People are getting so screwed now

From the Yahoo “answers” site.

This one is aimed at those people (like the Leader editor) who think that we’re delusional (or worse) for always talking about a better Burbank that apparently never existed. That it’s all in our heads.

Like, how would they know anyway?

What was the cost of living like in the 70′s?

I’m watching Three’s Company – in one segment Jack said “this is the 70′s” so the show dates from the 70′s In the same show Jack says his dad’s income is $6,000/year so obviously that’s more than enough to qualify his dad as a guarantor for a loan he was trying to get. Also, their rent in Santa Monica for a nice 2 bedroom apartment is $300/month (each of the 3 roommates pay $100/month to Mr. Roper). How much did other things cost back then?
Update : actually that episode was from 1977…

Among the answers was this. Sound familiar?

Marilyn T answered 4 years ago

Back in 1975 I shared a two bedroom apt. in Burbank, Cal with my older sister.
Our rent was $180 a month plus utilities.
We never seemed to have any problems coming up with the rent money.
 I was 18 and working as a car hop at Bob’s Big Boy restaurant near the Burbank movie studios. I got really good tips back then since most of our customers were well to do people. Sometimes stars such as Mickey Rooney would stop for a quick bite on their lunch breaks from the studios. My average tips per day were between $17. and $45. plus $1.10 per hour pay.I know a cup of coffee was 40 cents and customers very often left a dollar for a tip, people were more generous it seems.
I know I could afford just about anything I wanted to buy with just saving a few days worth of tips.
 My sister was a legal secretary and also made alright money.
Seems life was much easier back then.
I met my husband when I was 19, he was working in a job shop, proto type machine work for a German man. They did mostly areospace parts for the military,he brought home over $300. per week.My husbands friends worked in the shipyards in San Perdo, Cal as welders, they brought home about $150. per week.
I thought my husband was rich when I met him!

Marilyn must have been living near that Bob’s in Toluca Lake, because she could have gotten a much better deal in other parts of town back then.

Look at it this way. In 1974 the minimum wage for the junkiest job you could find was $2 an hour. The average cheap rent for a 0ne-bedrooom apartment in Burbank was between $90 and $125 at the time. If you wanted to live above Glenoaks it was a little more. Houses in Burbank rented for between $175 and $250 a month.

Which means …

a) Even with the worst job around you could still get a decent apartment in Burbank for about 1 1/2 weeks salary. By yourself.

b) You could finance a decent new car for $60 – $75 a month, and

c) Car insurance on the same was about $40 – 50 a month.

In other words, the “minimum wage” in this country used to mean the least you needed to earn to get by. Now it means nothing.

Of course, people back then were very undeserving to have gotten such a good deal. Imagine paying entry level jobs such exorbitant salaries!

Oh, and in 1978 you could also buy Bob Marley tickets at the Starlight Bowl for $9.

Pissed, aren’t you? And fuck you to the establishment critics who never know what the hell they’re talking about around here. Their nightmare vision for the rest of us must be battled every day.

Get up, stand up…

 

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

“Shakey’s made a deal with the bank…”

Right, the bank doesn’t make pizzas, etc. And there’s a reason for that. Just like bureaucrats and their hand-picked, small town committee members shouldn’t be making artistic decisions for the rest of us.

It took 250 submissions to get this?

 

Dewey

 

THANK YOU to everyone who submitted their design in our search for a library mascot. With over 250 submissions, it was a very difficult choice, but the final decision was made, and we will meet our new mascot on Wednesday, May 21, 2014 at the Buena Vista Branch Library.

CONGRATULATIONS to CHRIS RUNCO - local Burbank artist, cartoonist, and art director – and the WINNER of our mascot design contest! You can meet Chris at Shakey’s this Friday when Burbank Neighborhood Leadership Program (BNLP) hosts a fundraiser. Download the flyer below! 

OK, first of all, why Buena Vista?

Isn’t the main branch on Glenoaks? Granted, that’s not where most the White people live any more, but come on.

