.
.
.
I’m just putting this out here for discussion – oh, this would be Vern writing as admin. That was SOME fireworks last week, huh, when we had Irvine Republicans Jeff Lalloway and Christina Shea over here along with their supporters, throwing insults and recriminations at each other?
I noticed though that each side likes to accuse the other of “trying to kill” the Veterans Cemetery planned for SOMEWHERE in Irvine. That’s good in fact, that’s progress, that the Cemetery has become such an unquestioned good that “trying to kill it” is an attack from which anyone wants to defend themselves.
But at one point, in response to a comment from Greg (who’s been knee-deep in this from the beginning) in mild defense of the “land swap” proposed by FivePoint Homes and their loyal councilwoman Shea, embraced by many of the vets, but defeated by the majority of the council, Jeff made what sounded to ME like a very sensible argument as to why he opposed that land swap, and why supporting that swap WOULD be tantamount to killing, or risking killing, the whole project.
I’ll reprint that comment of Jeff’s here. Is there anything wrong here? If not, it sure ain’t Jeff, Beth, Stephen and Lynn who are “trying to kill the Veterans’ Cemetery.”
Greg,
Here’s why [the land swap] kills or massively slows the project. First, I would suggest you go to the video of the council session where Beth, Lynn and I explain it in depth.
Briefly, this is a state cemetery and the state has appropriated $500,000 to study the current site. There must be another bill and the entire process of studying the new site has to start all over again.
Now, Quirk-Silva did the hard work of getting a bill through Sacto and a new bill, without her role on the Vet Committee, will take at least a few years – if ever. [Take THAT, Quirk-haters – V]
Brown said he didn’t want to appropriate the money originally for the project. That’s a problem if the governor MAY not even sign a new bill. And you must have a new bill.
So, first question is how to get a bill (almost impossible) and then the entire process, which has already taken 2 years, has to start all over again. You’re looking at the entire project taking at least another 3-5 years from where we are now–and that’s if, and that’s a big if, we ever get a bill.
And we have spoken to CalVet. They are not happy with this entire controversy surrounding the project. That will cause the federal government to look at the project as suspect, based upon the current community split. It needs state and federal approvals.
There’s other reasons, but those are the biggies. We had bipartisan agreement on the project and the site and when does that ever happen? Now, we have splits and mass confusion. That’s no way to move this project forward.
As I said at the time and in the press, if the current site doesn’t work, the new site can always be our Plan B. But to change course now will cause years of delay and create havoc in the government approval process.
Discuss. And please try to be civil, you Irvine barbarians!
Im opposed to the land swap because its to satiate the feng shue appetites of Chinese Investors using the money they took from working Americans by offshoring manufacturing to their slave labor citizens. But the above makes me even oppose it more.
You should talk to Brian Chuchua about this, Vern. He’s been much more deeply involved than I have over the past couple of years and can let you know exactly what the veterans at OCVMP feel and why.
Paul’s hypothesis is wrong: it’s about money more than feng shui. For veterans, the land swap appeals to veterans because:
(1) This site is better. It’s close to the south intersection of the 405 and the 5, so it can be a readily visible symbol of Irvine and of its contribution to honoring Veterans. There is potentially room to grow. It’s a big flat strawberry patch right now, so there is not even a POSSIBLE remediation problem. And Five Point is willing to throw in all sorts of goodies to make the deal work — and my guess is that they have more they can pull out later. (And, as I’ve said, I just WISH that they had done this back in 2014. It would have made everything so easy!) Five Point can also donate the $500,000 to do a new survey on this new proposed lot — probably out of petty cash. (They stand to make much much more than that.)
