Listen my children (and Dad and Mom)
To the Great Park post of Chair Beth Krom;
On the New Year’s Day in Twenty-Thirteen
Reported she on facts obscene
That exploded in Irvine like a bomb
She wrote her friends, “Republicans plan
To make our Park a broken crown
Come to our meeting, each woman and man
We on Tuesday must shout the motion down.
One vote from Choi, and two comes from Shea;
And three comes from Jeffrey Lalloway!
I write you now to spread the alarm
To save orange balloon and organic farm,
Metaphorically, Irvine must get up and arm.”
I don’t know whether Beth Krom intended this to be an open letter or just something sent out to select supporters, but I don’t think that this is the sort of thing one writes if one anticipates continued confidentiality. Here it is — my comments follow.
Dear Friends,
Many of you asked me to keep you apprised of issues that arise as a result of the shift in the City Council. I didn’t think I would have to write so soon.
Let me first say I hope you all had a nice entree into 2013. My hope is that the year will bring only the best to you and your family.
As for the City of Irvine and progress at the Great Park, I have grave concerns.
As I prepared to head off to the “Great Night” Family New Year’s Celebration at the Great Park yesterday (though cold, thousands of people came out to enjoy the festivities), I received three memos submitted by the new City Council majority. I have attached them, along with another memo from Mayor Choi regarding his desire to add invocations at City Council meetings, a practice we have not included for more than a decade in deference to the incredible diversity of faith traditions here in Irvine and the tendency for invocations to feel “exclusive” rather than “inclusive.”
It is the intention of Mayor Choi and Councilmembers Lalloway and Shea to propose doing away with the Great Park Board (no public board participation, all decisions controlled by the City Council…meaning all decisions controlled by them), eliminating certain contracts and undertaking a “forensic audit” of all park expenditures. Their real intention is to seize control of the park and generate headlines in the local press by challenging decisions made by the Great Park Corporation Board.
I hope you will attend the Irvine City Council meeting on Tuesday, January 8th at 5 pm (not sure what else is on the agenda, but expect these items to be the primary focus).
Contrary to the rhetoric, all activities related to the operation and construction of the Great Park are governed by the same requirements the city operates under. Councilman Lalloway has invoked the “City of Bell” in his rhetoric. Seriously? Comparing in any way, shape or form the City of Irvine or Great Park to the City of Bell? The truth is we routinely receive awards for our management as a City, and the Great Park Corporation is an instrument of the City. We don’t get to write our own set of rules.
Obviously, as the current Chair of the Great Park Board I am deeply troubled by these recommendations. Mayor Choi has included an intention to call a special Great Park meeting to choose a new Chair and Vice Chair.
Essentially, I am to be defrocked as Chair and the GP Corporation is to be dismantled. Twelve years of progress in Irvine is about to take a back seat to political theatrics by headline seeking egomaniacs who care little for the interests of the community and are all about creating chaos.
Clearly the new Council Majority figures the January 8th meeting is so early in the year that people will not make the effort to come out. I hope they are wrong, because their success in dismantling the independent Great Park board to give themselves unilateral control over all decisions related to the Great Park will only empower them to begin dismantling all the other positive initiatives developed over the past twelve years.
Please let me know if you plan to attend the City Council meeting on January 8th.
If you know of others who care about the future of the Great Park and want the City Council to continue on the positive path that has earned us recognition after recognition, invite them to join you.
The only antidote to a runaway City Council is a vocal community to remind them that they were elected to serve the best interests of the citizens of Irvine, not to play political games and damage the reputations of people who have consistently put progress ahead of political pandering and who have steadfastly supported important community priorities like the Great Park.
Larry Agran and I cannot stop the new majority. Only your presence and public comments can influence their actions. They are counting on the apathy and ambivalence of the electorate. I hope they are wrong.
I’ve been listening to people talking about corruption, corruption, corruption in the Great Park for years, but no one seems to have any idea what they are talking about. I’m not a fan of the huge PR contracts and I understand why the new Council wants to break them — although I don’t fully understand what services are provided (for example, do they keep all of this money or are they the equivalent of general contractors?) and I get the sense that many people who think that they know what’s going on don’t know either.
So, fine — do the forensic audit. Find the corruption if you can find it. If PR contracts, as Jeff Lalloway has maintained, is wasted money that get in the way of building, then stop the waste. Well, first prove the waste. Well, first investigate the waste, then prove it, then stop it — if it’s there.
But if Beth Krom is right, or is even half right, about what the Council plans to do with the Great Park — dissolving the Great Park Corporation and doing pretty much God knows what — then this is not only not what citizens of Irvine thought that they were voting for but also an opportunity for corruption greater than we’ve seen in most of the rest of Orange County combined.
I see two possibilities here: (1) the new Council majority is crazy and reckless and rash and (2) some plans for the Great Park have long been afoot about which they neglected to tell the rest of us — including the voters.
Councilmember Krom’s message is, certainly alarming. People need to get there not only to speak their mind about these apparent developments, but also to ask: what the hell is going on? And also to ask: who’s watching these new watchers? The land of the Great Park isn’t going anywhere; tearing up some contracts I understand, but what’s the rush to tear down a dozen years’ worth of plans?
Krom: “Twelve years of progress in Irvine is about to take a back seat…………..”
That’s like the New York Jet’s calling their season: “inspiring”.
Tell me what productive activity you understand to be currently offered in the Great Park. I presume that you know about the balloon; what else?
I wish I could.
There are none, unless you count housing developments, a farmers market similar to that of those in Brea, Costa Mesa, Corona Del Mar or SJC.
There is a sprinkling of sports facilities (the Baseball diamond debacle) and the cheezy PALM COURT.