About the mascot itself … dragons are about circa 1942 when it comes to kids’ interests; this new century won’t even know what the Dewey Decimal System is, or care; and the drawing style is clotted and derivative.

Here’s a much better one for their Library of the Future:

Clipart-Picture-Of-A-Desktop-Computer-Mascot-Cartoon-Character-Looking-Through-A-Magnifying-Glass-10247843

Kids, we’re learning about you too!

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Drayman gets to avoid jail by staying in the same condo that the money he embezzled helped pay for

Talk about justice. The News Press has a fun photo of where John Drayman gets to stay now instead of county jail.

 

 

Snarky, but they don’t go far enough as usual. Like, why does Drayman even still HAVE this nice place to retire to?

Guess it pays to embezzle.

7 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Is there any bigger sleazeball than Dave Golonski?

It’s official. DG has indeed jumped the shark. He still won’t tell us why Dr. Gordon was “ethically compromised” when he did his job as a councilperson and dealt with Burbank’s Section 8 program two weeks ago. But Golonski did say a lot about his old discredited claim that Gordon did something wrong when he voted for “vision care” for city employees, a bogus issue then and now.

It’s also fun to hear the former mayor talk about Burbank’s tree-trimming program and its great expense. So how long was he on the council? Did he ever vote against contracting much of it out? Didn’t think so.

And pension reform? Same problem for DG.

Something’s not connecting in this guy’s brain. Talk about a complete lack of self-awareness. It’s become embarrassing. Someone needs to tell him two things:

1) Stay home for a while and stop being such an obvious sore loser, and,

2) Dr. Gordon is not running in the next election. He ran in the last one, and he won.

30 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

There will always be a Burbank

 

So what do you want. The Kronos Quartet?

 

Tonight the council will be talking about improving the venue. How about the acts?

From long ago and far away…

 

 

(click to enlarge)

1978-07-22c

 

Yeah, fuck you too Burbank. You’re a disaster.

What a decline over the years. And you don’t even have enough sense to know, you fucking dipshits. This is the woulda, coulda, didn’t town.

Read it and weep:

We drove down to L.A. the following weekend to catch Bob at the Starlight Amphitheater in Burbank. It was a nightmare getting inside, because they had only one entrance, and they were searching everyone. We missed the Imperials’ opening act, but found our seats just as Bob was introduced. The show was similar to that in Cruz – at least until the encores. Later we learned that backstage that night stars like Mick Jagger and Diana Ross were milling about, trying to wangle an invitation to come on stage with Bob, but he was having none of that. Imagine our surprise then, as Bob began to sing his final encore of “Get Up Stand Up” when loping across the stage with massive strides, Peter Tosh appeared, just at the part of the song where he came in on the record. As he reached for the microphone, Bob suddenly caught sight of him, and he broke out into the most massive grin I’ve ever seen, Grand Canyon-wide with delighted surprise. Peter never missed a beat, and the two hugged each other and acted as if they’d never been separated. It was the only time they would ever appear together outside of Jamaica after the breakup of the group, a piece of history that, sadly, most people in the audience didn’t realize was happening. Afterwards, I encountered Peter walking through the crowd. The next day he was opening for the Rolling Stones in the Anaheim Stadium, and I eagerly assured him that we, like many many others, would be there basically just to see him, and that he had a whole heap of fans in L.A.

7 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

How does “public outreach” mean allowing the mayor to help design the Airport replacements?

Per request of both Frutos and Gordon, staff tonight is going to be forced to explain why they’ve gone about and secretly negotiated with the Airport Authority as much as they have about what to do with this so-called “Opportunity Site” and replacement terminal.

Thanks to these two council members, a huge quantity of emails and other documents have been uncovered that extend directly back into the Golonski years. Gordon wants to highlight several of them in a slide show tonight, the details of which are right here.

Aside from the obvious chumminess– and the attempt to keep things underwraps by placing the city attorney in charge of the lead discussions rather than the CM — we don’t know what to make of it all. There’s an awful confident “done deal” tone to some of the memos and comments, as if the council and public’s entry into the proceedings will be a mere formality some time later.

