HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2007, 2:56 AM
dragonsky dragonsky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,132
Thursday, March 1, 2007
O.C. roads get more funds
Officials say they are pleased with the $22 million Orange County received to widen the 91 Freeway.
By ELLYN PAK
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

IRVINE – Orange County will get $383.5 million to improve three freeways, a state transportation agency decided Wednesday in Irvine.

After several weeks of lobbying, Orange County officials walked away with $22 million more for improvements on the Riverside (91) Freeway than what was originally recommended.

"We're obviously very pleased with that," said Carolyn Cavecche, Orange County Transportation Authority chairwoman. "The positive of this is that we retained all of the money we were going to receive."

California Transportation Commission members doled out $4.5 billion from a bond that voters approved in November – funds for projects meant to bring fast relief to the most congested parts of the state.

The $383.5 million that Orange County received is 8.5 percent of the statewide bond money available for immediate release, officials said. Orange County's population makes up 8.3 percent of the state's population.

County officials plan to move forward with five projects that include adding lanes to the 91 and Orange (57) freeways, and building car-pool connectors from the Garden Grove (22) Freeway to the San Diego (I-405) and San Gabriel River (I-605) freeways.

The extra $22 million will help build two lanes on the 91 from the Costa Mesa (55) Freeway to Gypsum Canyon Road.

Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, R-Orange, said he is pleased the county received state money that could be invested in the 91.

Los Angeles County received $803 million more than it was scheduled to receive two weeks ago, when commission staff members recommended that $2.8 billion go to counties this year.

Los Angeles officials lobbied fiercely for their extra money, getting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders to battle for them. On Monday, the commission announced that the $4.5 billion, rather than $2.8 billion, will be distributed this year.

Each county will match the state bond funds it receives with other monies.

Most neighboring counties also received more money than expected.

Riverside County got an extra $22.9 million to help add car-pool lanes on the 91 from Adams Street to the 60/91/215 interchange.

Commission Chairwoman Marian Bergeson said the 91 Freeway is "one of the most critical issues" and needed attention.

Bergeson commended Orange and Riverside counties' efforts to work together to ease congestion.

Cavecche said Orange County's efforts to lobby for more state money was unyielding, though officials were more subdued than their Los Angeles counterparts.

"I may not be handing out fliers on freeways" as Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa did, "but over the last week, OCTA has been unrelenting in its efforts," she said. "I think it showed today that OCTA is a high-level authority."

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2007, 2:58 AM
dragonsky dragonsky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,132
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Longer haul for toll road
TCA says construction can't begin until 2011, citing time-consuming environmental approvals it needs.
By HEATHER IGNATIN and PAT BRENNAN
The Orange County Register

The Foothill South toll road faces such a dense thicket of environmental approvals that it will likely take until 2011 to begin construction, 2 1/2 years later than originally planned, the Transportation Corridor Agencies announced Wednesday.

"We've sat down and taken a hard look and realized we didn't have enough time to do these permits," said Jennifer Seaton, spokeswoman for the agencies. The cost of the $875 million road is expected to rise, although officials did not have any figures. Previously, TCA has said each month the project is delayed adds about $3 million to the price tag because of skyrocketing construction costs.

The proposed 16-mile toll road, which would form a last link in the county's network of toll roads, has provoked controversy and strong opposition among environmental activists and state parks officials.

It would bisect San Onofre State Park, cut through some of the last remaining habitat for endangered species such as the arroyo toad and the Pacific pocket mouse, and has prompted worry among surfers about potential effects on marine sediments.

The toll road agency says it must await a biological opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and obtain approval from a variety of other agencies, including the state Coastal Commission.

When toll road officials met with staff members from the Coastal Commission in December, the commission staff informally outlined a variety of concerns about the agencies' initial environmental impact report on the toll road, said Mark Delaplaine, a coastal analyst on the commission staff.

Among the concerns: whether the toll road agency had properly considered alternative routes; how the road would affect the habitat of tidewater gobies or migration routes for steelhead trout; and possible effects on the highly endangered Pacific pocket mouse, a species that could be near extinction. There are only a few small populations of the species left – at least two of them near the toll road route.

The commission staff is also worried about filling coastal wetlands in order to create pilings for the road near Interstate 5 – currently not an "allowable use" under the state Coastal Act, Delaplaine said.

