Veterans Cemetery coming to Irvine

[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 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/

SoCal, your own link says the cemetery was eliminated:

"Key features promised in the historic Measure W campaign (the initiative that replaced the El Toro Airport with the Great Park) have been eliminated. 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. Cal State Fullerton established a campus there. Today, the golf courses are gone, the cemetery is history and the Cal State facility has been relocated.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/irvine-380666-park-great.html

 

[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.

That's the classic definition of NIMBY.

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

If you are not the one who is fighting the battle then what's your point? this is a paradigm of trolling then...  again it's easy for you to say because for someone who doesn't really get affected by this. 

 

[socal78]

SoCal, your own link says the cemetery was eliminated:

"Key features promised in the historic Measure W campaign (the initiative that replaced the El Toro Airport with the Great Park) have been eliminated. 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. Cal State Fullerton established a campus there. Today, the golf courses are gone, the cemetery is history and the Cal State facility has been relocated.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/irvine-380666-park-great.html

Yeah, I noticed that but then the most recent part on the "History" page said: "The Great Park Plan will allow development on the property that is consistent with the uses allowed by the voter-approved Measure W."

I could be reading it wrong. 

 

[PatrickStar]

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

Wow, somebody told me I should come back and check this thread out. Good to see still a healthy debate down there in Irvine. I'll be in town for some meetings on Wednesday. Hopefully I have time to cruise by the future cemetery to see what all the fuss is about.

So I'm not going to say anything patriotic about Veterans here today. I'm actually going to give you folks fighting against the cemetery your due; you have every right to not want it in your neighborhood. That's your right. I'm actually going to agree with you; personally I would NOT want a cemetery or any other facet of a public park in my neighborhood. Not at all. My family enjoys our peace, quiet, and safety very much --- for that reason we made the decision to purchase in a guard-gated hillside community. Not only do we have supreme privacy, including a PRIVATE park just for us and our like minded neighbors we are also 100% assured the space outside the gates will remain untouched --- we checked on that zoning before we plunked down the $$ for the biggest purchase we will ever make.

All that said, how do you reconcile the fact you made the a different decision, and inexplicably purchased immediately adjacent to the LARGEST PUBLIC PARK in Orange County? Maybe California? Actually, wasn't it supposed to rival Central Park at one time?  See, here is the thing about PUBLIC space like that...it belongs to the PUBLIC.  To the taxpayers of Irvine.  It's not your private park.  You don't have veto rights over what goes in that park, all 200,000+ taxpayers in Irvine own that park.  And unfortunately a lot of them probably would like to see things there you don't.  And the fact you don't like it is not their problem, its yours.

Even setting aside the cemetery issue, and the toxic land, and the landfill, and the prison...I still don't get how somebody could make the choice to live right next to a monstrosity of a public place like that, unless they really like traffic, crowds, and noise. Even if a cemetery NEVER goes in, you are still going to have to deal with crowds of people descending on that park all the time for everything from soccer tournaments to concerts in the park to city holiday celebrations and yes, probably regular military ceremonies.  And its not going to be people from your neighborhood, either.  Imagine the riff raff clogging that park from places like (gasp!) Santa Ana and Foothill Ranch.  No thanks, somebody else can have all that hassle next door. I feel your pain. Unfortunately, all this applies cemetery or no cemetery. Even if you win this battle, you probably lost the war the day you chose Great Park Neighborhoods rather than some of the other choices you had at the time. Places you would have controlled better, such as Laguna Altura or Orchard Hills.

It's kind of funny, I remember back in 2007 when Columbus Square was being developed. People were shouting from the rooftops "don't buy there --- toxic land, homeless shelter, trains, planes, and schools fit for the family dog!". Yet some folks ignored the red flags and were seduced by the marketing materials promising a grand development of that area, new schools, blah blah.  Fast forward to 2015, how's all that working out?  Unfortunately, the Great Park is probably the 2015 version of Columbus Square. I'd get out while you can.  Thankfully the cemetery is still years away, so you can probably dupe some other unsuspecting fool to taking your place off your hands. And then get yourself in a proper community. Like Orchard Hills.  Best of luck.

 

[WTTCHMN]

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

Wow, somebody told me I should come back and check this thread out. Good to see still a healthy debate down there in Irvine. I'll be in town for some meetings on Wednesday. Hopefully I have time to cruise by the future cemetery to see what all the fuss is about.

