premium compared to any houses built near the freeway. The freeway site:
1. Is terribly noisy.
2. Is split by a creek, which could flood the area in heavy rains.
3. Christina Shea and Don Wagner should have recused themselves from the vote because they were given hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions by Five Points. Their votes were biased, unethical and unprofessional.
Burn That Belly
New member
x
Burn That Belly
New member
x
Burn That Belly
New member
x
Burn That Belly
New member
x
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Burn That Belly said:
The irony is strong in this one.
Burn That Belly
New member
x
I've been following this thread for a little while, and I guess I've decided to vote Yes on B.
Reasons I have adopted this:
1) Others have made a compelling case that this is the most sure fire way to get the cemetery built. A No on B merely ensures that 5P develops the Strawberry fields. Sorry, BTB, but your cat is losing those fields whether or not the initiative passes. However, No on B does NOT ensure that the Cemetery gets built at the original site. That land needs to be cleaned up, and since there is no guarantee that the City pays for it, I foresee Measure G in 2019 where people are voting down bonds or allocations of MR funds, then Measure Z in 2020 where concerned homeowners are fighting to keep the cemetery from being built in any case. After all, those homeowners complaining about more houses and buildings today can quickly turn to condemning a cemetery tomorrow.
2) I am not persuaded by appeals to 5P's profit motive here. Of course they are going to get money- just as the developers who build my house got lots of money. And they should- they built an amazing house and an amazing neighborhood for me to live in. I love it, and will happily enrich any "evil" corporation that turns a profit giving people what they want. Now I know this is a different matter for people living nearby- they get none of the value of a new housing/commercial/whatever tract and suffer the externalized costs (traffic, crowding, etc). They likely make a different decision here- not because an evil corporation stands to make money, but because the the developed land imposes these externalities. If 5P were a Not For Profit, those homeowners would have the same grounds to object.
3) I am not persuaded by appeals to the corruption of the government. Of course the government is corrupt. But no one offers any explanation as to how a yes or no will make the government less corrupt. Everything tells me that much of this political battle is about which corrupt government/crony team will win. So instead, I am just looking at the downstream effects of this. A YES means that a corporation (5P) will pay to clean up the original site and develop it, and also kick in money to develop the cemetery on strawberry fields. A No means that Strawberry Fields will be developed anyways, while the fate of cleanup and development of the cemetery continues to be a question.
It's a pity that the dreams of a Great Park imparted to me when I moved here several years ago are now becoming "More residential/commercial buildings and a couple recreational facilities", but that frankly is beyond the scope of this current initiative. I am not significantly concerned about the ethnicity of whomever decides to buy houses in those areas. If I were really concerned that the people in my neighborhood don't look like me (caucasian), then I probably wouldn't have settled in Irvine anyways. I understand many people- especially folks who lived here for decades- will have a different perspective as they see their city change around them. I respect their view, but just don't share it.
Anyway, that's my thoughts on the matter, and my decision barring any other information that comes my way.
Reasons I have adopted this:
1) Others have made a compelling case that this is the most sure fire way to get the cemetery built. A No on B merely ensures that 5P develops the Strawberry fields. Sorry, BTB, but your cat is losing those fields whether or not the initiative passes. However, No on B does NOT ensure that the Cemetery gets built at the original site. That land needs to be cleaned up, and since there is no guarantee that the City pays for it, I foresee Measure G in 2019 where people are voting down bonds or allocations of MR funds, then Measure Z in 2020 where concerned homeowners are fighting to keep the cemetery from being built in any case. After all, those homeowners complaining about more houses and buildings today can quickly turn to condemning a cemetery tomorrow.
2) I am not persuaded by appeals to 5P's profit motive here. Of course they are going to get money- just as the developers who build my house got lots of money. And they should- they built an amazing house and an amazing neighborhood for me to live in. I love it, and will happily enrich any "evil" corporation that turns a profit giving people what they want. Now I know this is a different matter for people living nearby- they get none of the value of a new housing/commercial/whatever tract and suffer the externalized costs (traffic, crowding, etc). They likely make a different decision here- not because an evil corporation stands to make money, but because the the developed land imposes these externalities. If 5P were a Not For Profit, those homeowners would have the same grounds to object.
3) I am not persuaded by appeals to the corruption of the government. Of course the government is corrupt. But no one offers any explanation as to how a yes or no will make the government less corrupt. Everything tells me that much of this political battle is about which corrupt government/crony team will win. So instead, I am just looking at the downstream effects of this. A YES means that a corporation (5P) will pay to clean up the original site and develop it, and also kick in money to develop the cemetery on strawberry fields. A No means that Strawberry Fields will be developed anyways, while the fate of cleanup and development of the cemetery continues to be a question.
It's a pity that the dreams of a Great Park imparted to me when I moved here several years ago are now becoming "More residential/commercial buildings and a couple recreational facilities", but that frankly is beyond the scope of this current initiative. I am not significantly concerned about the ethnicity of whomever decides to buy houses in those areas. If I were really concerned that the people in my neighborhood don't look like me (caucasian), then I probably wouldn't have settled in Irvine anyways. I understand many people- especially folks who lived here for decades- will have a different perspective as they see their city change around them. I respect their view, but just don't share it.
Anyway, that's my thoughts on the matter, and my decision barring any other information that comes my way.