The fact that the road would loom over the San Onofre State Park campground, as well as slicing through the middle of the park, also was a major concern, he said.

"The campground is a huge issue," he said. "It's almost unconscionable from our perspective – a highway that close to a campground valued mostly for its pristineness. We think it destroys (the park). It becomes unusable. You're not going to want to go there. It's such a breath of fresh air in Southern California; just a priceless resource."

Seaton said TCA will work to address all questions. "We are committed to answering all of the concerns the Commission may raise," she said.

A regional representative for the Sierra Club, which joined other activist groups and the state Parks Foundation in a lawsuit that seeks to block the project, said her group was eager to work with the toll road agency to find other solutions to transportation issues.

"We just feel the delay only confirms what we've been saying all along: The road is a bad idea," said Brittany McKee, an associate regional representative for the Sierra Club. "It costs too much, provides too little traffic relief, and there's too much harm to the environment."

TCA officials disagree.

"Is it OK to have only one route in and out of Orange County? We don't think so. This is a great project because of the traffic relief it will bring," Seaton said.

FOOTHILL SOUTH

Length: 16 miles

Cost: More than $875 million (but expected to rise)

Construction time: 3 years (starts early 2011)

Cars handled per day: Up to 58,000 by 2025

Span: Rancho Santa Margarita to San Clemente

Number of lanes: 4 (two in each direction)

MILESTONES

Before construction can begin, the toll road agency must obtain permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the state Department of Fish and Game. The agency also must obtain approval from the California Coastal Commission. Here are some key dates.

Late March: Submission of required permitting documents to the state Coastal Commission

Late 2007: Preliminary design to finish; a coastal development permit from the Coastal Commission to be requested; appearance before the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board for state certification for water quality compliance.

2010: Financing

2011: Construction could begin.

2014: Construction could end.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2007, 2:59 AM
dragonsky dragonsky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,132
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Great Park to cost $1.1 billion
Many factors weigh into whether the Great Park will cost less or more than the estimate that will be presented to the board today.
By SONYA SMITH
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

IRVINE – Ken Smith's Great Park vision will cost about $1.1 billion.

That total cost is based on 2007 market estimates of what it will take to design and build the park.

The estimates will be presented to the Great Park Corp. board at an 11 a.m. study session today. In the coming months and years, park board members and ultimately the Irvine City Council will decide what gets built when.

"This represents the starting point for determining ultimately what gets built in the park," said Yehudi Gaffen, the park design team's project manager. "We are putting our estimates on the table, so we can start refining the park design."

The cost includes things as big as the canyon and as small as park bathrooms, but excludes a main veterans memorial, botanical gardens and all museums but the aircraft museum. For example, the gardens are expected to be paid for by Great Park Conservancy fundraising efforts.

The $1.1 billion figure could be affected by the market and design changes. For instance, a high demand for concrete in construction-heavy China would mean higher concrete costs in Irvine. And as designers get into the nitty-gritty details of building the park, cost estimates will become more reliable.

So how will officials come up with the money?

The secured funding includes:

•$200 million paid by the Lennar Corp. for the park as required developer fees.

•$201 million paid by the Lennar Corp. for roads, sewers and utilities shared by the Great Park and surrounding Lennar development.

•Redevelopment funding. The Redevelopment Agency can receive up to 1 percent of the property taxes based on what will be developed on the old El Toro base. Current projections say the agency will receive about $200 million in the next 12 years, according to Thom Maxwell-Miller, senior project manager for the design team. That funding may change depending on property values.

Other possible funding sources include:

•Money gained from interest and temporary leases on base property.

•Planners also suggest tapping into local, state and federal grants; private donations; and money for demonstration projects such as a solar-energy farm.

•Public officials will consider advertising, corporate sponsorships and admission fees.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2007, 2:50 AM
dragonsky dragonsky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,132
Mayor seeks to end Disney-Anaheim feud
Pringle urges a compromise that would allow lower-income housing to coexist with hotel-condo uses.
By Dave McKibben, Times Staff Writer
March 2, 2007

Finally stepping into the growing fray between Disney and city officials, Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle is proposing a holistic review of the city's resort district that includes the possibility of workforce housing.

Until now, Pringle has steadfastly supported Disney's position of keeping certain housing out of the tourist-friendly district. But he floated a compromise plan a day after the entertainment giant sued the city to block a 1,500-unit condo-apartment project near Disneyland from being reconsidered by the City Council.