(2) Other things being equal — and “a cemetery where currently planned” us much better than “no cemetery” rather than being equal — it is best to avoid controversy where one can easily do so. I can give you all sorts of glurge about that, but here’s a simple, practical, and cold-blooded reason: Gang Chen has a decent chance of becoming Irvine’s next Mayor. Yes, Gaido has a shot, and Choi (if he doesn’t make the Top Two in AD-68) would be a favorite. But if you have competing candidates from the two Republican camps on the City Council, AND you have Katherine Daigle running again, AND another Democrat is induced to join the race to split the Democratic vote — then Chen could win with a readily obtainable plurality.
So then we have a situation where the new Mayor of Irvine could be beseeching the federal government to spike the project. I submit to you that that is a MUCH bigger threat to its approval than the idea that we have not only a first option that had unanimous Council approval but also a second option that many people who like the first option happen to like even more. So long as Five Point pays the money for a study, this just doesn’t strike me as a big danger. Remember, the federal government WANTS states and localities to help them address the shortage of veterans cemetery space; that’s why they’ll pony up for it!
(3) I know that some of the veterans associated with OCVMP have been advised that no new bill will be necessary to swap the land. (I know that there’s one person there whose opinion Jeff highly respects; I can’t remember if he was among the vets saying this.) I think that there is a lot more give in the system than Jeff sees to think. A bill authorizing EITHER site can be added, even after the supposed deadline, to a “gutted” bill on the table. If the Governor wants it to happen — and I don’t see why he wouldn’t, given the lack of opposition to the strawberry field site on its merits — I think that it can happen. (Seriously, who’s going to oppose it in an election year? It’s a “feel-good” bill! And there’s no split on the strawberry field site being good IF IT HAD COME UP FIRST — except perhaps among those who just want to stick it to Five Point out of principle or pique. I’m not among them. I think that they should pay up for not being sharp enough to offer this in 2014, but I don’t begrudge them making more money so long as it doesn’t undercut other interests — and here, it arguably wouldn’t.)
(4) I’m much less sanguine than Jeff is that this site “can always be our Plan B” if and when Plan A is disapproved. If there’s a huge fight over Plan A — which as Jeff says still needs state and federal approval — I think that that makes Plan B LESS likely to be approved. The smart move, in my opinion, is to proceed on both tracks at the same time. Present the government with one proposal already approved and with one alternative. “Here are two good options, government, now please choose one” doesn’t strike me as being so much out of the ordinary.
I am mostly going to stay out of this — There is a _lot_ happening below the surface.
Here are some relevant facts.
1. Support for the Veteran’s Cemetery is overwhelming. I can still find Irvine residents who think El Toro should have become an airport — but I can’t find anyone who opposes the cemetery (only its placement).
2. FIve Points does not want this cemetery. More precisely, they don’t want this cemetery interfering with their ability to extract ever last dollar out of their current and future Irvine developments.
3. Five Points has a plan. They don’t want a high profile fight that would distract from the sales effort. Rather, they plan to quietly delay and distract, at every step of the process. Unfortunately for our veterans, Five Points has already laid the ground work to throttle the project in DC.
4. There are TWO major developers with an interest: As always, the Irvine Corporation is everywhere and nowhere. I am not aware that they have a public stand on the cemetery. But they don’t have to. Donald Bren does not like cemeteries. (sorry, I can’t source that one. But it’s very, very true). How that plays out is… subtle.
5. The Veterans are being used as a political football. That’s not just my opinion. Last year I expressed my support of the cemetery to John Moorlach and asked him how to best move the project forward. He was deeply troubled that, in his view, the veterans had had their expectations raised un-realistically. In particular, he felt that the original Agran-Quirk-Silva plan was not fiscally feasible. NOTE: I do NOT know John’s official stance, if any, on the Veteran’s Cemetery. I made a point of not asking him.
6. Supporting the cemetery has been a preferred political tack for whoever is out of power. Yes, Larry Agran galvanized public support for the cemetery in Irvine in 2014, and his fake newspaper continues to do support the cemetery. Good. But Larry Agran did NOT support the cemetery when he was in a position to make it happen. Specifically, city records show that a Phase One feasibility contract was approved for the study of a cemetery at the Great Park while Larry was in charge. (Contract No. 5759-CO17) However, a Public Records request shows that the study was never performed.