Disney created CARS LAND in two years for a lot less, you’d think you could point a baseball diamond EAST!
So your assessment that “12 years of progress” = “NY Jets 2012” is based on the presumption that all that’s been done with the Great Park is:
– housing developments
– a Farmer’s Market
– a few sports facilities
– Palm Court
– hot air balloon
… and nothing else, right? If there are other things as well, would have have to revise your estimate slightly? If there’s much more, would you potentially have to revise it a lot?
The only progress made during the past ten years by the Great Park Board is the redistribution of around 160 million dollars to line the pockets of Larry Agran friends through “no bid” contracts. By any business standard, if the Great Park Corporation were in the private sector, stockholders would have fired them many years ago. Still, the Great Park stockholders (Voters) spoke loudly in November and decided to change direction. Now, of course Beth Krom and Larry Agran and their little band of Agranistas are whining and trying to whip up opposition to making changes at the Park. Beth with her little letter clearly has been drinking the Agran kool aid for too long and it damaged her mental faculties. Speaking strictly for myself, an Irvine taxpayer, I am sick and tired of these people, their wasteful spending and a total void of leadership at the City Council and Great Park level. Get the message Beth, you and Larry are no longer driving the car, so get ready to ride the Larry Agran Shuttle to Nowhere, for your transportation.
I didn’t see this before my previous comment. Beyond the existence of no-bid contracts of a given amount, you’re not presenting a single fact.
“Larry Agran friends”? These are conservative Republicans for the most part, not his pre-existing allies. “Line the pockets of”? OK, tell me what you understand Ford &c to have done with this money. “By any business standard”? Oh, you’re passing off your bluff assertions as fact. And then you have some insults.
You can do us all a favor, though, Patrick: as an Irvine voter, you would have received lots of mailers. Can you provide the ones where the majority says “oh, we’re going to dissolve the Great Park governance structure and take it over ourselves, with no guarantee of transparency?” It’s easy to find the ones where they imply that Larry Agran supports child molesters in parks and the fake stories that Katherine Daigle was being used as an Agran catspaw in the Mayor’s race — but can you show me where they campaigned on doing exactly this? Because if they didn’t do so, then your contention that the voters “spoke loudly in November and decided to change direction” is just more blather.
Scared another one off.
Done here…..again.
You scare too easily. Safe travels through other boroughs.
Republican governmental mismanagement has come to Irvine.
Using the Costa Mesa model of “Fire, Ready , Aim”. Expect “new” consultants to be hired under no bid contracts, two person sub committees to “study” the issue out of public view, and no verifiable results forthcoming anytime soon. Actual benefits to the residents or taxpayers?…….there will be none.
It’s just the way they work.
You’ve been watching the county longer than I have, G — am I wrong, or is the corruption potential of this move pretty much unmatched? If they create a new Board filled with their own cronies to do whatever they want — even before a forensic audit is completed (and, my guess is, shows the Great Park management has been both transparent and lawful) — how are they going to ensure that their tossed-together (or carefully and secretly crafted?) Board meets the same standards?
I have the feeling that this is going to turn into a top story of 2013 — and 2014 — as this new group goes forward and does most of the things that they falsely accused the current Board of doing, but less transparently. Think any other media around here would have an interest in this potential for corruption, or is just going to be us and maybe LibOC?
Greg, if you want to talk about unmatched corruption, you need look no further than what has been going on in Irvine for the past ten years. The unfortunate part is that no one seems to be interested, not the Orange County District Attorney or the United States Attorney. With red flags waiving all over the place on the “no bid” contacts and gross mismanagement of resources, both have chosen to turn a blind eye. Who knows why that is? Perhaps, it might be because one of the biggest receivers of pork from the Park, Forde & Moolrich, are long time friends of the District Attorney. Yep, there is definitely a dark side to what has been going on at the Gareat Park. Hopefully, the forensic audit being ordered up by the new Council, might shed light on this and who knows even force law enforcement to take action..
Unless I missed something, I understood Mayor Choi to communicate that it was his belief that the Great Park Board needed to be made up of City Council Members elected by the public and who could be held accountable for their actions or inaction. I have heard nothing of appointing another group of Board Members, so perhaps your sources are better than mine. Even if a new group of Board Members were appointed, such an action would be much in keeping with the business model when Corporations change leadership. If such a change were made, I would anticipate the Council would select professionals who understand business, finance and devlopemnt and not be like the bunch of Agran political buffoons who currently sit on the Board.
If you are waiting for a big 2013 story on corruption and mismanagement from the new Council, you will be sorely disappointed. You will have to continue to bend and misrepresent the facts, just as the OC Liberal does. I take the Council at their word that the Great Park will be among it’s top priorities in 2013. The ball in in their court and my guess is that worthwhile progress is going to be made.
Patrick, let me ask the same thing of you that I’ve asked of others here: what is your full understanding of what the “no-bid” contracts have entailed? What services were being procured; how was the money actually used? Surely, if you want to talk about “unmatched corruption,” you can answer that question without even stopping to look anything up. What was Ford & Moorlich’s firm doing in exchange for this money? You must know, right? So say it plainly. (I believe that it’s public information.)
You also mention “gross mismanagement of resources.” Is this just a repeat of what comes above, or do you have anything else in mind? Again, can you detail it?
Here’s my perception: we all agree that there are no-bid contracts, but there are no-bid contracts all throughout the county and state and nation and world. Even when the people are friends with the DA, that is not in and of itself enough reason to make the assertions you do. If you want to investigate, fine; I’m all for them being able to spend money on their “forensic audit” — and if it finds actual wrongdoing I’ll join the chorus in condemning it. But you have NOTHING to accuse anyone of right now. Maybe that’s why no one is investigating. Or maybe it’s because they understand what those contracts involved and you — amazingly, given your tone and volume — don’t.