"Is there a global settlement that will allow the city to step forward with its head held high and build toward the future?" said Pringle, who introduced his proposal at Tuesday's council meeting. Also backing the plan was Councilman Harry Sidhu.

"I'd like to move this beyond an angry, frustrating debate where some people lose and some people win," Pringle said.

Disney seemed unmoved by the overture.

"Compromising the Anaheim Resort Area sets a dangerous precedent that would erode its position as the single largest funding sources for city services such as police and fire protection," said Rob Doughty, a spokesman for the Disneyland Resort.

So far, Disney has been unyielding on the housing issue, arguing that injecting it into an area dedicated to tourists and night revelers would be a huge mistake. While Disney has fought the condo and apartment project, which would include 225 low-cost units, it has favored an upscale hotel-condo use.

Disney officials say they have nothing against low-income housing and that a hotel-condo use is much more compatible with tourist activity.

The housing proposal has become a serious irritant between some city leaders and Disney, which historically has had a cozy relationship with Anaheim. The project area is across the street from where Disney has entertained the notion of building a third amusement park.

The housing plan died when the City Council voted 2 to 2 last month. But the project's would-be developer, SunCal Cos., appealed the vote, which might allow the council's fifth and swing vote, Lucille Kring, to break the tie. She abstained from last month's vote after Disney lawyers argued that her plan to open a cheese shop in the area should prevent her from voting.

In trying to play peacemaker, Pringle stopped short of saying he would vote to reopen debate on the 1,500-unit condominium and apartment project. "If we're going to resolve this problem," Pringle said, "we have to look at more projects than just one."

As part of Pringle and Sidhu's proposal for the resort district, the 26-acre parcel on Katella Avenue and Haster Street and a 4.7-acre site on Harbor Boulevard would each be split into two parts: the street-front portion accommodating hotels, with condominiums and apartments serving lower-income residents to the rear of the property. Pringle and Sidhu also suggested resort-only uses on a 6-acre parcel on Katella. They made no recommendation for a 12-acre site on Harbor and Ball Road where 449 residential units are planned.

Once zoning for the four properties is decided, Pringle and Sidhu suggest, a City Charter amendment should be passed, protecting the 2.2-square-mile resort district from future zoning changes unless approved by Anaheim residents.

"What is the big fear?" Pringle asked. "That zoning on one or two properties changes from hotel use to residential? Or the precedent it sets and that other property owners can do the same thing if their site is underperforming? That begins to erode the base of hotels in the resort."

Officials with SunCal called Pringle's proposal "confusing."

"We've not been contacted on the matter, and it's very unusual for it to be discussed at a City Council meeting without any advance notice," said Frank Elfend, a consultant to SunCal. "We are open to dialogue, but we believe his proposal would dramatically reduce the number of affordable units proposed."

Based on the size of the SunCal property, Elfend said Pringle's proposal would allow for 65 low-cost units, less than a third of the 225 that had been planned. Councilwoman Lorri Galloway, who has supported the residential project from the outset, said she wasn't sure how to view the compromise plan.

"It's very premature," she said. "We're in litigation right now. For us to be negotiating something like that, I'm not sure this is the time."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2007, 2:55 AM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is online now
is a loser.
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,326
1 billion on a park instead of, you know, a functioning international airport without a dangerous takeoff pattern and room to grow. That's progress!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2007, 3:05 AM
dragonsky dragonsky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,132
I think it's a bit too expensive. But, anyway... it's OC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2007, 4:46 AM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,195
One billion dollars is a generous deal for 1,700-acres of public space. You have to realize how big it is. The 16-acre park on Grand Avenue for comparison will cost about 60 million. So even 2 to 3 billion for El Toro wouldn't be exorbitant for that much space. So think of it this way, 1 billion dollars to offset sprawl.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2007, 2:59 AM
dragonsky dragonsky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,132
Price tag on O.C.'s Great Park is marked up
Developer now says the urban oasis will cost more than $1 billion.
By David Reyes, Times Staff Writer
March 5, 2007

Orange County's Great Park, envisioned as a dramatic landscape of man-made lakes, streams and a rugged canyon in the middle of suburbia, will cost more than $1 billion to create.

The new estimate, revealed during a park board study session last week, reflects costs of the park's updated design. The original estimate was far less than $1 billion.

The facility, which will be built on the former El Toro Marine Base, would be one of the largest urban parks in the nation.