The vagueness too of most of the proposed ideas is baffling. Exactly what are they planning down there when it comes to specifics?

One of the funniest documents involves a planned “groundbreaking ceremony” for a project that doesn’t even exist yet in the particulars. Supposedly. Unless of course it does and they don’t want to talk about it.

1. May 21, 2013 / From David Kriske to Mark Hardyment / Subject: Metro Hollywood Way Ground Breaking: “…how can we have a groundbreaking ceremony for a project that has not even started design yet?”

A good question. The response for tonight?

QUESTIONS: What is the answer to this question posed by David Kriske who is well versed in City transportation issues? And the same reasoning carries over to the proposed project for the former B-6 property Opportunity Site…How can we process an EIR for a project “concept” that has not even started design yet?

Responses: Although Mr. Kriske’s question appears to be a bit rhetorical, a groundbreaking is a celebration for a certain milestone of a project and therefore does not need to occur after design is complete. This was a good opportunity to bring
attention to Metrolink, the Airport, the partnership with Metro and namely, Supervisor Antonovich for being such a big supporter of transit in our region. The timing was appropriate to coincide with Supervisor Antonovich’s last month as Chair of Metro. It is not unusual to process an EIR for an envelope of development potential without specifics on design. The City has done this in the past with other projects.

Envelope,  concept, potential, opportunity. They learn these meaningless words at special schools and then get paid big bucks to use them. And apparently in secret, or at least away from most of the council members who really should be brought in on these things.

The second funny part is how Gabel-Luddy was allowed to enter into the design phase of this Airport project-that-does-not-as-yet-exist:

14. October 9, 2013 / From Joy Forbes to Amy Albano, Carol Barrett, Patrick Prescott, et al.: Subject: Airport Design Comments – “I met briefly with Emily Monday at her request. She sat down with Sue looking over the Opportunity Site and Terminal designs and had several recommendations and Sue suggested she let me know. Below are some general bullet points of her suggestions and attached is as sketch she drew of her proposal.”

. 15. The terminal should have a main central tower structure…
. 16. The Airport parking structure might be bent in the middle of both sections
. 17. We should look at the Portland model or maybe the Savannah Town Plan…
. 18. She doesn’t support the signature office tower…
. 19. She would support a hotel tower, however – 8-10 stories for example…
. 20. “In the flex area, consider another ‘campus’ like set-up with another usable open space (MSN model)
. 21. Supports the double row of “street” trees, something with great canopy. Are there any limitations of tree size given the soil issues?
. 22. Sketch of Mayor Gabel-Luddy’s Airport design proposal.

Our own Frank Lloyd Luddy. Where did all this detail come from? That’s a lot of specifics for just an envelope.

Hmmm. Maybe there’s more going on down there than we know…?

2. August 12, 2013 / From Patrick Prescott to Dan Feger: “I got a call from a broker who has a client interested in 100 acres in Southern California for a major retail/entertainment project.”

3. August 12, 2013 / From Dan Feger to Patrick Prescott: “You will be getting many calls like this in the future. We’ll handle it from here. We will outreach to her.”

Are they just phone calls? Or do they turn into proposals?

But, success was at hand at last– although about what we’re never told. Maybe we’ll hear about it tonight.

30A. November 15, 2013 / From Amy Albano to Joy Forbes, Patrick Prescott, Carol Barrett, Mary Riley, Peter Kirsch / Subject: Thank you: “Last night was a watershed moment for the City and Authority and it would not have happened without your efforts. This is especially true since last April when we decided that we had to race to the start line, squeezing in a visioning process into a few short months. The finish line is still away off, but I digress. I truly appreciate the heart and soul the effort you put into this endeavor. We have sat through very long, at times heated, at times boring, at times entertaining (I know Amy vs. Dan), etc…meetings to get to last night. But we kept our eyes on the prize and we did it. In all seriousness, we rock!”

