Veterans Cemetery coming to Irvine

[socal78]

These are veterans that served the country you live in now.

There goes the patriotism card. Where does it stop?

Why don't you bury veterans in your front yard so you can show respect every day? These are veterans that served the country you live in now.

Why don't you let the numerous homeless veterans who suffer from PTSD and can't hold a job come live in your home? These are veterans that served the country you live in now.

Why don't you donate all of your time and money to the vets? These are veterans that served the country you live in now.

The fact is, there's a limit with everything, including the veterans. Respecting the veterans does not mean they should get their way, no matter the impact on the residents.

I'm not Tarmacpro but your argument can just as well be used the other way around. Do you only expect special privilege for the Chinese / Taoists / feng shui? Or should we bend over backwards and allow any foreigner's beliefs to trample on our American values... hey, why not. Let's allow sharia law, too, while we're at it? To quote you: "Where does it stop?"

To answer your earlier question, the veterans would be welcome in my front yard any day. It would be an honor. As a nation, we should be rolling out the red carpet for these people. Why take them so seriously? Because they took us pretty seriously when they put their lives on the line for us.

 

[socal78]

socal, please readhttp://www.dailypilot.com/news/tn-dpt-me-0612-irvine-cemetery-20150612,0,7456127.story

hopefully you read through all 57 pages of this thread now.  do you still think we (local residents) are anti-veteran?  do you think we  (local residents) have the right to voice our opinion? 

Okay, Yaliu. I read the article. But I have no idea why you posted it? OCRA is not cast in the best light there. The article confirms the veterans were not welcome after all. Tony Pan, the meeting leader, is quoted as saying they didn't want any opposition and were avoiding "unpredictable consequences". Also, it drums up more resentment against the group. I noticed this quote: "I would not say just Chinese. I would say Asian overall do not like to live near a cemetery." On Saturday, I was at a local Vietnamese place where I am a long-time customer and I was discussing this issue with them. They are Vietnamese "boat people". They made it very clear that they think the Chinese are "worse than Hitler." Those are their own words, not mine. Some of them are Catholic now and are offended that these petitions keep speaking on behalf of "Asians" because that is not how they feel. They do not want to be dragged into this by the Chinese who are looking for support. The Vietnamese love this country and what it stands for. I think OCRA needs to back off the "Asians, overall" thing and just speak for themselves.

 

[sgip]

Does anyone posting have the earliest known document showing when the Cemetery was disclosed as a site within the GP?

I ask because it's my belief (unsubstantiated, which is why I ask...) that this Cemetery has been open and disclosed for some time now. For people to suddenly worry about property values, the spiritual aspect of it all, etc seems to be a bit late coming and therefore unsupported. If people willingly chose to not read the oceans of disclosures about their site and surrounding area, it's something that one should not could really put any weight or substance to.

It's been my understanding since GP was first planned that there would be a Veterans Cemetery. I could be wrong and this is a recent change of use for the area. If so, please post the data and hopefully we can ease back from the emotional side of the discussion and focus on the facts.

My .02c

SGIP

 

[WTTCHMN]

Does anyone posting have the earliest known document showing when the Cemetary was disclosed as a site within the GP?

I ask because it's my belief (unsubstantiated, which is why I ask...) that this Cemetary has been open and disclosed for some time now. For people to suddenly worry about property values, the spiritual aspect of it all, etc seems to be a bit late coming and therefore unsupported. If people willingly chose to not read the oceans of disclosures about their site and surrounding area, it's something that one should not could really put any weight or substance to.

It's been my understanding since GP was first planned that there would be a Veterans Cemetary. I could be wrong and this is a recent change of use for the area. If so, please post the data and hopefully we can ease back from the emotional side of the discussion and focus on the facts.

My .02c

SGIP

The cemetery was re-proposed only recently.  It was never part of Five Point's GP plan.  This article from the LA Times was dated April 27, 2014:

"FivePoint's plan for the park itself, which the company agreed to help the city develop, includes vast amounts of parkland, including trails, a golf course, a wildlife corridor and a sports complex that would be twice the size of Disneyland.  What it does not include is a cemetery."
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-veterans-cemetery-20140428-story.html

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Does anyone posting have the earliest known document showing when the Cemetary was disclosed as a site within the GP?

I ask because it's my belief (unsubstantiated, which is why I ask...) that this Cemetary has been open and disclosed for some time now. For people to suddenly worry about property values, the spiritual aspect of it all, etc seems to be a bit late coming and therefore unsupported. If people willingly chose to not read the oceans of disclosures about their site and surrounding area, it's something that one should not could really put any weight or substance to.

It's been my understanding since GP was first planned that there would be a Veterans Cemetary. I could be wrong and this is a recent change of use for the area. If so, please post the data and hopefully we can ease back from the emotional side of the discussion and focus on the facts.

