Major airport architect publishes a rousing opinion piece extolling the Burbank terminal plan — but doesn’t disclose that his firm was on their payroll

 

And may be still.

Last week the Valley Business Journal published this wildly enthusiastic outside opinion piece about why we need a new airport terminal in Burbank…

Thumbs Up for New Burbank Terminal

Voters will decide whether to update the airfield’s facilities to comply with security and technological advances.
By Allen W. Berentes
Monday, September 19, 2016

The Hollywood Burbank Airport’s proposed replacement terminal’s fate is in the hands of the city’s estimated 64,000 registered voters. The time has come to make way for a replacement terminal that can deliver needed safety and seismic upgrades, more modern traveler amenities and yet still retain its heritage of convenience and accessibility. With no taxpayer money required to fund the project, long-term sustained economic returns and Burbank’s control over critical decisions, Measure B should be green lighted by voters in November.

A hometown favorite, the airport’s original 1930 terminal is outdated and feels small and overcrowded. It lacks required Federal Aviation Administration safety upgrades and is vulnerable to earthquake damage when the big one hits. After 86 years, the terminal deserves to be brought up to the latest standards for 21st century travelers, while continuing to deliver its traditional convenience for travelers.

Generically thrilled about it all like an interested outsider might be if they’re into big new airports, he then establishes his street cred…

As airport design architects, we understand that every airport renovation project has unique design challenges that must be considered, including differing opinions by those who want change, and by those who don’t. By engaging in a coordinated, collaborative effort, it’s possible to find common ground and move the project forward because the replacement terminal is not an all-or-nothing proposition. It will be the right balance between preservation and modernization for the benefit of the community and airport users.

It goes on of course with all the good news about why a new airport terminal in Burbank is a win-win for everybody and everything, until we come to his biographical blurb:

 

 

Suspecting that both he and his firm might have more than just an academic interest in the subject, we quickly found this from 20 years ago:

 

 

So when was their last commission from the Authority? Twenty years ago?

And if they’re indeed working on the B-6 project right now, why didn’t he tell us of this obvious financial interest in a successful (for them) voter outcome?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Face it, Burbank boosters. There ain’t gonna be any “beloved” stairway boarding at your proposed new dream terminal

 

 

What can you say about this desperate and sleazily expedient airport booster crowd?

Because we’ve been promoting for the last six months the idea that our current Burbank Airport terminal has an old-fashioned stairway boarding procedure that people everywhere apparently just love to death — and thus shouldn’t be torn down in our view, for this and about a dozen other good reasons not to — all of a sudden the local terminal replacement fans are trying to claim that their proposed new facility will be just the same!

This despite the fact that Burbank’s admittedly antiquated (but still quite charming and useful) stairway access has long been reviled by this same exact crowd, and has for years been cited as one of the prime reasons why this “seriously dated” airport of ours needs to be replaced. And pronto.

So don’t believe them. It ain’t gonna happen. You’re gonna get ramp tunnels and walkway accordions just like every other “modern” airport if you vote this dumb plan through. You’re not going to be waiting on the tarmac next to a bunch of metal stairs. Not for $400 million. And because the city’s suddenly discovered “beloved rear boarding” is dependent upon stairways and nothing else, that ain’t gonna happen either.

How many other airports have double accordion or tunnel access into their waiting planes? How many have rear de-planing?

Think about it. You’re being lied to folks. They’re doing whatever it takes to win.

So — if approved — say buh-BYE!
 

 
 
 

What’s there to talk about?

 
From tonight’s special meeting.

They must not want to ask themselves too many of the tough questions contained in the packet:

 

 

The official packet from this Board organization btw only costs $10. There’s no issue there.

(P.S. Why the sudden need for an unscheduled meeting tonight about this topic? Is someone using their lack of formal self-scrutiny against them right now? Like, in a lawsuit? Or OCR complaint? The Toolkit’s only been around for 15 years!)

