Save the Memorial Park! Vote No on Measure B ballot June 5th
- Thread starter Burn That Belly
- Start date
Burn That Belly
New member
x
Burn That Belly
New member
x
Burn That Belly
New member
x
Yawn. Lalloways proposal will probably fail, then he will grandstand and say the vetoers are going against the public vote while the opposition says the public deserves to hear Option C... a new site outside Irvine that's financially viable. Then that will be put up for a public vote, it may get shot down... back to square one... Find a new slant bro. It's pretty funny no one really talks to you anymore and you have to reply to your own posts.
Burn That Belly
New member
x
Burn That Belly
New member
x
My bad, I didn't know trolls had such thin skin. In other news, the county will discuss moving the cemetery to Anaheim Hills. Plan C on its way.
https://voiceofoc.org/2018/06/oc-supervisors-to-consider-veterans-cemetery-site-in-anaheim
https://voiceofoc.org/2018/06/oc-supervisors-to-consider-veterans-cemetery-site-in-anaheim
kbinteriordesign
Member
Rizdak said:
Thanks for sharing this! We'll definitely be following the story.
Our Gang
New member
Irvine City council meeting July 10. be there for some great theater.
Here are some 'facts' - direct form the source (did not include his attachments)
From: <harveybronx@cox.net>
Subject: Councilmembers are now lying to their constituents
FIRST ATTACHMENT: I?m attaching the FivePoint Land-Swap Agreement. If you look at the very first page, paragraph B., you will see that the ARDA site is ?to become part of the ?Great Park Property.? That reference was extracted from the original agreement by which the City acquired the ARDA site from Lennar, to help save Lennar from bankruptcy during the ?great depression? of 2006-7.
The ARDA site is merely an expansion of the Great Park. Are you saying that a park can never be expanded?
THIRD ATTACHMENT: Also, look at the map, look at the ?Original Great Park Veterans Cemetery Site, and look at the Freeway site. Tell me with a straight face (or any kind of face) that the ?Original? site is not in the Great Park, and that the Freeway site is ?in? the Great Park. It?s not even close.
>>>> neither site is in great park, both are on MCAS El Toro <<<<<<<
In any case, the issue here has little to do with a Veterans Cemetery. FivePoint wants the ARDA site because its worth $0.5 billion to them. They couldn?t care less about a Veterans Cemetery. Only the residents of Irvine and of Orange County, and the Veterans care about a Veterans Cemetery.
>>>>> Harvey is not a veteran <<<<<<
SECOND ATTACHMENT: Further, the ARDA site is on the former MCAS El Toro, while the freeway site was never part of the base. I attached a USGS map showing the boundary of the airbase. The Freeway site is in the somewhat triangular area at the bottom of the map. It looks a bit like a shoe. You have to use the freeways as reference points.
We only deal in facts, not propaganda, lies, falsehoods, misinformation and misleading information that come from FivePoint, their consultants, surrogates, acolytes, corrupt officials, hoodwinked officials, misled officials and misled organizations.
>>>>>> which is why the judge ruled their ballot statement "false and misleading" <<<<
You must understand that FivePoint has launched the most massive propaganda campaign in the history of Irvine. FivePoint never wanted a Great Park. They want property to develop. And, as the saying goes, will stop at nothing to get it.
Fortunately, we have the votes, now, to stop corruption in Irvine, the giveaway of public land, and the relentless assault on our Master Plan and its concomitant, relentless increase of traffic congestion. The voters of Irvine will no longer be hoodwinked, as they have been since 2012.
If you?d like any more documents to support whatever I write, I?ve got them all (or almost all!).
Regards,
Harvey
Harvey H Liss, P.E., Ph.D.
Editor of Sci-Tech and Senior Life?Youthful Lifestyle pages
Irvine Community News & Views
IrvineCommunityNews.org
Irvine CA
c949-836-2225
Here are some 'facts' - direct form the source (did not include his attachments)
From: <harveybronx@cox.net>
Subject: Councilmembers are now lying to their constituents
FIRST ATTACHMENT: I?m attaching the FivePoint Land-Swap Agreement. If you look at the very first page, paragraph B., you will see that the ARDA site is ?to become part of the ?Great Park Property.? That reference was extracted from the original agreement by which the City acquired the ARDA site from Lennar, to help save Lennar from bankruptcy during the ?great depression? of 2006-7.