My .02c

SGIP

The cemetery was proposed only recently.  It was never part of the original GP plan.  This article from the LA Times was dated April 27, 2014:

"FivePoint's plan for the park itself, which the company agreed to help the city develop, includes vast amounts of parkland, including trails, a golf course, a wildlife corridor and a sports complex that would be twice the size of Disneyland.  What it does not include is a cemetery."
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-veterans-cemetery-20140428-story.html

Under either scenario...the developers are not liable.

 

[Roger]

Based on all the responses today it further confirm my theory - for those who are for the cemetery in current location none of them live in PP/PS/BP(potential buyer).  Easy to say that because you are not the one who get affected...

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Based on all the responses today it further confirm my theory - for those who are for the cemetery in current location none of them live in PP/PS/BP(potential buyer).  Easy to say that because you are not the one who get affected...

As I said, I live close by and many of those in PS/PP don't really care about the cemetery, just a vocal few. 

Also...I think we all discussed that NIMBY is an argument but no one that is very compelling to the general public, especially from upper middle class owners of million dollar homes.

 

[Roger]

Based on all the responses today it further confirm my theory - for those who are for the cemetery in current location none of them live in PP/PS/BP(potential buyer).  Easy to say that because you are not the one who get affected...

As I said, I live close by and many of those in PS/PP don't really care about the cemetery, just a vocal few. 

Also...I think we all discussed that NIMBY is an argument but no one that is very compelling to the general public, especially from upper middle class owners of million dollar homes.

name a few examples who lives in PP/PS in this forum and don't give a shxt about current cemetery location?

 

[socal78]

Does anyone posting have the earliest known document showing when the Cemetary was disclosed as a site within the GP?

I ask because it's my belief (unsubstantiated, which is why I ask...) that this Cemetary has been open and disclosed for some time now. For people to suddenly worry about property values, the spiritual aspect of it all, etc seems to be a bit late coming and therefore unsupported. If people willingly chose to not read the oceans of disclosures about their site and surrounding area, it's something that one should not could really put any weight or substance to.

It's been my understanding since GP was first planned that there would be a Veterans Cemetary. I could be wrong and this is a recent change of use for the area. If so, please post the data and hopefully we can ease back from the emotional side of the discussion and focus on the facts.

My .02c

SGIP

The cemetery was proposed only recently.  It was never part of the original GP plan.  This article from the LA Times was dated April 27, 2014:

"FivePoint's plan for the park itself, which the company agreed to help the city develop, includes vast amounts of parkland, including trails, a golf course, a wildlife corridor and a sports complex that would be twice the size of Disneyland.  What it does not include is a cemetery."
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-veterans-cemetery-20140428-story.html

Hmmm... I am finding the opposite information... that a veteran cemetery was part of the plans under Measure W. Measure W passed on March 5, 2002.

"The original plan sold to the voters included golf courses, (which would have offered affordable play to Irvine residents), a veteran's cemetery and a vibrant university district."
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/irvine-380666-park-great.htmlhttp://www.ocgp.org/learn/history/

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Based on all the responses today it further confirm my theory - for those who are for the cemetery in current location none of them live in PP/PS/BP(potential buyer).  Easy to say that because you are not the one who get affected...

As I said, I live close by and many of those in PS/PP don't really care about the cemetery, just a vocal few. 

Also...I think we all discussed that NIMBY is an argument but no one that is very compelling to the general public, especially from upper middle class owners of million dollar homes.

name a few examples who lives in PP/PS in this forum and don't give a shxt about current cemetery location?

Self-selecting group is self-selecting...people who are posting on this thread are part of the vocal few.  Even with that, I believe there are those who live in PP on here who are ambivalent about the situation.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

socal, please readhttp://www.dailypilot.com/news/tn-dpt-me-0612-irvine-cemetery-20150612,0,7456127.story

hopefully you read through all 57 pages of this thread now.  do you still think we (local residents) are anti-veteran?  do you think we  (local residents) have the right to voice our opinion? 

Okay, Yaliu. I read the article. But I have no idea why you posted it? OCRA is not cast in the best light there. The article confirms the veterans were not welcome after all. Tony Pan, the meeting leader, is quoted as saying they didn't want any opposition and were avoiding "unpredictable consequences". Also, it drums up more resentment against the group. I noticed this quote: "I would not say just Chinese. I would say Asian overall do not like to live near a cemetery." On Saturday, I was at a local Vietnamese place where I am a long-time customer and I was discussing this issue with them. They are Vietnamese "boat people". They made it very clear that they think the Chinese are "worse than Hitler." Those are their own words, not mine. Some of them are Catholic now and are offended that these petitions keep speaking on behalf of "Asians" because that is not how they feel. They do not want to be dragged into this by the Chinese who are looking for support. The Vietnamese love this country and what it stands for. I think OCRA needs to back off the "Asians, overall" thing and just speak for themselves.

Yup...Chinese people generally think that they represent all Asians or that other Asians look toward them for guidance or leadership.  See current Chinese regime.