Burn That Belly
New member
x
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
There are 2 methods:
#BurnerAccount
#BurnerScreenName
Now that's a smooth hesi pull up jimbo.
#BurnerAccount
#BurnerScreenName
Now that's a smooth hesi pull up jimbo.
Burn That Belly
New member
x
Our Gang
Active member
Councilperson Lyn Schott said that $70M is less than the cost of the Sand Canyon bridge (on record City Council meeting April 2017), and the RDA settlement was for building the park anyhow, so Irvine has plenty of money to build the cemetery.
And according to the Pope/Inmon/Robb ballot booklet statement - now in your mailbox - she and Lalloway will make that motion at the first council meeting after their win on June 5: " ...paves the way for Councilmembers Jeff Lalloway and Lynn Schott to re-introduce their resolution to immediately commence construction of the Veterans Cemetery within the Great Park, as originally planned and promised .... "
That would be you favorite neighborhood cemetery, by the high school. The expensive site.
Sez so right there in the Agran fishwrapper and your ballot booklets, so it must be true. And the world will be watching.
No on B = big burden for Irvine taxpayers as they reject the win-win no-brainer Strawberry Field Veterans Cemetery and FivePoint's generous offer.
And according to the Pope/Inmon/Robb ballot booklet statement - now in your mailbox - she and Lalloway will make that motion at the first council meeting after their win on June 5: " ...paves the way for Councilmembers Jeff Lalloway and Lynn Schott to re-introduce their resolution to immediately commence construction of the Veterans Cemetery within the Great Park, as originally planned and promised .... "
That would be you favorite neighborhood cemetery, by the high school. The expensive site.
Sez so right there in the Agran fishwrapper and your ballot booklets, so it must be true. And the world will be watching.
No on B = big burden for Irvine taxpayers as they reject the win-win no-brainer Strawberry Field Veterans Cemetery and FivePoint's generous offer.
StarmanMBA
Active member
Our Gang said:
Five Points is NOT giving $40,000,000 to Irvine, as claimed. The horrible site next to the freeway is vastly inferior, which is the only reason Five Points is trading.
Houses built on the former site will carry a huge premium compared to any houses built near the freeway. The freeway site:
1. Is terribly noisy.
2. Is split by a creek, which could flood the area in heavy rains.
3. Christina Shea and Don Wagner should have recused themselves from the vote because they were given hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions by Five Points. Their votes were biased, unethical and unprofessional.
The Motor Court Company
Well-known member
No burner account here. My household's FOUR votes will be YES on B. I don't need to even to read the details. Anything Agran wants I vote against it.
Our Gang
Active member
StarmanMBA
Five Points is NOT giving $40,000,000 to Irvine, as claimed.
>>>>> FivePoint. No $40M is claimed, did you just make that up?
They ARE giving $10M to the state for cemetery construction. And they get to pay for mitigating ARDA, estimated at $38M by the infamous OWEN report. And they are building the great park too.
Another firm in town overbuilds numerous traffic generating shopping centers and has contributed zero, zip, nada to the Veterans Cemetery. Please take note of that, as your Veterans have.
The horrible site next to the freeway is vastly inferior, which is the only reason Five Points is trading.
>>>>> FivePoint. Much superior site. Prominent, clean, ready. Favored by Vets, residents, and taxpayers.
That rejected and abandoned unviable contaminated junkyard is what you'd prefer? Really?
1. Is terribly noisy. >>>> Toro! Toro! As quiet as Riverside or Miramar, quieter than LA Veteran Cemeteries. Did you attend the dedication and actually hear what it is like? Nah. You are just parroting the anti-cemetery stooges from the Agran fishwrapper.
2. Is split by a creek, which could flood the area in heavy rains.
>>>>> Very nice Wildlife Sanctuary actually, if you quoted facts. Anything could flood in heavy rains, this is a very weak excuse for .... ?
Makes me doubt the MBA stands for Master for Business Administration, as they are trained to use facts. Or so it was when I got mine.
Five Points is NOT giving $40,000,000 to Irvine, as claimed.
>>>>> FivePoint. No $40M is claimed, did you just make that up?
They ARE giving $10M to the state for cemetery construction. And they get to pay for mitigating ARDA, estimated at $38M by the infamous OWEN report. And they are building the great park too.
Another firm in town overbuilds numerous traffic generating shopping centers and has contributed zero, zip, nada to the Veterans Cemetery. Please take note of that, as your Veterans have.
The horrible site next to the freeway is vastly inferior, which is the only reason Five Points is trading.
>>>>> FivePoint. Much superior site. Prominent, clean, ready. Favored by Vets, residents, and taxpayers.
That rejected and abandoned unviable contaminated junkyard is what you'd prefer? Really?
1. Is terribly noisy. >>>> Toro! Toro! As quiet as Riverside or Miramar, quieter than LA Veteran Cemeteries. Did you attend the dedication and actually hear what it is like? Nah. You are just parroting the anti-cemetery stooges from the Agran fishwrapper.
2. Is split by a creek, which could flood the area in heavy rains.
>>>>> Very nice Wildlife Sanctuary actually, if you quoted facts. Anything could flood in heavy rains, this is a very weak excuse for .... ?
Makes me doubt the MBA stands for Master for Business Administration, as they are trained to use facts. Or so it was when I got mine.