 

Board Self-Evaluation Toolkit
Toolkits Now Available
CSBA’s Governance Consulting Services has announced the availability of a new governance tool, using the CSBA Professional Governance Standards for School Board Self-Evaluation.
Governance teams are effective when they take collective responsibility for the team’s performance. To do this, they should periodically evaluate their own effectiveness and ability to create a positive organizational culture focused on improved student learning and achievement.
While there are a variety of ways to self-evaluate, perhaps the best criteria for boards to evaluate themselves against are CSBA’s Professional Governance Standards for School Boards. Adopted in 2000 by board members from throughout the state, they set a standard of excellence for board performance.
The board self-evaluation toolkit can be used by boards to assess their collective performance against the Professional Governance Standards. It can be used by boards without outside assistance and is designed to help boards have productive, collegial conversations about what they are doing well and areas in which they would like to improve.
Copies are available for $10 from the Governance Consulting Services. Contact Chris Pruitt at (916) 669-3293 to order.
 

 
 
 

So who’d she confer with on the phony ballot title?

 

Because these local city clerks never just keep their own counsel when it comes to the performance of city business — even though as elected officials they’re very much supposed to — we’re wondering who helped ours come up with the cynical idea of misnaming the November airport ballot vote as “Measure B”?

Apparently that’s what they’re doing. The aim of course is to glom onto the wild popularity of the original 2001 measure in order to help get their new dream-terminal through. It’s all about exploiting the name recognition and good will that’s attached to the other, real one.

Their preliminary advocacy statement even deliberately conflates the two by falsely claiming further protections for the residents if you eagerly vote their way. Just like what the real Measure B did, but won’t any more if this stupid thing goes through. There’ll be no more “referendums” if that terminal plan wins in November.

But what’s in a name, right?

(No? Ask them then why they named it “Measure B” in the first place! Is there a “Measure A” on the same local November ballot?)

Keep in mind that this is the same city clerk who last month tried to evade the reality that not all multi-residential tenants on the Landlord-Tenant Commission are tenant advocates. That’s because some of them are indeed landlords — such as her own daughter, who was one of the applicants!
 
 
 

Boon-doggle

 

How’d you like being stuck in one of these underground passages in the middle of an 8.1?

And with the San Andreas Fault as part of the pathway?

 

 
HSR’s a great idea. Too bad the Highway Lobby is ruining it. It’s now all about making money.

None of the three proposed routes service Canyon Country and Castaic, either — one of LA County’s fastest growing areas. So those folks will have to drive all the way back to Burbank to use it.

Get rid of the tunnels and stretch it to Canyon Country. Then follow the existing highways where there are already public easements and thus less possibility of community disruption.

Anything else is lunacy– or graft.
 
 
 

It’s because he was Black

 
More proof that too many cops are liars and racists:

Tulsa Police Chief Chuck Jordan called the shooting “very difficult to watch” and called for an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Before the video of the incident was made public on Monday, police spokeswoman Jeanne MacKenzie told reporters that Crutcher “refused to follow commands given by the officers.”

She added, “They continued to talk to him. He continued not to listen and follow any commands. As they got closer to the vehicle, he reached inside the vehicle, and at that time there was a Taser deployment, and a short time later there was one shot fired.”

Officer Tyler Turnbough, who is also white, used a stun gun on Crutcher, according to police. The reason one officer drew a stun gun while another drew a handgun against the unarmed man remains unknown at this time, as does why he was considered a threat to officers in the first place.

It’s because he was Black. And then they lied about him.

 

 

Btw. Has Burbank ever released any police video to the media?

Ever?

We can’t recall a time that they have. It’s always outside news shots we see of incidents.

Oh, and then there was this:

With three officers standing in a line behind Terence Crutcher and at least one more officer standing several feet behind them, the video shows, his body falls to the pavement.

Blood pools around his body. Roughly two minutes appear to pass before anyone checks on him.

Arrogant murderers.
 