 

[Roger]

Believe what you want to believe, but until you are the one who is actually affected you voice is not too convincing.. at least to those who ACTUALLY live in PP/PS

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Believe what you want to believe, but until you are the one who is actually affected you voice is not too convincing.. at least to those who ACTUALLY live in PP/PS

Who am I trying to convince?  People who are opposed to the cemetery aren't open to any level of discussion because it's a cultural and pocketbook matter.  I mean if one is raising issues of potential toxicity from a cemetery while ignoring the existence of a superfund site, there is no logic there.

I am okay with the NIMBY, cultural, and home value arguments...I just know that they're not very convincing to anyone outside of PP/PS. 

 

[jmoney74]

Believe what you want to believe, but until you are the one who is actually affected you voice is not too convincing.. at least to those who ACTUALLY live in PP/PS

I believe the cemetery is just not a good fit (look/feel for a community).  IC won't understand this.. he doesn't even care what the front of his house looks like. 

 

[Roger]

Believe what you want to believe, but until you are the one who is actually affected you voice is not too convincing.. at least to those who ACTUALLY live in PP/PS

Who am I trying to convince?  People who are opposed to the cemetery aren't open to any level of discussion because it's a cultural and pocketbook matter.  I mean if one is raising issues of potential toxicity from a cemetery while ignoring the existence of a superfund site, there is no logic there.

I am okay with the NIMBY, cultural, and home value arguments...I just know that they're not very convincing to anyone outside of PP/PS.

That's my point all along - not convincing to anyone outside of PP/PS because they don't live in PP/PS. 

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Believe what you want to believe, but until you are the one who is actually affected you voice is not too convincing.. at least to those who ACTUALLY live in PP/PS

I believe the cemetery is just not a good fit (look/feel for a community).  IC won't understand this.. he doesn't even care what the front of his house looks like.

I understand the argument but 1) it's not in the PP community and 2) it's not a convincing argument.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Believe what you want to believe, but until you are the one who is actually affected you voice is not too convincing.. at least to those who ACTUALLY live in PP/PS

Who am I trying to convince?  People who are opposed to the cemetery aren't open to any level of discussion because it's a cultural and pocketbook matter.  I mean if one is raising issues of potential toxicity from a cemetery while ignoring the existence of a superfund site, there is no logic there.

I am okay with the NIMBY, cultural, and home value arguments...I just know that they're not very convincing to anyone outside of PP/PS.

That's my point all along - not convincing to anyone outside of PP/PS because they don't live in PP/PS.

That's the classic definition of NIMBY.

But I'm not the one who needs to convince others...I'm not fighting the battle.

 

[iacrenter]

If you don't live close by the proposed cemetery it's an easy idea to support. People can BS about being okay with a cemetery in their front yards but unless it is **really** happening to you, then these hypotheticals are worthless.

The designation as a veteran's cemetery is just confusing the main issue--it is still a cemetery being proposed near residential zoning. Many Asians don't have problems with veterans but they do with living near cemeteries.

Veterans are smart and are using their political clout to hammer ANY opposition to their cemetery plans. The mostly non-White composition of the anti-cemetery group makes the optics look bad. It is easy to label a large group of Asians as "Anti American" or "Anti Vetereran" or "Unpatriotic."

 

[Irvinecommuter]

If you don't live close by the proposed cemetery it's an easy idea to support. People can BS about being okay with a cemetery in their front yards but unless it is **really** happening to you, then these hypotheticals are worthless.

The designation as a veteran's cemetery is just confusing the main issue--it is still a cemetery being proposed near residential zoning. Many Asians don't have problems with veterans but they do with living near cemeteries.

Veterans are smart and are using their political clout to hammer ANY opposition to their cemetery plans. The mostly non-White composition of the anti-cemetery group makes the optics look bad. It is easy to label a large group of Asians as "Anti American" or "Anti Vetereran" or "Unpatriotic."

Yup...and that's the world we live in today.  Some people freaked out about having a mosque near the World Trade Center a few years back even though the mosque existed there prior to 2001. They never though about that the existence of a mosque near the site of religious fanaticism can be a sign of endurance and tolerance...nope, it was just "OMG evil Muslims!"

Of course, NIMBY has always been a tough sell but it has worked in the past with BH and Pasadena/San Marino.

 

[socal78]

That's the classic definition of NIMBY.

But I'm not the one who needs to convince others...I'm not fighting the battle.

This is one of the more interesting aspects of the issue to me. Here we have two wildly opposite individuals -- IrvineCommuter and I. I am very conservative. He/you is quite liberal. I don't think we've ever agreed on anything in the years we've been here. I completely identify with NIMBY'ism and can relate to OCAR as I am perhaps one of the biggest NIMBYs out there. Would I want a nuclear power plant in my backyard? No. A swingers' club? Pass. A sriracha factory? Nein. A prison? Nope. Yet I'm all for a veteran's cemetery. To IC it is a NIMBY issue and to me it reaches far beyond that. But as you can see, no matter on what grounds someone stand for it, this is one of those uniquely rare... and I'm talking "solar eclipse" kind of rare... truly bi-partisan matters. It would be extremely difficult to fight the tide.