Save the Memorial Park! Vote No on Measure B ballot June 5th

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.
Click to expand...

$38 million, $40 million.  You're splitting hairs.  Everyone pushing the land swap  claims that the costs of demolition and remediation is fatal to the original site, and here you are trying to overturn their claims now.

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.
Click to expand...

I'm a veteran.

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?
Click to expand...

Spoken like a superstitious Asian afraid to have his feng shui offended.

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.
Click to expand...

I know the site better than you do. I have visited it many times personally.  I could provide photographs I have taken while there, but this pathetic website has no simple method of inserting photographs.  It is extremely noisy, and I can't stand Larry Agran.  All the "savings" being claimed by the proponents would be paid by Five Points for their "contaminated site."  You pretend they don't know these things and are being benevolent?  Please, spare everybody your nonsense.

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 .... ?
Click to expand...

Flood maps invariably show the first places to flood are those next to waterways.
Common sense isn't very common, for people like you with an ax to grind.

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.
Click to expand...

You should not respond with such anger and deep resentment.  It interferes with your objectivity and decency.  Tsk, tsk.  Disgraceful.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Lol, the only person with burner accounts is you.

Magic Jizz = Isuzu
Yellow Fever = Saturn
BTB = Scion TC
 
The drainage ditch goes under the freeway.  It's noisy and not remotely as good a site as the original one.  That is why Five Points suggested the trade.
 

Attachments

  • Swamp (2).jpg
    Swamp (2).jpg
    61.6 KB · Views: 106
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.
Click to expand...
Logic I can't argue against. Probably the soundest logic in the whole forum. When confused...vote against Agran. 
 
For shits n giggles, let's assume there is no delay on building out the cemetery for either location.  Which site should be preferred by the following groups?

1) Veterans
2) Great Park Residents
3) Other Residents that are relatively close-by to either location (i.e. Altair, CVE, BR, WB, CV, SG, LA)

I'm one of those confused voters that doesn't want to put extra $$ in Five Points pockets but doesn't want to vote with Agran either. 
 
2 Votes in my household for Yes...

The ads i'm getting that says Veterans can't imagine being buried next to the freeway... Are you kidding me? I hadn't met one person that gives any care into where a ceremtery is built, I actually view the close to the freeway as a plus as visiting/views of the cemetery would be more promient than next to homes and schools.

Plus citizens not having to pay a dime. Fiscally responsible and better location in my book.
 
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 do not have a vested interest in home values near the original cemetery site and do not subscribe to the misinformation being spread on the reason for the proposal.

I am a firm no on this.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

I too am not a cemetery location expert.  And yes, fair point, no reason to vote against 5P for merely maximizing profit. 

You do bring up a very relevant question, why would the city let this go to a popular vote?  Surely there exists better experts to weigh in... that's the rub to me.  The experts did weigh in.  Tens of millions (wasn't it over $100M?) and gosh... over a decade of time, has already been spent on planning the park.  It began as a concept that claimed to one day rival the world's best parks.  And now it's just some sports fields, pocket parks, and a crap ton of houses.  There's clearly a trend with the various revisions the park has undergone, which is why I'm a firm no on more changes.  5P's profit motive does not align with the original park concept.

Since I'm not a cemetery location expert or educated in city planning, I don't attempt to evaluate the location change as if I were.  The view I do have is the trend of the GP revision have clearly been in favor of 5P and related interested parties.  Not much in favor of preserving the original GP concept or with consideration of anything other than maximizing short term profit.
 
Ahh, good point and context with the great park planning. I don't know much about that process and really haven't followed it, but can definitely agree the execution and end product has been... a thing.

At the same time, the great park concept seems like a waste of land. Irvine already has a ton of parks, what is the point of a great park? Why not build things people here actually need (housing and offices).

Then again, I could be biased by looking at the current state, a wtf hodgepodge of abandoned building, carousel, balloon thing, and grass. If we had the intended execution, people like me might like the idea respect the original plan of the park more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top