 
 

That’s exactly what they did

 

Rogers is lying again here, in the last sentence:

 

 

As we’ve pointed out many times, even Golonski agrees with us on this one. Instead of just voting to put the whole deal on the ballot for the voters to decide and then staying out of it — like what 2001’s Measure B calls for — the council instead voted to “approve” the B-6 Agreement first and then put it in front of the voters for a “final approval.”

It’s going to be a “referendum” on their previous action, not a voter initiative put on the ballot by the council. That’s what one is in California, and it’s why Albano is calling it that. A referendum.

Who does Rogers think he’s kidding, capital letters or not?

 

 

Where is this in the Agreement?

 

Another lie. Rogers is clearly making up this first sentence from the council majority’s upcoming “argument” in favor of a new terminal:

 

 

Bullshit. The only reason this is coming up now about the “beloved” boarding procedure is because we’ve been harping about it repeatedly here as an example of a great feature of the classic current facility and why it shouldn’t be torn down.

This has NEVER come up before in the many discussions over the planned terminal, and it’s not spelled out in the Agreement.

So Rogers is full of crap. He got this from us here to use as a phony selling point. He’s also gone on record in the past in his old Leader columns as expressing contempt and dislike for this 1940s style Casablanca method of getting off an aeroplane as reason why we need a new facility. For chrissakes, he’s made fun of it!

Beloved, hell. You’re full of shit Will. You hate it, and it’ll never happen. And like the FAA would even go for it to begin with?
 
 
 

Council majority lies right out of the gate: upcoming vote is not “Yes on Measure B,” it’s yes on a new terminal

 

Will Rogers at his “unofficial” website last week gave everyone a preview of the council majority’s “pro” terminal argument in the ballot statement, and right off the bat it’s a total and complete misrepresentation. Which means of course that he must have written it…

Measure B was approved by Burbank voters 15 years ago. So why this title now?

 

 

Is this what they’re calling it now? What a phony ploy. This is NOT a vote on Measure B — it’s a vote on a big new airport terminal. Measure B already won … in 2001.

Why don’t they tell it like it is? The airport proponents are clearly trying to gloss over what’s really going on here by shading the actual title of this upcoming November event. A, “VOTE YES FOR A NEW AIRPORT TERMINAL!” ballot caption sounds much worse than what they’re clumsily trying to be deceptive about now.***

Here’s some of his content:

Do not be fooled: Measure B does not expand the airport. Measure B gives Burbank greater protections and power to stop airport expansion.
With Measure B approval, just two Burbank airport commissioners can BLOCK any effort to change the voluntary curfew, increase size, gates or other forms of expansion. These can be blocked even if every Glendale and Pasadena commissioner votes to expand!

Again, Measure B? The ELECTION itself is the result of the old Measure B; Measure B is not this current voter issue.  Those old protectionist arguments for the old Measure B are being used to falsely prop up this current pro-terminal “referendum” effort in November. And after the vote is over it’s all in the past tense if this stupid plan goes through, too. There are no more voter protections for the residents of Burbank in the future, aside from recalling any future expansionist council members. Which of course there will be.

This is Burbank we’re talking about. Just “two Burbank airport commissioners” supposedly against a future expansion could easily turn into two votes for. And that’s all it needs.

And btw, it IS an expanded terminal being planned for right now. Considerably larger in fact than what we’ve got. So that’s another blatant lie he’s got going on there.

These airport proponents are investing so much bad karma into this deal now, aren’t they? No good ever comes of it.

 

*** Too bad we don’t have any money. This clearly false representation of the ballot measure itself could be enough on its own to get it tossed by the courts if it really gets printed like this. Because it’s not what it is, a vote on “Measure B.”

The city can’t call the vote something it’s not. But this would cost $$$$ to fight…
 
 
 

Trump Jr. uses current racist alt-right imagery to make a phony point about refugees

 

This image says it all. Let's end the politically correct agenda that doesn't put America first. #trump2016 pic.twitter.com/9fHwog7ssN

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) September 19, 2016

 

It does say it all. The use of “Skittles” is not just some weird example plucked from the aether. It’s what that innocent Black kid in Florida was holding when tough guy George Zimmerman shot him a few years ago. The nutcase racists are now using it for fun as a meme.