Planners said the park would take shape in phases with some features appearing within several years, while more dynamic changes to the flat, barren landscape would take decades.

Money for the work is expected to come from fees and taxes from the housing that will be built on the edges of the park.

"That means no new taxes for the citizens of Irvine," said Michael Pinto, a park board member.

While demolition of the former El Toro base continues, a two-year grading project will begin by fall that will dramatically alter the landscape as workers carve out a 21-acre lake, the giant canyon and an amphitheater area.

"We won't have buildings, but in two years we will have a complete park outlined by the grading so people can visit and picnic, hike and go bicycling," Pinto said.

At 1,347 acres, the park will be larger than Manhattan's 843-acre Central Park but smaller than Los Angeles' 4,200-acre Griffith Park.

The new cost estimate reflects the design of Ken Smith, a New York landscape architect, who heads the park's design team.

The Great Park will include a botanical garden, museums and foot bridges, athletic fields, research facilities, wildlife corridor and miles of trails.

Tethered-balloon rides are set to launch this summer, although a nearby mini-park won't be ready for a year, officials said.

The initial phase is expected to cost about $450 million and will feature a visitor center, athletic fields, orchards and a park entrance with fountains, reflective pools, a cafe and a 300-foot-wide rectangular steel gateway.

But Yehudi Gaffen, a design team spokesman, told the park board that planning and cost estimates "will change many, many times" as the master plan evolves.

For example, the amphitheater can have a wide cost range depending on how the structure is built and the number of seats, he said.

Costs per seat can be a low $1,000 or up to $20,000, depending on the sophistication of the theater, Gaffen said. "We assumed a cost of $7,000 per seat with a 10,000-seat theater, so we embedded an estimate of $70 million."

"At least, that's a starting point," he added.

The park will be at the center of a massive, 3,700-acre development by Lennar Corp., a home builder.

Lennar paid the U.S. Navy $649.5 million for the base in 2005 and then transferred land for the park to Irvine.

The developer has approval to build 3,500 homes and about 5 million square feet of commercial and retail space. It recently proposed increasing the number of homes to 9,500, which would have drastically boosted city property taxes, but then shelved that plan.

The park corporation has about $200 million in development fees from Lennar, Gaffen said. In addition, the developer has committed $201 million for roads, sewers and water infrastructure, he said.

"Our big mantra is the park will only be built with available funds … as the funds arrive," he said.

The park's development is not without controversy. After April's decision by the Irvine City Council to assume authority over the park, the Orange County Grand Jury produced a critical review.

In June, the grand jury suggested the ambitious plan could founder if left in the hands of Irvine city leaders rather than a more diverse group of county residents. Irvine city leaders rejected the concern.

The grand jury recommended an elected board chosen from across the county take over the park's development. The land had been turned over to the city after Orange County voters killed plans for an international airport, opting for park zoning.

The park board is made up of the five Irvine council members and four others, including Pinto, the founder and president of the Laguna Canyon Foundation, which led efforts to preserve Laguna Canyon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2007, 6:13 AM
LA/OC/London's Avatar
LA/OC/London LA/OC/London is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Escaped from behind the Orange curtain and have returned to L.A
Posts: 67
I'm still unsure of what to think of this Great Park project. The renderings look nice and all, but it feels like it's going to take forever for anything to actually get built, especially with all the controversy related to its construction. That said, the transit lines planned to go with the park would be a welcome addition to the area
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2007, 12:18 PM
Upward's Avatar
Upward Upward is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,047
I still don't think the Great Park makes sense. It's a poor location, to the south of most of the population. How are people going to get there? The 5?

Turning it into a new airport would have made so much more sense...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2007, 8:10 PM
bjornson's Avatar
bjornson bjornson is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 583
A great park surrounded by surface parking lots!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2007, 9:02 PM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is online now
is a loser.
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjornson View Post
A great park surrounded by surface parking lots!
Pretty much, which is what makes this project so goddamn asinine.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2007, 9:07 PM
LA/OC/London's Avatar
LA/OC/London LA/OC/London is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Escaped from behind the Orange curtain and have returned to L.A
Posts: 67
I totally agree about the airport - I was so annoyed when that plan was shot down, but no really surprised. It's amazing to me what power wealthy orange county suburbanites have. Isn't it bad enough that planes have to do that crazy take off pattern from John Wayne so as to not disturb the beachfront properties below?