The ARDA site is merely an expansion of the Great Park. Are you saying that a park can never be expanded?
THIRD ATTACHMENT: Also, look at the map, look at the ?Original Great Park Veterans Cemetery Site, and look at the Freeway site. Tell me with a straight face (or any kind of face) that the ?Original? site is not in the Great Park, and that the Freeway site is ?in? the Great Park. It?s not even close.
>>>> neither site is in great park, both are on MCAS El Toro <<<<<<<
In any case, the issue here has little to do with a Veterans Cemetery. FivePoint wants the ARDA site because its worth $0.5 billion to them. They couldn?t care less about a Veterans Cemetery. Only the residents of Irvine and of Orange County, and the Veterans care about a Veterans Cemetery.
>>>>> Harvey is not a veteran <<<<<<
SECOND ATTACHMENT: Further, the ARDA site is on the former MCAS El Toro, while the freeway site was never part of the base. I attached a USGS map showing the boundary of the airbase. The Freeway site is in the somewhat triangular area at the bottom of the map. It looks a bit like a shoe. You have to use the freeways as reference points.
We only deal in facts, not propaganda, lies, falsehoods, misinformation and misleading information that come from FivePoint, their consultants, surrogates, acolytes, corrupt officials, hoodwinked officials, misled officials and misled organizations.
>>>>>> which is why the judge ruled their ballot statement "false and misleading" <<<<
You must understand that FivePoint has launched the most massive propaganda campaign in the history of Irvine. FivePoint never wanted a Great Park. They want property to develop. And, as the saying goes, will stop at nothing to get it.
Fortunately, we have the votes, now, to stop corruption in Irvine, the giveaway of public land, and the relentless assault on our Master Plan and its concomitant, relentless increase of traffic congestion. The voters of Irvine will no longer be hoodwinked, as they have been since 2012.
If you?d like any more documents to support whatever I write, I?ve got them all (or almost all!).
Regards,
Harvey
Harvey H Liss, P.E., Ph.D.
Editor of Sci-Tech and Senior Life?Youthful Lifestyle pages
Irvine Community News & Views
IrvineCommunityNews.org
Irvine CA
c949-836-2225
Sounds like there was good theater indeed.
Lalloway's motion tabled, and council voted to study the Anaheim Hills site. Who knows how long that takes.
https://voiceofoc.org/2018/07/veterans-cemetery-location-in-irvine-still-unclear/
Lalloway's motion tabled, and council voted to study the Anaheim Hills site. Who knows how long that takes.
https://voiceofoc.org/2018/07/veterans-cemetery-location-in-irvine-still-unclear/
So, as I feared (https://www.talkirvine.com/index.php/topic,16246.msg331392.html#msg331392), the memorial cemetery is now stalled again. 5P is going to develop the strawberry fields area, and the future of the memorial park is still uncertain.
This should be a lesson to voters, and especially the "No on B" campaign, if the cemetery was ever their real objective. Voting down a council proposal doesn't mean they are going to the opposite of the proposal. It just means they aren't going to do the proposed action. While the "No on B" folks portrayed the "No" vote as a "Build the cemetery" vote, it was never any such thing.
*shrug* I wasn't passionate about either side of the measure, but as I noted in the previous post, I felt that the Yes vote was the best way to ensure a cemetery was built *somewhere*. Now it seems likely to never get built at all.
This should be a lesson to voters, and especially the "No on B" campaign, if the cemetery was ever their real objective. Voting down a council proposal doesn't mean they are going to the opposite of the proposal. It just means they aren't going to do the proposed action. While the "No on B" folks portrayed the "No" vote as a "Build the cemetery" vote, it was never any such thing.
*shrug* I wasn't passionate about either side of the measure, but as I noted in the previous post, I felt that the Yes vote was the best way to ensure a cemetery was built *somewhere*. Now it seems likely to never get built at all.
aquabliss
Well-known member
I'm kinda sad. I wanted to vets cemetery built and I knew the strawberry fields was the only way it was going to happen. It was already on the path to completion before the "No on B" folks killed it. I still don't understand why they cared so much about the exact location.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
eyephone said:
Speaking of, has anyone visited the aircraft carrier USS Midway in San Diego? It?s fascinating, made me watch Top Gun again (which is getting a sequel BTW).