What’s this prize?

And why the special trip to Los Angeles by F. Lloyd Luddy, if this is just about “visioning”?

28. November 14, 2013 / From Amy Albano to Lyndsey Kramer, Mark Scott, Joy Forbes, Mayor Gabel-Luddy / Subject: Power Point from Authority / High Importance: “The Mayor told me that you forwarded a power point for her review from
the Airport Authority for her LA meeting on Monday. She needs to send feedback by the Authority by tomorrow. Would you please forward to myself, City Manager and Joy Forbes per the Mayor so that we can provide her our feedback directly.”

Is EGL the point person now for big outside developers? Someone the outsiders think they can do business with? Figures.

28 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

This is news?

 

We have the planning board tonight debating the future of design standards for Burbank’s R1 neighborhoods. It’s a real first.

But this is the chosen news for the local newspaper:

Man arrested for allegedly filming another man urinating in airport restroom

 

No mention of the PB.

At least the Columbia J-School grad is running a Twitter roundup on the meeting. But still. No articles ahead of time?

Who’s that editor again?

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Burbank “Hills” residents want to be compensated millions of dollars for …. exactly what?

Those poor Burbank Castleman residents. They were promised gates (supposedly), and because of this (the realtors have been falsely claiming for years that this is a “gated community”) they apparently want the rest of us to pay them back “millions of dollars” because of — just what? — that they might not get what they want tonight.

That’s right. This demand got cheers from the crowd.

What a horrible group of people those are down there tonight. Such an overprivileged band of pricks. These people are not real Burbankers, and who the hell cares what they were falsely “promised” by the shady realtors who sold them these overpriced monstrosities in the first place?

We are not an elitist community? Of course you are. Go to hell. You want a real measure of “the communities” feeling about this issue? Put it on the ballot. You’ll lose, you clueless fuckers.

And btw, Christopher “John” Rizzotti can kiss his arrogantly dishonest ass goodbye after tonight. He has no legal business weighing in on an official city issue that will end up feathering his own realtor ass (at this very moment he’s trying to sell many of those private-drive houses on his own web site!)  especially when doing so helps to sustain a ridiculously (and suspiciously) small quorum tonight.

R’s now indicating that he’s in favor of staff’s opinion, and that the gates could be invasive to nearby homeowners. But still. He has no business weighing in on this issue. He’s made himself too deeply involved in the neighborhood as an official sales representative. It’s one of the many problems that a real estate agent can have when it comes to actual governing. He needs to learn this.

The rest of the PB is against the gates, and the crowd of course is going nuts. Too bad. Oh, the moans and groans! But locked gates are clearly not in our city’s interest, and they do indeed violate our current Burbank2035 standards. Nobody wants them.

 

 

 

13 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

No, no. There’s no conflict of interest (updated)

Where’s the very moral Dave Golonski when we need him? Wonder if he’ll show up at the planning board meeting tomorrow night demanding an answer?

To be fair, maybe Rizzotti will recuse himself. Doesn’t he kind of have to?

(click each image to enlarge)

 

FireShot Screen Capture #008 - '3303 Castleman Lane Burbank CA 91504 R I Z Z O T T I real estate' - rizzotti_idxbroker_com_idx_details_listing_a002_SR14013351_3303-Castleman-Lane-Burbank-CA

 

and this…

 

rizzotti 2

 

and this…

 

rizzotti 3

 

and this…

 

rizzottie 3

 

There are more. We stopped counting because it was getting late.

 

**UPDATE**

It’s fun watching the Rizzotti supporters try to turn this into a Dr. Gordon issue. Their analogies are truly pathetic. And Gordon recuses himself all the time!

Tonight will be the test. Rizzotti is clearly trying to sell these many “Castleman” properties by putting them on his web site. And yet, he’s on a planning board that will be deliberating the fate of a couple of “locked gates” which would clearly enhance the economic value of these same properties if approved.