Jeff Lalloway’s role is more complicated, so I’ll devote a separate comment to that.
1. Yep.
2. Five Point is willing to sacrifice the commercially zoned strawberry patch in order to be able to squeeze money out of its housing project.
3. Neither I nor the veterans believe that they have put the kibbosh on this in DC. Given the desire for communities to do EXACTLY THIS, that would be a shock. But, if true, it would apply with greater force towards approval of the site they hate rather than the site that they say they can tolerate.
4. The Irvine Company has not posed an obstacle. This is more of a memorial park than a mere cemetery — lots of cremations, not so many graves — and it is good for land values in the area. (Which they like!)
5. Moorlach thought from the beginning that spending money on the veterans’ cause here was a waste, because people could just drive out to Riverside or down to San Diego County if they really wanted to visit buried veterans. This is an example of his generally useful “waste of money” radar going haywire. The vets are not being used as a political football; they are smart, dedicated, and captain their own ship, so to speak.
6. The cemetery was D-E-A-D dead until the day in December 2013 when Sharon Quirk-Silva was appointed to Chair the Assembly Veterans Affairs Committee. She came to the OC Labor Federation Christmas Party that same day to, among other things, spread that good news. Guess who else was there? Agran and Krom, still smarting from losing the Council majority in November 2012 and then losing the battle over the Great Park. Sharon talked to them at that event — and the whole enterprise took off, with blinding speed, from there.
How do I know this? Because (1) I had been in touch with Agran about the Great Park problems and I knew that he was unhappy, (2) I had spoken a bit to Brian Chuchua (who dragged me into OCVMP) about the veterans’ desire for a Veterans Cemetery in OC (which was not going anywhere fast — or even slow — at that moment), and (3) when I met Sharon coming into the party and heard her news, I said to her (I’m paraphrasing) “hey, Larry and Beth are here; you should talk to them about because fighting to build a Veterans Cemetery in the Great Park is the kind of capstone project that might really get Agran — enthused by recapturing at least SOME of the hopes for the Great Park as a significant public space.” And then I walked her over to them, left them to talk, and both Sharon and Larry ended up doing some of the best work of their careers to make it happen.
Larry did AMAZING work on the project — winning over lots of conservative Veterans who were not naturally inclined to trust and respect him. A cemetery was not his initial choice for the Great Park, true — but when it became clear that it was a way for him to achieve SOME of what he had wanted for the area, by putting in a prestigious project that would put the Great Park “on the map,” he did outstanding and strenuous work. I was at a fair number of those meetings and saw it first hand. Don’t trust my word; ask the vets themselves.
The three people who were absolutely essential to getting the ball rolling and the pathway cleared were Agran, Quirk-Silva, and Chaplain Bill Cook of the OCVMP Foundation. Even though OCVMP members disagree with Agran about this latest initiative, my sense is that their gratitude for what he and Quick-Silva did to make this happen is undying. Saying that “well he didn’t do it back when he had a different Master Plan in mind is, if you’ll pardon my saying so, a cheap shot; when the stars aligned he rose to the occasion magnificently.
By the way, I don’t think that he and I have spoken or communicated with each other for two years. (We clashed over Henry Vandermier becoming DNOC Chair in January 2013.) He’s part of the Irvine-area claque for which Chmielewski volunteers his poisonous professional PR services, which I think has done enormous damage to the County Democratic Party — so I’m not getting any benefit from this praise. I simply believe in giving credit where it is rightly due — and it is certainly due him here.
“6. The cemetery was D-E-A-D dead until the day in December 2013 w”
True. And we know who the original murderer was: Larry Agran. I’ve read the friggin’ contract!
True, AFTER Larry had to relinquish the power that would have enabled him to make it happen, THEN he became the key supporter.
But notice that sequence of events: it matters.