So I'm not going to say anything patriotic about Veterans here today. I'm actually going to give you folks fighting against the cemetery your due; you have every right to not want it in your neighborhood. That's your right. I'm actually going to agree with you; personally I would NOT want a cemetery or any other facet of a public park in my neighborhood. Not at all. My family enjoys our peace, quiet, and safety very much --- for that reason we made the decision to purchase in a guard-gated hillside community. Not only do we have supreme privacy, including a PRIVATE park just for us and our like minded neighbors we are also 100% assured the space outside the gates will remain untouched --- we checked on that zoning before we plunked down the $$ for the biggest purchase we will ever make.

All that said, how do you reconcile the fact you made the a different decision, and inexplicably purchased immediately adjacent to the LARGEST PUBLIC PARK in Orange County? Maybe California? Actually, wasn't it supposed to rival Central Park at one time?  See, here is the thing about PUBLIC space like that...it belongs to the PUBLIC.  To the taxpayers of Irvine.  It's not your private park.  You don't have veto rights over what goes in that park, all 200,000+ taxpayers in Irvine own that park.  And unfortunately a lot of them probably would like to see things there you don't.  And the fact you don't like it is not their problem, its yours.

Even setting aside the cemetery issue, and the toxic land, and the landfill, and the prison...I still don't get how somebody could make the choice to live right next to a monstrosity of a public place like that, unless they really like traffic, crowds, and noise. Even if a cemetery NEVER goes in, you are still going to have to deal with crowds of people descending on that park all the time for everything from soccer tournaments to concerts in the park to city holiday celebrations and yes, probably regular military ceremonies.  And its not going to be people from your neighborhood, either.  Imagine the riff raff clogging that park from places like (gasp!) Santa Ana and Foothill Ranch.  No thanks, somebody else can have all that hassle next door. I feel your pain. Unfortunately, all this applies cemetery or no cemetery. Even if you win this battle, you probably lost the war the day you chose Great Park Neighborhoods rather than some of the other choices you had at the time. Places you would have controlled better, such as Laguna Altura or Orchard Hills.

It's kind of funny, I remember back in 2007 when Columbus Square was being developed. People were shouting from the rooftops "don't buy there --- toxic land, homeless shelter, trains, planes, and schools fit for the family dog!". Yet some folks ignored the red flags and were seduced by the marketing materials promising a grand development of that area, new schools, blah blah.  Fast forward to 2015, how's all that working out?  Unfortunately, the Great Park is probably the 2015 version of Columbus Square. I'd get out while you can.  Thankfully the cemetery is still years away, so you can probably dupe some other unsuspecting fool to taking your place off your hands. And then get yourself in a proper community. Like Orchard Hills.  Best of luck.

I thought you promised never to post again as long as your name wasn't mentioned.

 

[WTTCHMN]

SoCal, your own link says the cemetery was eliminated:

"Key features promised in the historic Measure W campaign (the initiative that replaced the El Toro Airport with the Great Park) have been eliminated. 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. Cal State Fullerton established a campus there. Today, the golf courses are gone, the cemetery is history and the Cal State facility has been relocated.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/irvine-380666-park-great.html

Yeah, I noticed that but then the most recent part on the "History" page said: "The Great Park Plan will allow development on the property that is consistent with the uses allowed by the voter-approved Measure W."

I could be reading it wrong.

At any rate, you can't blame the buyers by saying you should have known better.  At the time PP was built, there were no plans for a cemetery.

 

[bones]

All that said, how do you reconcile the fact you made the a different decision, and inexplicably purchased immediately adjacent to the LARGEST PUBLIC PARK in Orange County? Maybe California? Actually, wasn't it supposed to rival Central Park at one time?  See, here is the thing about PUBLIC space like that...it belongs to the PUBLIC.  To the taxpayers of Irvine.  It's not your private park.  You don't have veto rights over what goes in that park, all 200,000+ taxpayers in Irvine own that park.  And unfortunately a lot of them probably would like to see things there you don't.  And the fact you don't like it is not their problem, its yours.