I’m not going to “wait” for a big 2013 story on corruption and mismanagement from the new Council — I’m going to ask specific and pertinent questions proactively, starting now, about what it is that they intend to do, under what governance structure, with what checks on their power and what assurance of transparency — and then we can set it up against what we’ve had so far and compare them to see which is worse. I presume that you’ll be screaming at the new Council if they use no-bid contracts and lack transparency, right? Can I get your commitment to join me in that?
If not, then I guess that you’re just another partisan who wants to assure certain kinds of results — or perhaps money for people you like. I’ll hope for better from you, though.
Greg, for the most part since I no longer work for the City of Irvine, my insider information is limited. However, when I worked for the City, there was written Ctiy policy on contracts. We could go up to $25,000 on a “no bid” contract, but anything greater had a very stingent bidding process we had to endure. Since the Great Park is a stand alone Corporation I am assuming that is how they got around City policy.
Forde & Moolrich was originally on a $100,000 per month retainer which means they got paid, even if they did no work. As the Public Relations arm of the Great Park they are responsible for producing the glossy color propaganda flyers that flood our mailboxes. I call it propoganda because the the photos and information is misleading because in fact, no real work was being done. No runway breakup and removal, no utility infastructure (electricity, water & sewers) installation, mandatory for even basic development. All we got was a tacky Orange Balloon and a two bit merry go round. This is after ten years and 140 million dollars. Do I know for a fact where that money went. Haven’t a clue and neither does anyone else, including the Park Board. Shea and Choi had to sue their own City to gain access to documents on illegal hiring processes at the Park. That information should have been readily available to them as Board Members. In anyone’s business world, actions such as those described above can only be mismanagement.
Since I was not there and privy to the inner workings of the Agranista agenda my information comes from the same place you get yours. City and Park contacts and media investigative articles. For more specific details on the mismanagement, I refer you to the two investigations done by the Orange County Grand Jury (Civil), who is a pretty credibile group in the eyes of most citizens. Even with the investigation, I was advised that the final report was substantially watered down before being published. I know that with you being an Agranista defender, you will spin and rationalize the conclusions of the Grand Jury?
I have no idea what the Council’s Plan for the Great Park is other than what I read in the media and have heard them state during the campaign. I suspect that some of that Plan wil be revealed at the next Council meeting on January 8. I am also assuming that you will get a hell of a lot more transparency from the new Council than from the old? You presume correctly that I will be monitoring the progress closely and if I see the Council getting off track, will let them hear from me loud and clear. Knowing the people involved, I do not see this as an issue. I am a partisan, but not for money or power. What I want in my City, where I live and worked for thirty years, is honest, financially responsible, transparent government. I want to see a continuation of a safe community and first class schools. At the Great Park, I want to see a bit more than hot air and wasted money. I am confident that the new Council will give me these things.
Patrick — do you know whether people including past and present (and in Shea’s case returned) City Council members have voted to approve those contracts while serving on the Great Park Board?
If it turns out that Fo&Moo was doing something beyond producing glossy flyers, would that change your views at all? If it turns out that there’s more than a balloon and carousel, would that change your views at all?
If you have links to the Grand Jury investigations, I’d enjoy (or at least “enjoy”) reading them.
Your last paragraph, except for the credulity, sounds pretty good. But to say that we get more transparency, etc., we really have to benchmark things, don’t we? I don’t think that we’ve done so nearly well enough — hence many of my questions.
Grand Jury Investigations of Irvine Great Park
http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/greatpark.pdf
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jan/18/local/me-grand18
http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/greatpark/The-Great-Park-Report.pdf
That’s awfully interesting, Patrick. Do you think that the Council should stand behind the Grand Jury recommendations in Findings 6.1 and 6.2? Those are:
That doesn’t sound like what Choi seems to be promoting. What happened between 2005 (when I’m told he celebrated this finding) and 2013 that made the idea of an Orange County Great Park (as opposed to an Irvine Park and SuperWalmart or whatever) a bad idea? (Or maybe he’ll wise up by Tuesday.)
Greg, I haven’t a clue as to what the new Council majority will, or won’t do at the Great Park. Speaking strictly from my personal observations, I would offer the following thoughts. The current Board of Directors has to go. The four are appointees of the Agranistas and that gives Larry Agran a six to three majority on the Board. Good luck making any change and Beth Krom would probably continue as Chairperson. As in any hostile Corporate take over, the new majority has to control the Corporation, assuming of course they want to make change. That said, Steven Choi is on the right track by exercising the ability of the majority on the Council to dissolve the Great Park Corporation and remove the Board. From a logical standpoint, if I were on the Council majority (and I am not), I would want to appoint a new Board, but staffed with experts in corporate level development, finance and creative fundraising outside the box to replace the bunch of political hacks now serving. An example might be a man like Dick Sim, previously on the Great Park Board, but resigned due to the mismanagement. Lake Forest should probably have an elected representative and perhaps the Board of Supervisor person who is responsible for that area. I would keep the Board as advisory, because without question Irvine needs to retain control over what happens to that real estate. Those are just a couple of my own thoughts off the cuff. I would point out that Steven Choi has been in the minority his entire time on the City Council and treated very rudely by those in control. Christina Shea was in the same boat and their ideas, recommendations and objections were never considered. Now, is their time and it will be interesting to see what they do now that the ball is in their court.
I’m sorry, Patrick, perhaps I was insufficiently clear. My question was this:
Do you think that the Council should stand behind the Grand Jury recommendations in Findings 6.1 and 6.2?