If that’s not a serious conflict of interest then nothing ever could be. Just the ethical ramifications alone are mindboggling. Like, who is he representing tonight?

No doubt Albano has already told him that he cannot weigh in on this issue as a planning board member. It’s a clear conflict of interest that he himself created when he started pimping for these many private-road properties.  And if he’s made recent sales up there, or will in the future, then whoa Nellie!

And if Albano hasn’t told him to leave the meeting– if she and staff think that this is perfectly OK tonight, this weighing in on Castleman  — then the critics are right. We have an ethically compromised group of people running this town. Just blind as bats.

Which means anything is possible with them.

P.S. Here’s a good question we’d love to see asked tonight:

How many of these Castleman neighborhood properties has Rizzotti shown lately to potential buyers?

14 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Rizzotti’s on the spot now

private-gated-communities-6

 

Tomorrow night’s planning board meeting is worth a tune in just to see how council candidate Christoper Rizzotti will be handling the heat.

There are two big issues on the agenda. The first is that some Bollywood actress is trying to get those stupid locked gates installed up at the Castleman Estates in the hills, or whatever it is they’re calling that neighborhood now. For those who don’t know, an ancient and essentially corrupt city council with no class and no taste once allowed an outside developer named Castleman to build his own version of the Monterey Hills in Burbank complete with private streets.

Along with the Mall and the AMC theater chain it was part of their 1980′s vision of the future. Burbank as Hacienda Heights. Obviously Ayers Way wasn’t classy enough for them.

Besides the three-story mansions that look like they were deliberately plucked out of some suburb of Baghdad for inspiration, the plan was also that the exclusivity of the neighborhood was so apparent to people that they’d also get the privilege of having a fancy gated-access scheme to make the rest of us feel jealous but not able to wander their streets.

This was too much for the new council that had replaced the old one a few years later, even though locked gates had already been pre-approved. The neighbors too didn’t like the idea of being sectioned off because they were considered to be less desirable to the mostly international set that was also confused about where they were living themselves — although unlike the Starlight Hills folks who thought that they were still in regular Burbank, the new arrivals were uncertain if it was Bradbury or Basra. So the neighbors won and the gates never got installed.

Which hasn’t stopped some of the fancy residents who live within this still un-gated community from continuing to pursue the issue like it was a bad debt from the old country. Every few years they show up to get those “privacy” gates they think they’re owed by the rest of us. And their excuse is usually something like, “How come just anyone can drive on our streets?”

Or, “The horror of it all, and those mountain lions…” Or whatever else they think might work– we’re betting the mountain lion thing will be sure to come up this time.

Nothing’s worked yet, but their last demand in 2010 almost succeeded. Every city department thought it was a fine idea to let them put in private gates at last, but the council and its many critics had other ideas. Mostly the critics.

And so we have Monday night for a possible turnaround. This time staff is not so amenable to the idea of installing gates because it conflicts with the spirit of Burbank2035 (or something like that), and they’re recommending a rejection of the Bollywooder’s request.

Which takes us to Realtor Rizzotti. He’ll be on the hot seat because it’s the first time he’s going to be in the middle of a controversial issue that doesn’t involve dogs and MILFs. Like, what is his position on locked gates in Burbank? Is he a property rights guy, as these local realtors usually are, or does he instead respect the needs and desires of the surrounding community?

This and the related design issue will be a good test of his convictions, if indeed he has any. They’re both no-brainers. Nobody wants locked gates in Burbank except the international refugees with dubious backgrounds who should consider themselves lucky that they ever got Green Cards in the first place. By the same token, they’re also the only ones who want to build those cement mansions on Palm and Orange Grove and Andover that the recent community survey shows have a 90 percent hate-rate from the rest of us, and which should be listened to by the planning board.

So what’s it going to be for Rizzotti? Locked gates, private streets, 6,000 square-foot cement palaces with cathedral ceilings? Or strong rules against this crap?

Like we said, it’s a no-brainer. Strong design rules for R1 housing, and no locked gates. We’ll be watching.

8 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized