Lalloway’s Argument Against the Veterans’ Cemetery Land Swap.




irvine city council 2

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.”


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!

About Admin

"Admin" is just editors Vern Nelson, Greg Diamond, or Ryan Cantor sharing something that they mostly didn't write themselves, but think you should see. Before December 2010, "Admin" may have been former blog owner Art Pedroza.