That you think that Choi, Shea, and Lalloway should wrest away control of the park, despite not (to my knowledge) having campaigned on that, is already clear. I’m asking a different question.
Greg, I previously answered both your questions, but if you want to play the semantics game let me shorten and simplify it for you.
No, I do not believe City Council should follow the recommendations of the Grand Jury. County government is just as bad as the past Irvine City Council has been in Irvine. I do not support giviing up control of the Park (already said before) to anyone other than our local elected officials.
For your second question, I believe the new Council majority ran on a pledge for reform and new direction at the Great Park? The forensic audit intent was clearly spelled out. Don’t believe any discussion was held on firing the old Board of Directors? However, common sense dictates that if the old Board continued to hold majority control, making changes at the Park would be impossible. So the new Council is exercising it’s legal authority to disband the Corporation and limit the Board of Directors to elected Irvine City Council representatives. Such measurers are common business practices and should come as no surprise to anyone. I support this action in full, not that what I think counts for anything.
Hope I have made myself clear on those questions.
So the results of the forensic audit, which you apparently believe will show all sorts of waste and corruption that justify a change in Board composition and leadership, is actually in your opinion completely irrelevant to the need for such changes?
I ask because I’d expect recommendations for wholesale changes in Board composition and leadership to come after the results of a forensic audit were introduced. Maybe that’s expecting too much intellectual honesty of some.
My prediction: forensic audit 2013 will show no significant problems. Forensic audit 2017 will show huge problems starting in 2013.
Sounds like sour grapes and soon to be cut off from the cash gravy train.
Most things sound like sour grapes to you, so that doesn’t mean much.
What “cash gravy train”? What’s your understanding of how the Great Park management works? I’ve rarely seen a case where people have been more willing to toss out accusations without any actual evidence. You think that people are illicitly profiting — including from the contracts? Spell out who and how and why! The Board’s actions seem pretty transparent to me; it should be a piece of cake for you.
I’m sure I’m missing something, but the letter appears to state: “I lost, they want to undo what I’ve done, I think that sucks, please stop them.”
Elections have consequences . . .
You’re missing something.
Thanks, Dr. D. Your conciseness is appreciated.
A rare treat!
Greg,
Pretty clearly the bulk of the money spent on the “Great Park” has been spent with Ford and Mollrich for PR consulting, at least as far as I can tell from what I read in the paper. It was a dizzying amount.
They sure haven’t built very much after all these years. I’m for substance over PR and news releases. How about you?
OK — I’m not debating people here, I just want to record the basis of their opinions. You believe that all of the money that has gone to Ford has been spent with the purpose of procuring traditional public relations services, right? And your conclusion depends upon that, right?
Keep in mind that Forde & Moolrich was a political consulting company for many years handling many of Larry Agran’s campaigns. When the Great Park and it’s 200 million bankroll emerged, overnight Forde & Moolrich becaue a public relations firm, with zero experience and no track record. Then, Larry Agran and his clone Pak Board, without getting open bids from other public relations firms gave Forde & Moolrich a “no bid” contract for millions and millions of dollars. One does not have to be Sherlock Holmes to detect at least an appearance of conflict or interest and inappropriate activity.
Forde & Moolrich have not been the only benefactors of the “no bid” process at the Park, and if you guessed they were primarily Agran political backers, you would be correct. Without question, the forensic audit being ordered up by the new Council will either prove the allegatons of corruption or give them a clean bill of health. At minimum, the public will know exactly how the Park Board spent 160 million dollars. Still, outside of the corruption angle, the level of mismanagement and incompetence at the Great Park has been staggering and no one knows the full extent, due to the refusal by the existing Board to provide documtents, even to elected Council Members. That too is about to change and within six months or so, it will all be made public. If you don’t believe that some of those contract holders are worried, then you would be wrong.
What do you understand Fo&Mo to have done in exchange for this money?
Hey, bring on the forensic audit. Fine by me.
I keep hearing from people that this Board is quite transparent. Do you have information — like citations to something other than other people making unsupported allegations — that this is so?
And why aren’t you concerned about the potential for corruption under any planned changes? Shoe feels fine once it’s on the other foot?
Greg, the council of the City of Bell was transparent too, every raise and perk they gave themselves was by a vote in open council meeting.
Maybe the reason that none of the Bell people have yet to be brought to a court. If they are, it could lay the frame work to inspect every city and the County under the same standard.
I wanted to ask someone about this who knew more about PR contracts than I do. I e-mailed Dan Chm’ski of Lib OC, who has 30 years of experience in PR in NY, Boston and SoCal (but who does not comment here), for his take. He said this:
Others from the brotherhood of PR professionals are welcome to give their thoughts on the matter, yea or nay.
Greg if you wern’t such a liberal, you would have found a real PR expert and not run to the blowhard Spinmaster for the Agranistas. Asking that guy to be objective about Larry Agran is about the same as asking Hamid Karzai if growing opium poppies is good for Afghanistan?
I never claimed to be an expert on the philosophy and theory of Public Relations, but I practiced the concepts daily for my thirty five years in law enforcement. I am also savy enough to comprehend that that a two man Political Consulting Group doesn’t hatch overnight into a multi-million dollar butterfly PR firm without inside help. That inside help came from friend Larry Agran in the manner of “no Bid” contracts.
Yes, it would be nice to hear from a few professiona PR people about best business practices and if they got a fair shot at landing the big money Great Park contract?
“I never claimed to be an expert on the philosophy and theory of Public Relations, but I practiced the concepts daily for my thirty five years in law enforcement.”
Really? Tell me about, for example, your use of focus groups to frame messaging.