Also, that new District at Tustin Legacy project on the corner of jamboree and Barranca looks like another Tustin Marketplace, which isnt really a good thing IMO
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2007, 10:45 PM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is online now
is a loser.
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA/OC/London View Post
I totally agree about the airport - I was so annoyed when that plan was shot down, but no really surprised. It's amazing to me what power wealthy orange county suburbanites have. Isn't it bad enough that planes have to do that crazy take off pattern from John Wayne so as to not disturb the beachfront properties below?
What sucks is that it'll stay that way until a 737, 757 or an A319 stalls while doing the noise abatement takeoff, the pilots can't recover and the goddamn plane crashes into Upper Newport Bay before the FAA finally grows the balls necessary to tell the privileged citizens of Newport Beach that for safety's sake, that takeoff pattern is dangerous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2007, 5:52 AM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,195
All of the south side is a natural land and riparian preserve. The east is agricultural production fields/mountains and the north side is transit oriented development. I don't see how it's surrounded by parking lots.

The county was smart to shoot down the airport. Socal has more airports than almost any another region in the country and almost all of them are under capacity. JWA for instance, has a curfew between 7 and 10pm. We don't need an international airport. We need to get rid of the curfew at JWA. Saying we need another airport is like saying we need another freeway in southern california. It doesn't make sense when there are already so many. But it makes sense to have public space of this magnitude in a place where there exists none.

I, personally, can't help but be excited about it. It's not some developer architect from Irvine. Ken Smith is brilliant. The design is brilliant. And then you add Enrique Norton. It's the most "world-class" undertaking that the county has done since ever.

Last edited by ocman; Mar 7, 2007 at 6:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2007, 6:16 AM
bjornson's Avatar
bjornson bjornson is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 583
How are people actually going to get there though? No single Orange County resident is going to take the bus there. Does OC even have LRT?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2007, 2:22 PM
LosAngelesBeauty's Avatar
LosAngelesBeauty LosAngelesBeauty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,604
It'll be interesting to see how OC intends to find an attractive solution to incorporating parking needs into the design of the park without coming off as completely retarded. I'm not too familiar with the Great Park's scope, but it looks like it'll be pretty damn big. Will people just park on large/expansive parking lots akin to Disneyland and be shuttled to the Great Park in much the same fashion? If so, that'll be pretty tacky.

Nevertheless, it'll be wonderful if the OC can develop a mass transit link between Irvine and this Great Park. It's a pity the CenterLine was killed a few years ago as it could have linked up with the proposed mass transit lines to the park.
__________________
Check out my blog DTLA Rising
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2007, 7:08 PM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is online now
is a loser.
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty View Post
Nevertheless, it'll be wonderful if the OC can develop a mass transit link between Irvine and this Great Park. It's a pity the CenterLine was killed a few years ago as it could have linked up with the proposed mass transit lines to the park.
Look, I hate to be so cynical about where I live, but that would require planning for the future, something the city councils, Board of Supervisors and the Irvine Company sorely seem to be lacking. I would love Orange County to have a light rail line (there's nothing more frustrating than being stuck behind an OCTA bus at a stop), but this county, as of right now, sorely lacks the mindset to supply any improvements to transportation options other than the automobile.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2007, 12:18 AM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty View Post
Nevertheless, it'll be wonderful if the OC can develop a mass transit link between Irvine and this Great Park. It's a pity the CenterLine was killed a few years ago as it could have linked up with the proposed mass transit lines to the park.
What's perfect about the location, besides access from both the 405 and the 5, is that the main transit line, the OC metrolink line, is already there, right ON the park. You can even see in on the map in post #19. And it's not some out of the way, dinky line. It is THE line that everyone has to take if you are going between north OC/LA to south OC/SD and you don't want to take the bus.


The real problem is getting an east-west connection. My guess is that the light rail they are building in post #19 is preparing it for possible future extension to either JWA or South Coast Plaza, which was the missing link in the former Centerline.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2007, 7:35 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorbitch View Post
Wait, didn't Measure M pass? Why are we bitching about not getting enough money from the state?
IMO Orange County doesn't deserve one dime from the state because it's a morally bankrupted count full of too many self-intitled R.W. extremists. OC residents never want to pay for anything out of their own pockets they'd rather steal from others. The rest of the state should say go to hell.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:12 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.