“3. Neither I nor the veterans believe that they have put the kibbosh on this in DC. ”
Well, er, um, I hope we get to find out.
My understanding was that throttling this in committees within the VA in Washington was the core of the plan, and all this wrangling in Irvine was just gravy for the “delay and distract” operation.
But as I am obviously not party to the inner deliberations of Five Points, (1) I hope to find out and (2) I hope to be wrong.
Your understanding under #3 seems like a good argument for the swap — especially if Five Points relinquishes title to the city regardless of approval. That would take their skin out of the game.
Re #6: that wasn’t a murder, it was an early miscarriage. Agran was always a proponent of the Master Plan. It wasn’t in the Master Plan. He’d have been against anything that wasn’t in the Master Plan. What changed is that the Master Plan was spiked and he was free to look for alternatives.
Jeff’s role in the Cemetery has been active — and hard to define.
The fun starts at the March 11th, 2014 City Council meeting. Larry Agran proposed a motion to support the Cemetery. Shea made a counter motion to study the fiscal effect. Lalloway sided with Krom and Agran to vote down Shea’s counter-motion. Larry Agran then amended his motion to convene an ad hoc committee of stakeholders. This passed 4-1 (Shea opposing).
The Agran-appointed Recreation Commissioner Melissa Fox, who was running against Jeff for a seat on the City Council, gives her view of what happened next.
“The Ad Hoc (temporary) Veterans Cemetery Committee … was anything but an advocate for veterans….the real purpose of the Ad Hoc Committee created by the Council majority was to delay and obstruct the search for a site in the Great Park…They appointed Councilmember Jeffrey Lalloway as the Committee Chair…. In mid-May, we learned that the Ad Hoc Committee still had not met because, supposedly, many of the politicians who were added by Jeff Lalloway as Ad Hoc Committee members….could not find the time for a Committee meeting in their schedules. In addition, the Ad Hoc committee refused to provide a progress report (or, rather, a lack-of-progress report).
https://melissafoxblog.com/tag/irvine-ad-hoc-veterans-committee/
The committee did finally meet on June 13, 2014 and on July 11, 2014, leading to a successful resolution at the July 22nd City Council meeting.
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2014/07/big-veterans-turnout-in-irvine-to-support-great-park-cemetery/
What happens next is interesting.
“On September 9, 2014, the Irvine City Council voted to repurpose and rename the Ad Hoc State Veterans Cemetery Committee to the Ad Hoc Veterans Affordable Housing Committee to address issues associated with affordable housing for United States Veterans. “
https://legacy.cityofirvine.org/council/comms/ad_hoc_state_veterans_cemetery_committee/default.asp
In 2015, I dropped by City Hall to check on attendance of these meetings. I was told this committee met infrequently, and that Jeff was typically not in attendance. To be fair to Jeff, I have not had to time to verify that claim, and his attendance may have improved. But given the web page of the committee says the next scheduled meeting is Oct 15, 2015, I have my doubts…
https://legacy.cityofirvine.org/council/comms/ad_hoc_veterans_affordable_housing_committee/default.asp
https://legacy.cityofirvine.org/council/comms/ad_hoc_veterans_affordable_housing_committee/minutes_archive.asp
I am willing to be corrected, but I have not been able to find evidence that Jeff is doing the “grunt work” to keep the cemetery moving forward.
His votes in support of the cemetery are appreciated, and if he keeps supplying those votes, he has my support. But I question the depth and source of his commitment.
I would presume that Lalloway’s lack of participation in Shea’s committee — which as I recall was commonly seen as a face-saving measure for her, as well as possibly a way to muddy the policy waters by expanding the playing field — is that he thought that the creation of such a committee was arrant bullshit. It had nothing to do with the cemetery at all, was potentially a damaging distraction, and (if memory serves) ultimately fizzled.
That’s right Greg.
I have consistently supported the Cemetery and without my support, it may have failed.
Right. And you’re wrong about the swap, but that’s a lesser matter.