Suggest a name of an unbiased so-called “real PR expert” and I’ll ask them to weigh in. I disagree with Dan a fair bit of the time about politics, but I have no idea why you think he can’t make valid assertions about Fo&Mo — which, despite what you and others say, are not assertions about Agran. You guys make him sound like the ubiquitous Sauron.
From 1975 forward the Police Department used community focus groups to gain input on the type of police service they wanted and to solve problems. As part of my duties for many years, I worked closely with stakeholder groups framing the issues and building a community partnershiip. While PR firms generally are working to sell their clients product, service or image, I was doing the same, marketing Community Policing. The end result of Policing in Irvine suggests that I and the rest of our team must have been doing something right.
Don’t know any PR Firms out there but I suspect the Chamber of Commerce could make a referral, if you were really interested. As far as Dan goes, as the mouthpiece for the Agranistas, he is as objective about them as I am about the Irvine Police Department. We are both biased and what we say should be taken with a grain of salt.
Lastly, regarding Larry Agran. I am not into X-Men comics so I don’t relate to Larry being the villan who is everywhere. In simple terms
Larry is just another cheap suit who has chosen to abuse the power given to him by the people. With the most recent election, he lost and has drawn the short end of the stick. Unless I miss my guess, he will loose the stick altogether in 2014.
Greg,
I don’t know what the money was spent for, and as the last poster below said, it’s possible *nobody* knows except for maybe Larry Agran and some other insiders.
I don’t know if there is a giant conflict of interest. I don’t know if all the money was spent for PR or just some.
The facts are that little has been built in the way of a park in a good number of years, and a relatively lot of money has been spent pushing papers around at that PR firm, or maybe it’s actually Larry’s political consultant.
I am for building more park and pushing less papers. Building more, wasting less if you will.
The taxpayers have a right to that expectation. It’s reasonable.
What activities do you think currently take place in the Great Park? When you say “build more park,” do you mean anything other than putting down lawn and planting some trees and shrubs? Is there sufficient space right now for as many people as want to use the park for normal park-style recreational activities? If so, should creating more grassy (or whatever) parkland be at the top of the to-do list? Have people factored in the costs and time of removing any contamination from what used to be, after all, a military air base?
Those are some of the questions that I’d expect people who assert that the current management hasn’t done much should be able to answer.
I also see complaints about Great Park Board “transparency” from people who may or may not have tried to determine how transparent the Board currently is. Do you know? Does Lt. P?
Greg,
Do you find anything alarming that there has been so little accomplished in so many years, for so much money?
Lots spent on “planning”, little on substance!
I prefer substance to paying millions for pushing papers.
Lets just admit that anything except an airport was the real goal here, and if they can piss money away on consultants that apparently still meets the goal.
Remember, they had to have THREE elections before they got the “no airport” result they wanted. With PR between them.
The first two elections were yes on the airport.
I think the marines should have stayed. That was a radical marine base.
I’m not alarmed by planning coming before spending, to take that one first.
I’m also not alarmed by properly conditioning the land — which, if it’s like most military bases, likely has had a lot of toxic spots over the years — before building on it. Is that part of what’s been done? The critics don’t seem to know (or care.)
Whether I’d be alarmed would depend on factors such as what has been done in the meantime. I don’t get a lot of actual informed discussion from the critics on that. Can they say what is currently going on in the Great Park? They know that there’s a balloon. They may or may not know about the Solar Decathlon (which is a pretty nice event to have, if you ask me.) What else happens there? Do you know?
I hope you know, because you just asserted that “there has been so little accomplished”; I presume that you, um, checked before saying so.
Greg,
If you have knowledge that significant construction has been done that neither I nor OCR know about, please post it. I only go by the news I read.
I don’t go over, climb a fence trying not to get caught and investigate the toxic mitigation that may or may not have been done. Taking a consultant with me to assess the value of the mitigation. Heh.
I am not privy to the financials of the great park, nor I understand is any other member of the public. There are allegations that was kept secret by the great park board, or some subset of that board led by Larry.
I don’t know if any of that is true or not, but I do feel that public affairs should be conducted in public, with public meetings, public financials, etc.
I should be able to as a member of the public go into the city clerk in Irvine and say “Let me see all the paid invoices as regards the great park” and have the clerk just lay them on the counter for me to read during normal office hours.
There are allegations that is not possible. I don’t know if those are true or not. But the public records act is clear as far as it goes (not far enough IMHO).
What I’ve been told is that there is public access to the records that people keep saying are private. Maybe someone should go to the Irvine City Clerk and ask to do exactly what you say. If you found out that much or all of the material was accessible, would it change your views at all?
El Toro was an air base, meaning toxic jet fuel all over. Cleaning up that stuff is expensive and time consuming — especially for something like a park. (There’s a “park” in Fullerton, donated by the company that befouled it, where no one can go. I don’t think that that’s anyone’s vision for the Great Park. I haven’t looked into the numbers (I’m bumping up against the Puente Hills here), but I presume that there has got to have been a lot of money going into mitigation. If that explains the pace of construction (plus the housing crunch and the end of redevelopment funding), would that affect your views at all?
I’ve been told that there are other things in the Great Park as well, only a few of which I can remember — such as an organic farming operation that, if necessary, could feed the whole county. (Presumably that’s on already reclaimed soil.) I don’t have a problem with that being a high priority. If things like that have been going on, would that affect your views at all?
I’m not opposed to criticism of the GP and I can imagine that some of it is valid. But my sense, unfortunately, is that a lot of critics seem simply not to have the facts. Pretty ironic, given the money nominally spent on “PR.”
We’ve drifted off topic here.
The memo is about the make up of the Great Park Board.
The Great Park Board is appointed by … the Great Park Board? If I’m unhappy about the board’s performance, as a South County resident, I can’t do a think about it.
