My Three Minutes at the Virtual Podium for Irvine City Council meeting on Land Swap

OC Veterans of the Vietnam War join in the recognition of the troups at County ceremony May 10, 2011
OC Veterans of the Vietnam War join in the recognition of the troups at County ceremony May 10, 2011

I’d like to thank Melissa Fox for sharing her reasons why she’s supporting the FivePoint Land swap for the Veteran’s cemetery. And I would truly love to attend today’s special city council meeting at 4PM but I’m picking up family at the airport for my daughter’s graduation which happens this Thursday and I can’t be two places at once.

I’m a long-time supporter of Fox dating back to her assembly race against Don Wagner in 2010. I was the first contributor to her 2014 campaign and maxed out my personal contributions to both of her city council races.  I like Melissa.  And my criticisms of the land swap are criticisms of the land swap, not her.  I do not believe her anticipated vote tonight endangers her political career as some have suggested.  I have privately let her know how I feel and why.

I disagree with her decision.

If I could attend, I’d sign my public comment card and my comment would go something like this:

 

“I’m Dan Chmielewski and I’m a 20 year taxpayer in Irvine.  I have supported the idea of a Veteran’s Cemetery and Memorial long before Christina Shea and Don Wagner ever did. The two biggest proponents for this proposed land swap were also the ones who sought every measure to kill the idea in the first place. And while the land swap is being positioned as a win-win-win for the Veterans, the city and the taxpayers, it’s really a big win for the developer who will line their pockets with new profits from expensive homes they are trying to sell and new homes they might want to build.  Ms. Shea and Mr. Wagner are benefitting their political supporter with a gift of taxpayer dollars.

As an Irvine taxpayer, I’m not happy that the land swap doesn’t have adequate appraisals to determine the financial fairness of the swap. As an Irvine taxpayer, if the city and developer want to add everything up and come to a dollar for dollar swap, I’d be more inclined to support this move.  But those numbers are not available and moving forward with a land swap without it strikes me as not fiscally prudent.  The ARDA site ought to be appraised for what the land would be worth for home sites rather than as a park.  And comparing an adjacent site assessment, which contains the new campus of Broadcom, to the Strawberry Field location is still not an assessment of the Strawberry Field site. 

As an Irvine taxpayer and someone who grew up in a military town, I don’t have a single objection to my tax dollars being used to finance a Veteran’s Cemetery and Memorial.

The developer has promised to build the “entirety of the Veteran’s Cemetery through phase 1,” but please define what “phase 1” is please. The same developer is developing the Great Park and the contract is only specific when construction might begin, not when it is to be completed and the developer is behind on timetables for several aspects of Great Park development.  The notion that placing the memorial near the El Toro Y would result in no additional traffic and no additional automobile trips defies common sense.

If the ARDA site is the “largest Superfund project in the nation,” then it is the responsibility of the US Military to clean it up which was the agreement when the Base was transferred to the city, so that wouldn’t be the obligation of Irvine taxpayers to clean up for a cemetery.  And even if it was, I’m OK with it because the city is sitting on a large settlement regarding redevelopment money used to fund the Great Park. We could do this; develop the entire cemetery on the ARDA site without touching reserves or raising taxes.  Heck, we could replace the proposed Golf Course with the cemetery. 

And if the ARDA site sought by FivePoint is, in fact, the nation’s largest SuperFund site, that’s not exactly a strong marketing point for new homes, is it? 

Ms. Fox correctly states that the $38 million the city is offering for the cemetery would come from a fund that’s the result of a settlement with the state. That $38 million is about 15 percent of the total to fund the park.  It’s also entirely likely that with smart investments, the actual cost of that $38 million would be replaced and could be covered making the city’s investment in the ARDA site not that significant.

Lastly, a land swap does not mean we’ll break ground faster. A new bill must be written, passed and then the land swap proposal goes to CalVet for review – as they only act on legislation not a plan.  It will take close to a year for the city to do the paperwork necessary to make the land swap official.  Redefining the border of the Great Park requires a vote of the City Council and there’s significant work to make that happen.  The Strawberry Fields site goes to the bottom of the pile.  We won’t break ground this summer.  We likely won’t break ground on Strawberry Fields for years. 

The fastest route to build a cemetery is to stay with the current plan. As an Irvine taxpayer, I think the funds needed to prepare the ARDA site is a fine use of my tax dollars.  There’s been discussion that opponents to the swap want to hurt FivePoint.  The developer is not “hurt” today and won’t be hurt tomorrow if the deal doesn’t go through.  Their situation is exactly the same as it today.  It’s been suggested they’d sue the city if the swap doesn’t happen which frankly means their bottom line is more important that a Veteran’s Cemetery they tried to kill three years ago.  The developer is only interested in the bottom line. 

When I was a homeowner’s association president years ago, I represented my neighborhood in a dispute with another development. That developement wanted a sidewalk installed in a city park next to my neighborhood.  We proposed a compromise location for a sidewalk that was in the original plan but never installed.  Those neighbors rejected it.  We went to the city for remediation and were told “because neighbors cannot agree, the city will do nothing,” which was actually a win for my side.

Since this land swap is the subject of much debate, and there are robocalls by FivePoint or their surrogates along with dishonest text messages targeting Assembly Representative Sharon Quirk Silva, this is no longer a question of community interest but a political issue. In fact, a new site called “A Schott in the Dark” in pitching the Strawberry Fields proposal writes in an email that “Five Points has also stated it would consider funding the first phase of the Veterans Cemetery development.” It would consider funding the First Phase is not a promise to do so and FivePoint won’t commit to anything until after the swap happens – so we are not negotiating from a position of strength.

As those surrogates representing FivePoint have chosen to make this issue political as opposed to policy, let the voters of Irvine decide on the location.

Let’s put this on the ballot.”

 

Now I can speak pretty fast, and I’m not sure how much of this I could cram into three minutes. But there’s no time limit here for the blog.

 

6 Comments

  1. Your math is wrong because you leave out key details. The City committed $38 on one condition, that the state matches that amount which it did NOT. So original site is short money on a plan that will most likely cost more to demo.

    • $30 million from the state and $10 million from the feds is matching funds. What planet are you from?

      • The planet that clearly states that the City was looking for STATE money to match.. not the back of the line maybe Fed money that might come in.

          • After sharing that the state’s funding came in $10 million less than anticipated, Mayor Don Wagner said, “Neither the state government nor the federal government is willing to be an equal partner.” The federal government had suggested it would consider adding $10 million to the project, but, Wagner said, “That amount has not been committed to us…We are quite low on the federal priority list and waiting for that funding could further delay (the project).”

            Again, your numbers are not accurate. I do understand the other site money is not clear still, but there wasn’t enough at the original site in the first place.

Comments are closed.