Even setting aside the cemetery issue, and the toxic land, and the landfill, and the prison...I still don't get how somebody could make the choice to live right next to a monstrosity of a public place like that, unless they really like traffic, crowds, and noise. Even if a cemetery NEVER goes in, you are still going to have to deal with crowds of people descending on that park all the time for everything from soccer tournaments to concerts in the park to city holiday celebrations and yes, probably regular military ceremonies.  And its not going to be people from your neighborhood, either.  Imagine the riff raff clogging that park from places like (gasp!) Santa Ana and Foothill Ranch.  No thanks, somebody else can have all that hassle next door. I feel your pain. Unfortunately, all this applies cemetery or no cemetery. Even if you win this battle, you probably lost the war the day you chose Great Park Neighborhoods rather than some of the other choices you had at the time. Places you would have controlled better, such as Laguna Altura or Orchard Hills.

I understand where you're coming from.  But that passionate speech should really be reserved for the folks that buy at Beacon Park and the future GP neighborhoods.  From a location standpoint, Pavilion Park is really no different than other parts of Portola Springs, Stonegate, Woodbury.  Its distance to the public spaces at the Great Park is pretty "far"... in fact, wasn't that a negative when comparing Beacon Park to Pavilion Park in another thread?  And traffic generated by the GP may get bad but again, every neighborhood along the Sand Canyon corridor will be affected.

 

[eatthis]

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?"

Thank you for agreeing with my point. Veterans should not automatically get their way, even if it causes traffic jam in the neighborhood or seeps toxic chemical into our ground.

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.

Don't say. Do. Show me that you've taken in a homeless veteran or two. Show me that you've buried a veteran or two in your front yard then let's talk.

 

[eatthis]

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.

It's a very touching story. It's important to share that one "boat people" think the Chinese is "worse than Hitler". Too bad it has no relevance to whether the cemetery should be in GP or not.

 

[PatrickStar]

I understand where you're coming from.  But that passionate speech should really be reserved for the folks that buy at Beacon Park and the future GP neighborhoods.  From a location standpoint, Pavilion Park is really no different than other parts of Portola Springs, Stonegate, Woodbury.  Its distance to the public spaces at the Great Park is pretty "far"... in fact, wasn't that a negative when comparing Beacon Park to Pavilion Park in another thread?  And traffic generated by the GP may get bad but again, every neighborhood along the Sand Canyon corridor will be affected.

That's fair. I've never really assessed the distances to specific areas of the park --- but I promise to take a ride around tomorrow while I am in the neighborhood.  If I'm wrong I'll come back and say so. But honestly, even though I am (obviously) in favor of the memorial, I do understand the issue and feel for those troubled by it. But I just don't agree with trying to impose the will of the few on the many, and for what I can see is primarily fear of loss of home value. That's NIMBY.

 

[Our Gang]

What about the plot of land across the jail, across bake/baker ranch, it looks like the furthest land away from gp housing, and looks to be Irvine and adjacent enough to the base.  Pp/ps/bp are far enough away, but close to the other future neighborhoods, but at least for them, they would already know a cemetery will be there

That is FBI land, their live fire range is there. They aren't parting with it and they say it has UXO issues as it was once a weapons and bombs storage area. Mayor Choi toured the site and was told fuggetaboutit.

 

[socal78]

That's fair. I've never really assessed the distances to specific areas of the park --- but I promise to take a ride around tomorrow while I am in the neighborhood.  If I'm wrong I'll come back and say so. But honestly, even though I am (obviously) in favor of the memorial, I do understand the issue and feel for those troubled by it. But I just don't agree with trying to impose the will of the few on the many, and for what I can see is primarily fear of loss of home value. That's NIMBY.

While you're in town, you are more than welcome to come lay down on my front lawn at various times of the day #JustLikeMomopi to see if you would like it as your eternal resting place. Come take a nice long nap in the grass to make sure it is a good fit. (Eatthis, are you happy now?)

 

[bones]

I understand where you're coming from.  But that passionate speech should really be reserved for the folks that buy at Beacon Park and the future GP neighborhoods.  From a location standpoint, Pavilion Park is really no different than other parts of Portola Springs, Stonegate, Woodbury.  Its distance to the public spaces at the Great Park is pretty "far"... in fact, wasn't that a negative when comparing Beacon Park to Pavilion Park in another thread?  And traffic generated by the GP may get bad but again, every neighborhood along the Sand Canyon corridor will be affected.

That's fair. I've never really assessed the distances to specific areas of the park --- but I promise to take a ride around tomorrow while I am in the neighborhood.  If I'm wrong I'll come back and say so. But honestly, even though I am (obviously) in favor of the memorial, I do understand the issue and feel for those troubled by it. But I just don't agree with trying to impose the will of the few on the many, and for what I can see is primarily fear of loss of home value. That's NIMBY.