Irvine is spending the money, the park is in Irvine. Let the Irvine City Council control the park (which is what has been happening in reality anyhow.)
If the residents of Irvine are then so unhappy with events at the park/for the park, they can act accordingly at the ballot box.
It’s not whether the current board is transparent, it’s just streamlining to give the public more control — and the board members more accountability.
The old airport debate is germane, because most of the relationships today started them. F&M worked the campaign. Look at the relationships, how far back they go. It’s like those who survived a war together.
It would have made a super bitchin’ international airport.
Yea skallywag, it would have been absolutely wonderful to take my morning walk and smell the odor of kerosene in the air, like you find around LAX. Don’t care much for Larry Agran, but he did do a great job in working to keep the airport idea from hatching. Clearly, you don’t live in Irvine or you wouldn’t be supporting an airport.
One bright side to all this, Miguel Pulido will be making $12,000 less this year than last. Rough time to be Mayor of Santa Ana.
*Anthony Davis still has the right answer to the Great Park – a Giant Sports Complex which includes a Stadium for NFL Football and Bowl Games. Hey, but we are just happy that Tustin let one of their Blimp hangers stick around for now for special purposes.
It would have certainly not…..”made a super bitchin’ international airport.”…..every try looking at the Control problems between JWA and your used to be projected “super bitchin’ international airport”?
Anyway, Land Use…..doesn’t Irvine have a Commission dedicated to such things? NO? Aw, come on “Larry the Big A”….there is still time to lead that charge!
Har Har.
There wouldn’t be any control problems with JWA. There would be no commercial flights at JWA, all that should have moved to El Toro International.
JWA would be a fine general aviation airport, with mostly small planes. The terminal building would be an OK convention and event center.
Then we could have gotten airfares out of OC that are the same or less than LAX, whereas now the airlines all charge a good bit extra to fly from the tiny JWA.
I mostly end up having to fly out of LAX.
So will you since you got fired from SONGS!
But, I guess the FAT Edison pension and Jenifers teaching salary will be enough!
I agree on the super-bitchin’ International airport comment! The lie-filled propaganda campaign that City of Irvine and Irvine Company supporters ran throughout the very-gullible South County, tipped the election and ended up giving the base to the city of Stepford (I mean Irvine) to build a Great Park (HAHAHA), instead of putting it to good use for the WHOLE county as an international airport, to replace the dangerous, inadequate and unexpandable SNA (John Wayne Airport). This, after two votes to build the airport! I guess the third time is the charm. And now everyone is surprised that nothing has been done to build the Great Park (HAHAHA)? I predict that the Great Park (HAHAHA) will continue to languish in under-development until such time as the City of Irvine just says, “Aw, to Hell with it, let’s just build another few hundred-thousand beige stucco homes! Just think of the payoffs we can get from all of those developers! And all of the new tax revenue! We’ve always thought of Irvine as the center of the Orange County universe, and this may just do it for us!”
Why doesn’t anyone who talks about the Great Park plans being slow-walked address the problem of toxic remediation? Do people just believe that after a couple of years, soil with spilled jet fuel is no problem for kids to play on? Do people not understand that if they don’t address this issue, their argument about “slow-walking” falls apart?
Wait, what?
Are you stating that the lack of progress is due to remediation?
My understanding is that remediation has contributed substantially to slow progress — it’s expensive and time-consuming. Lots of it has been done, though, and those areas of the park are open — hosting the Solar Decathlon for example. (It makes sense, doesn’t it? Military airfields are notorious dumping grounds. And remediation ain’t cheap.) The effect of the housing bubble bursting (with Irvine as epicenter) and the cutoff of redevelopment funds have also contributed substantially.
Hell, Greg, they haven’t even broken up the runways, much less done remediation other than what the Navy did in the early stages. I believe the Irvine Water District has drilled a well or two trying to stop the toxic plume that got into the ground water table. Last I heard, it had spread all the way to Culver Drive. You make a very good point here and the Council should direct the developer do a new top to bottom Environmental Impact Report, including toxic issues as well as impact of the higher density housing, before the first home is built. If that ground or anywhere around it is toxic, no homes should be built. I trust the previous City Council majority and Great Park Board about as far as I can throw the whole bunch of them.
Expensive and time consuming for whom? This is the Marine Corps problem. Are they not living up to their obligations?
I think that Patrick may have answered your question below:
“Hell, they haven’t even broken up the runways, much less done remediation other than what the Navy did in the early stages.”
I hadn’t thought that it was that bad. If so, why isn’t this already a big part of the regional conversation? It may explain the slow pace all by itself. Are people complaining that they haven’t build an Olympic-sized pool that will end up unsafe for swimming? (I have to go find that article that FFFF put up before the election about that park in Fullerton that’s closed to the public due to toxic waste.)
Yeah, I saw that post. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison. If, in fact, the new owners of the MCAS took on the unknown remediation responsibility from the Marine Corp, whomever approved the deal should be publicly flogged and subsequently jailed for felony extreme stupidity and negligence.
http://www.fullertonsfuture.org/2012/jan-florys-poisoned-park/
I doubt remediation is the corporation’s responsibility, but I wouldn’t be surprised. If it isn’t (and it really shouldn’t be), it shouldn’t be used an excuse for not making progress at the Park. It should be used as a stick to get the federal government to do their job and clean it up.
This really smells, feels, and looks like whining on the part of an ousted majority. Elections have consequences.
Before you flog anyone: it could still have been a good deal because a lot of the land — like, say, what’s already been built upon — may not have required remediation. That could have given the city substantial benefits that outweigh the costs of remediation, especially because remediation could be done slowly over time. The Great Park (unless carved up and sold, or something) is supposed to exist for a very long time. In that grand scheme, a difference of a few years to provide enough time to do it right is relatively insignificant.
