Our Gang said: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.
Burn That Belly said:devhyfes said: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.
Well, thank you for sharing your views. First and foremost, we have a customary ceremony for new TI members with their first posts. This ceremony involves accusing others of creating a new screen name based on "coincidence". Therefore, it is an honor that I will be accusing you at this point of being: Compressed-Village = devhyfes or Rizdak = devhyfes.
Thank you. Please do not take offense to it, it is simply customary.
I hope we can be friends and act civil without resorting to personal attacks. #VillageWars is fine though.
Carry on.
StarmanMBA said:I could provide photographs I have taken while there, but this pathetic website has no simple method of inserting photographs.
Logic I can't argue against. Probably the soundest logic in the whole forum. When confused...vote against Agran.The California Court Company said: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.
someguy said:This thread is a shit show... I'll take a turn on the pot.
This measure does not exist because of compassion for veterans. It does not exist because the proposed site is objectively superior. It exists because 5 Point, the master developer of the Great Park, seeks to maximize shareholder value (aka maximize profit).
5P can maximize profit by appealing to the deepest pocketed customers, which at this time and location are customers who have superstitious beliefs about living near a cemetery. So 5P is paying it's lawyers, lobbyists, and local politicians in an attempt to move the cemetery to a location that increases their ability to profit.
I figure voters on this issue fall into 3 categories
1) Yes, because they have a vested interest in home values near the original cemetery site
2) Yes, because they have been deceived into believing the measure is about something other than builder profit
3) No, because they have neither a vested interest in home values near the original cemetery site nor are they falling for the misinformation spread by people in category 1
I am a firm no on this.
inv0ke-epipen said:someguy said:This thread is a shit show... I'll take a turn on the pot.
This measure does not exist because of compassion for veterans. It does not exist because the proposed site is objectively superior. It exists because 5 Point, the master developer of the Great Park, seeks to maximize shareholder value (aka maximize profit).
5P can maximize profit by appealing to the deepest pocketed customers, which at this time and location are customers who have superstitious beliefs about living near a cemetery. So 5P is paying it's lawyers, lobbyists, and local politicians in an attempt to move the cemetery to a location that increases their ability to profit.
I figure voters on this issue fall into 3 categories
1) Yes, because they have a vested interest in home values near the original cemetery site
2) Yes, because they have been deceived into believing the measure is about something other than builder profit
3) No, because they have neither a vested interest in home values near the original cemetery site nor are they falling for the misinformation spread by people in category 1
I am a firm no on this.
Ehh I agree with your breakdown of the motives of the more vested players, but I just think the site next to the freeway seems like a great place for a monument/cemetery. I have no doubt 5p is optimizing profit, but why is that bad and why should I care if they make profit or not. I'm not going to vote against the better location to protest 5p acting in their best interest.
I'm also not an expert in cemetery placement, however, which begs the question, is popular vote the right way to decide this? Maybe delegate the decision to a council of veterans or some veterans group, if this is really for them.