Please do. PP is bordered on 2.5 sides by portola springs. The other half of that half side is affordable senior housing and some water thing.  None of pavilion park actually touches great park "proper".  Which of course is used by people on this forum as both a positive and negative depending on what story they're trying to spin

 

[Our Gang]

Developers have an obligation to disclose material facts that might affect the safety and value of the properties in question. It does not matter whether cemetery is on the list of required disclosure. Affected buyers should seek recourse or at least complain to BRE or DRE.

The cemetery proposal did not intent to harm property value. It is the developers that are screwing the buyers.

Yaliu and J$, have you and your fellow buyers considered organizing a meeting with the developers to discuss this? I'll chip in $50 cash if you want to make a protest banner.

That lawsuit will be laughed out of court.  The cemetery came up after development and is the result of zoning.

Do your homework.  The cemetery will be on 'left over' city land. Not zoned, not entitled, not planned, not to become a water guzzling turf covered sports park or golf course, or a green belt. Nothing. Thrown back to the city by the developer, and FP committed $2M to terraform (remove runways, etc.) it so the homebuyers would not have to look at "blight and runways".  The Veterans cemetery came in during this process. Before Irvine sold out to FP, the cemetery was part of the discussion. Irvine cried poor to sell the FP deal.

When all is said and done, Irvine will be known for the centerpiece of the GP, the  Veterans Cemetery. Not the soccer fields or gas bag. And it will cost them nothing.

 

[Our Gang]

Surplus = more coming in than currently spending, in Govt speak.

Has nada to do with the Veterans Cemetery. Remember Washington has a printing press for money, and funding comes from the VA.

Our federal government can print unlimited money. States can not. Because there are already 3 veteran cemeteries (Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside) within 75 miles of the GP site, this means federal government will not be paying.

Wrong. Do your homework. Read the sidebar of the Register's recent article.

 

[Vinster]

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.

Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere II

 

[PatrickStar]

Please do. PP is bordered on 2.5 sides by portola springs. The other half of that half side is affordable senior housing and some water thing.  None of pavilion park actually touches great park "proper".  Which of course is used by people on this forum as both a positive and negative depending on what story they're trying to spin

You are clearly the most reasonable and educated member of that PP community. Can I suggest you speak to some of your neighbors and maybe help them see the value in taking a different approach to this campaign?  The NIMBY "NOT IN GP, NOT IN IRVINE" drumbeats come across very shrill, and unfortunately for them this has now leaped to the court of public opinion in more mainstream media outlets --- I came back here to catch up after I saw it in the newspaper. I suspect the very public campaign is not getting them anywhere --- and likely whipping up more support for the pro-cemetery groups than it is bringing more supporters to their side. It certainly had that effect on this Veteran when I first read some of this discussion; basically an exercise in "respect my culture" while being completely dismissive of the culture of reverence for the military in the US. Straight selfish NIMBY. I tried to tell yaliu this a few months ago, but then somebody said they wanted to s**t on my grave, so I just gave up on that. I don't understand why the anti-cemetery group is taking this militant approach as opposed to working more quietly with 5 Points and the City to perhaps find a compromise location in the park?  Somewhere far enough away from homes to be acceptable, but still on the historically important El Toro land?  Or is the location earmarked the only feasible spot?  We know the City and 5 Points don't want to lose face by killing the cemetery altogether, so a compromise location might be the only winning strategy.

 

[Happiness]

All that said, how do you reconcile the fact you made the a different decision, and inexplicably purchased immediately adjacent to the LARGEST PUBLIC PARK in Orange County? Maybe California? Actually, wasn't it supposed to rival Central Park at one time?  See, here is the thing about PUBLIC space like that...it belongs to the PUBLIC.  To the taxpayers of Irvine.  It's not your private park.  You don't have veto rights over what goes in that park, all 200,000+ taxpayers in Irvine own that park.  And unfortunately a lot of them probably would like to see things there you don't.  And the fact you don't like it is not their problem, its yours.