I don’t think that people get just how big the Great Park is. It’s huge — 1300 acres. By comparison, the City of La Palma is only about 1170 acres, Disneyland Park is 160 acres and the whole Disneyland Resort is about 400 acres.
How many people who claim that not enough of the Great Park is yet available for use have tried to, uh, go and use the Great Park? Does it feel too crowded?
Nope– not a good deal (assuming that’s the case.) It’s never a good idea to assume unknown remediation costs, particularly for a parcel so large and extra particularly for a type of parcel known to be troublesome AND when the existing owner already has the means and legal obligation to clean up their own mess. That should be a big red “do not cross under any circumstance” flag.
It’s also incredibly unwise to assume that remediation costs may be extended over time. In many cases, remediation is legally required to be expedient or even immediate in the case of pollution extending between aquifers.
Getting off topic, but using remediation as an excuse for not progressing only underscores the architects’ bad decision making when framing the terms of the deal. If they’re either unwilling to force the federal government to clean up their mess or unable to do so because they assumed responsibility for remediation, then they shouldn’t be in a position to do the county more harm by continuing to make unsound economic and environmental decisions.
I don’t know the precise arrangements regarding remediation. (I do know that getting the federal government — and especially the DOD — to do what it is supposed to do is more easily said than done.) And this represents my supposition rather than their excuse. Would it change your mind, by the way, if the military’s remediation plan for this area in the center of OC were simply “we’ll get to it someday, probably”? You wouldn’t regret the absence of even that portion that we have — and the added portions we can reasonably expect to have before too long?
My point is that so long as the portions of the park most likely to require the greatest remediation can be fenced off (as I think they are, right?), and don’t threaten aquifers (which is certainly something worth knowing), it may be well have been worth the city’s receiving the entire parcel even if only half of it may be used in the middling-future. A half of a “Great Park” is still quite great for the meantime; as has been demonstrated, it’s sufficient to hold both weekly (swap meets) and special (Solar Decathlon) events even while the runways remain off limits. I think that your harshness on the architects of the deal is, at a minimum, hyperbolic.
Dr D., I think you meant hypothetically hyperbolic, seeing how it’s a critique of a concept that may or not be true.
Custody and use of the parcel isn’t an issue. It’s the responsibility for clean-up that concerns me.
There’s no reason the county or the city should have (again, perhaps they did not) assume remediation duties from the Marine Corps. If they did, someone should be going to jail for gross negligence.
What would pay the way and create many good paying jobs in the area would be a nice federal or state prison, maybe both. The house builders have stopped because of the huge cost involved and lack of profits and the great park only gets a small portion of the available land.
The DoD should take back most of the land of the old base as it has not been used for the purpose intended and given to the DoJ so the prisons of Orange County can be built immediately bringing economic opportunity to us all.
I love it! A prison in Irvine! How deliciously ironic!
As long as it is beige stucco…it will fit right in!
It’s like poetry when you call for even more prisons. So what you’re saying is that we don’t want recreational (or even some commercial, like organic farming) there; we just want a permanent increase in our payments to prison guards. Is that about right?
It’s called irony. I actually believe that there are too many prisons, overcrowded with offenders that shouldn’t even be there, i.e., possession. I just think of Irvine as a kind of prison already. I’ve lived there, I’ve worked there, but fortunately I’ve escaped.
It’s not irony on the part of the person who suggested it.
point well taken…
Also. What kind of organic farm do you think should go on a site lousy with jet fuel (and who knows what else)? I think I’ll stick to my other organic, local sources.
Cook brings up an intresting point. Southern California, Mostly Los Angeles contributes to the prison population more than any other region. Yet there are few if any facilities (Chino, Lancaster etc….).
Maybe, the failure by Irvine to develop any meaningful use of the land should be reconsidered. A State Prison is sorely needed, and this would provide a great place. The inmates families would have easy access throgh rail and highways. Children could visit their parents (FATHERS) easily. That is after all the family values idea.
CSP IRVINE is a great idea. Let’s all support California and push for a corrections facility in Irvine!
61 comments that are all over the map. Yeah we had an international airport site dropped in our lap but NIMBY,….I’m over it.
The question and issue before us today is the consultant contract. The no-bid, very expensive, just WTF did they do with all that money, consulting contract.
While Beth Krom is raising the banner for all loyal party dems to come help her, I’m a little concerned we are being called to Agrans Waterloo.
Having some experience with agencies and their consultants, I can tell you , rarely are the expenditures worth the actual work product. In this case it seems even more so.
Reviewing OC Fairboard warrants during that “fiasco”, we revealed a 1.3 million dollar consultant contract with some Nevada out of state PR firm called R& R inc. The people who brought us the term “Clean Coal”, and represented the best and finest of Nevada’s prison industry, mining interests and oil and gas companies. Why did they get $1.3 million from the Fairgrounds?…..beats me,….there never is a viable work product from these PR firms.
Beth Krom could be asking everyone to come out and support the work the Great Park Board has accomplished, but I fail to see how. I see no talking points or vehicle where I, in good conscience, could go parrot support. What does she think I am ……a Republican?
Voice of OC has written up an article which expresses some of the very same questions I have been struggling with. I would love to go and show support for Beth, but I’m nobody’s “flying monkey” just brought in to rip the stuffing out of scarecrows. I need the facts. Let’s have a forensic audit first , and let the facts be what they will be.
http://www.voiceofoc.org/oc_south/irvine/article_c25dd602-588e-11e2-a25f-0019bb2963f4.html
Amen. Now you’re sounding like a real thinking Democrat.