Even setting aside the cemetery issue, and the toxic land, and the landfill, and the prison...I still don't get how somebody could make the choice to live right next to a monstrosity of a public place like that, unless they really like traffic, crowds, and noise. Even if a cemetery NEVER goes in, you are still going to have to deal with crowds of people descending on that park all the time for everything from soccer tournaments to concerts in the park to city holiday celebrations and yes, probably regular military ceremonies.  And its not going to be people from your neighborhood, either.  Imagine the riff raff clogging that park from places like (gasp!) Santa Ana and Foothill Ranch.  No thanks, somebody else can have all that hassle next door. I feel your pain. Unfortunately, all this applies cemetery or no cemetery. Even if you win this battle, you probably lost the war the day you chose Great Park Neighborhoods rather than some of the other choices you had at the time. Places you would have controlled better, such as Laguna Altura or Orchard Hills.

I understand where you're coming from.  But that passionate speech should really be reserved for the folks that buy at Beacon Park and the future GP neighborhoods.  From a location standpoint, Pavilion Park is really no different than other parts of Portola Springs, Stonegate, Woodbury.  Its distance to the public spaces at the Great Park is pretty "far"... in fact, wasn't that a negative when comparing Beacon Park to Pavilion Park in another thread?  And traffic generated by the GP may get bad but again, every neighborhood along the Sand Canyon corridor will be affected.

I'll just repeat what I've been saying for a long time on this thread:

1.  All of the existing neighborhoods, including PP, are pretty far away from the proposed cemetery site.  PP is no closer to the proposed site than Portola Springs, Lambert Ranch, or Baker Ranch.  If you live in PP, you should be emphasizing how far away from the proposed site PP is rather than give people the false impression you are right next to the proposed site which can only serve to lower your resale value.

2.  There are future 5P communities that may indeed be close to the proposed cemetery site.  Your solution is to not buy there if you don't want to live near a potential cemetery.  Pretty simple, huh?

 

[PatrickStar]

1.  All of the existing neighborhoods, including PP, are pretty far away from the proposed cemetery site.  PP is no closer to the proposed site than Portola Springs, Lambert Ranch, or Baker Ranch. If you live in PP, you should be emphasizing how far away from the proposed site PP is rather than give people the false impression you are right next to the proposed site which can only serve to lower your resale value.

This.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Please do. PP is bordered on 2.5 sides by portola springs. The other half of that half side is affordable senior housing and some water thing.  None of pavilion park actually touches great park "proper".  Which of course is used by people on this forum as both a positive and negative depending on what story they're trying to spin

You are clearly the most reasonable and educated member of that PP community. Can I suggest you speak to some of your neighbors and maybe help them see the value in taking a different approach to this campaign?  The NIMBY "NOT IN GP, NOT IN IRVINE" drumbeats come across very shrill, and unfortunately for them this has now leaped to the court of public opinion in more mainstream media outlets --- I came back here to catch up after I saw it in the newspaper. I suspect the very public campaign is not getting them anywhere --- and likely whipping up more support for the pro-cemetery groups than it is bringing more supporters to their side. It certainly had that effect on this Veteran when I first read some of this discussion; basically an exercise in "respect my culture" while being completely dismissive of the culture of reverence for the military in the US. Straight selfish NIMBY. I tried to tell yaliu this a few months ago, but then somebody said they wanted to s**t on my grave, so I just gave up on that. I don't understand why the anti-cemetery group is taking this militant approach as opposed to working more quietly with 5 Points and the City to perhaps find a compromise location in the park?  Somewhere far enough away from homes to be acceptable, but still on the historically important El Toro land?  Or is the location earmarked the only feasible spot?  We know the City and 5 Points don't want to lose face by killing the cemetery altogether, so a compromise location might be the only winning strategy.

I totally agree with this.  You have to proper analyze the situation and decide what battles to fight and which one to give up.  That is why I am trying to dismiss all the ancillary arguments...they sound contrived and not based on reality.  I saw this quote in the article and facepalm'd:

Dongping Huang, speaking at a recent meeting, said she lives in Irvine?s Woodbury village neighborhood, about two minutes from the Great Park. She said she was shocked when she found out last year that there was a cemetery proposed ?in my backyard, next to my son?s future school.?

?We respect the veterans. ... They fight for our freedom,? she said. They should rest in a ?quiet, beautiful area,? not amid soccer fields, Huang said.

If the cemetery is built, she said later, she probably would move

I mean the "I CARE ABOUT YOU MORE THAN YOU CARE ABOUT YOU" argument is terrible. 

If you are going to make arguments about the park...have your facts and arguments lined up.  I think the best argument is actually trying to move it to the Anaheim Hills site.  Maybe set up an endowment to have the memorial there.