I’m doing a little research on this, knowing both Lalloway and Agran. I think the Dem activists running around with their hair on fire are being used by folks who hate losing their power. This is nothing like the Republican majority in Costa Mesa going after hundreds of public workers.
Thanks Vern…..I’ve always been a “real thinking” Democrat.
This part really sticks in my craw…..
The Irvine City Council wants to do away with the County appointed Board.( I just found this moments ago)
That I have a problem with. This property was voted on to become a County wide asset. That was why everyone supported the Great Park…….yeah we wouldn’t get an international airport, millions in import/ export taxes would go out of the county but we would ALL get this GREAT PARK.
Now a slim 3 person majority of the City of Irvine is essentially stripping away all the power vested to the county wide appointed board. It’s a fucking coup.
How they have that power and where is that in the Measure, I don’t know, but it seems like they might open themselves up to expensive litigation.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/park-382647-irvine-board.html?fb_action_ids=10151432411819225&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210151432411819225%22%3A388848797871305%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210151432411819225%22%3A%22og.recommends%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D
On that note, who represents North County?
Oh, right. No one.
Welcome to the same page, G. That’s the nub of the problem right there.
Yeah, but lets not use the term “county-wide”. That’s just a lie.
The coup occurred years ago and it wasn’t Shea and Choi who did it and in fact they voted against it. Watch the information coming out of the Tuesday Irvine City Council meeting and you will get a flavor for the crap that has been going on by the power hungry Agranista Group. There was never any County apointed Great Park Board. It was a Larry Agran appointed Advisory Board with the Council majority retaining all control over decision making. As far as litigation goes, the land is in the City of Irvine and the County has no claim to it, except for 100 acres given to them for something or the other. The County is already busy developing their acreage and I believe the Water Park is moving there. Doubt there will be any litigation.
What constraints do you believe exist on what the new majority, if it takes these drastic (and unexpected by the voters) steps, to keep them from spiking the Great Park plan and selling off the land to the highest bidders?
It’s not like Costa Mesa — it’s like Fullerton. If they campaigned on what they now may be doing, they’d have lost. “Let them have their chance to make mistakes” overlooks the problem that some mistakes can be pretty much permanent.
Waiting for the forensic audit to be completed before considering any wholesale changes is fine with me. You’ll note, though, that it’s not what is being proposed tomorrow. What’s being proposed is, potentially, a complete change in the plan for this land, towards who knows what, with who knows what responsibility and transparency? Show up at the meeting to argue for brakes on that, even if nothing else.
Concern over the big PR contract is reasonable — but that problem has already been solved. As I recall, the contract has been canceled. While the figure raises my eyebrows as well, and while I agree that consultants are rarely (well, I might say “often not”) worth the money, it’s not clear to me that this expenditure wasn’t justified. I’m not saying that it was justified; the emphasis should be on “not clear to me.” By all means, the public should know, better than it seems to, what work product the money produced.
Now let me ask you: do you really expect there not to be a new round of no-bid contracts put out by a new Board, if one is reconstituted? The difference between the new Board and the old one is likely to be, in my opinion, that the new one would be harder to shame.
I would expect the new board to carefully consider the potential liability of issuing a no-bid contract.
I wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of a discrimination suit from a PR firm led by a well qualified woman, particularly since the corporation works with a big fat arm of the federal government.
The current Council majority campaigned on a pledge to reinvent the Great Park and put it on a new course of action to get something done. Christina Shea consistently stressed in her campaign that she would demand a forensic audit of the Park to determine where 160 million dollars had gone and make that audit public.
As I have previously stated, this was nothing less than a hostile take over of a Corporation and in order to put it on a new course, the old Board majority had to go. The same thing would be happening if the Great Park were in the private sector, except it wouldn’t have taken the shareholders ten years and 160 million dollars to fire the Board.
The PR contract was not previously cancelled, it was just reduced in the amount of the retainer paid per month. The actions of the Council on Tuesday night will terminate the relationship with Forde & Moolrich altogether. Then they can return to full time work as political consultants. Larry Agran will be in dire need of their services in two years, assuming of course he survives the audit.
Since the new Council has made an issue of “no bid” contracts, I do not believe for one minute that they will jump into that aena. I am guessing they will strictly adhere to City of Irvine Policy on such contracts, which used to be anything over $25,000 had to go through a strignet bid process.
Before you jump on the shame bandwagon, let’s give the new Council a chance to show what they can do. Whatever it is, it couldn’t be any worse than the old Council and you gave them a free pass for ten years of “no shame.”
I liked your snappy photo of Beth Revere, highlighting this article. I don’t know if you wrote the words under the photo or if that was done by Beth herself. Giving it a little thought, I came up with a more appropriate semantical response with appropriate credit going to the original author, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow:
“THE REPUBLICANS ARE COMING” “THE REPUBLICANS ARE COMING”
Listen my children and you shall hear of the midnight ride of Beth Revere
A hurry of hoofs on a Woodbridge street
A shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark
And beneath, from the pebbles, in passing a spark
The fate of the Great Park was riding that night
“Republicans are coming,” cried Beth in her fear
To destroy the Orange balloon, we hold so dear
Who knows what other tricks, they have in mind
To build the Park, we left behind
We must rally the Agranistas from both far and near
To challenge the Republicans we hate so dear
Let’s loudly shout, raise a “hue and cry”
And fool those Republicans, with another lie
So through the night rode Beth Revere
To every Irvine village so near
And a cry of warning borne only on fear
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed
And the midnight message of Beth Revere
“Beth and Larry, Beth and Larry……” We remember that song! What upsets us most is that they didn’t even want Bill Campbell to serve on the Big Bark Board.
Yeah, Spitzer threw that fact in their face when they complained about the new majority terminating public, outside-Irvine participation.