What sacks of shit this crowd is. Hello, Republicans!

But not all…

Exclusive: George H.W. Bush to vote for Hillary https://t.co/AAKfwlDz2v

— POLITICO (@politico) September 20, 2016

When I saw this, I googled "skittles racist memes" because I figured skittles was a crazy dogwhistle. I was right: https://t.co/8WgxPRTBef https://t.co/OYVbxm0dhT

— Max Temkin (@MaxTemkin) September 20, 2016

 

City Clerk still wants to find a way to disqualify late ballots

 

Even though state law now requires the mandatory counting of mail ballots received up to three days after election day — and requires city codes to be adjusted as such — ours is still balking.

The city council’s being asked to approve the big change tomorrow night, but with these exceptions:

 

 

(2) of course contradicts the new allowance. If it’s already arrived in the mail postmarked or not, and you have no reason to believe that it was postmarked after, why make its cutoff date on election day rather than three days later like the rest?

There’s no good reason for this limitation, just like there’s no good reason why someone else can no longer personally drop off grandma’s ballot if need be. So why does the city clerk want THIS bad change as well?

She clearly wants it lined out of the Code. And what’s the deal with omitting the “into the ballot box” drop-off requirement in that last line of the same old rule?

Where else now will it be going? Into someone’s hands?

The council needs to reject these two bad ideas tomorrow night. No justification for them.

The Clerk also wants to raise to $2,000 from $1,000 the lower limit for reporting individual contributions to council races per the new FPPC allowance. No way.

And btw, why is she getting involved in this kind of political decision? Making policy vis a vis campaign rules is NOT HER JOB. When did the council ever discuss this change? The FPPC now allows the raise, but this “charter” city can still do what it wants.

The Clerk also wants to change the threshold limit for campaign committees from $1,000 to $2,000, which is not an FPPC issue. Why?

 
 
 

Don’t miss the Emmy’s tonight

 
Yeah. Don’t.

 

 

Etc.
 

 
He died 50 years ago from last Saturday in a hunting lodge accident.
 
 
 

When did it turn from a phone to a “video camera”?

 

The new version, in today’s Leader:

According to the claim, the city used to have a policy banning male employees from the aquatic center’s towel room, which is connected to the women’s locker room by a window that’s covered by a “mere piece of plastic.” The policy, however, was “inexplicably” changed this year to allow male employees to go in and out.

Because of the change, Montano was able to hide the video camera, which captured women and girls changing inside the locker room, the claim stated.

The original version, told in admirable detail by Craig at MyBurbank:

Burbank Police have arrested a Burbank Park & Recreation employee after he was caught shooting cell phone video in the lifeguards locker room at Verdugo Pool.

The man, identified as a current lifeguard at the pool, was caught by a staff  member with the phone earlier in the day.  After the staff member reported the incident to their supervisor, the man was confronted by the supervisor and his phone was confiscated which had the video that he shot still on it.

According to a source that could not be identified, the employee has been with the City as a employee since 2009 and was promoted to lifeguard in 2010.

Burbank police were asked about the incident and only confirmed that an arrest had been made and did not identify the employee and will be putting out a statement at a later time.

The employee was put immediately on paid leave with the City Attorney’s Office is aggressively pursuing termination and charges.

It was not immediately known if the person being taped was a member of the public or a staff member.

There is also a possibility that the phone might have been placed in public locker rooms.

Which version are they going to tell the jury? A hidden “video camera” of course sounds so much sleazier and insidious and evil-y conspiratorial.

But of course too there won’t be a trial.  The unaffordably high bail being set for this kid means that he’ll have to plead out on the charges, rather than wait in jail for the two or three years it’ll take for a public defender to ready his case for a judge or jury. That’s whether he’s guilty of everything they’re saying or not.

This is the kind of justice poor people get these days btw, and it’s a great deal for the prosecutors. They always get to win. You want a trial? OK, be sure to tell the warden to bring you out in three years.

Isn’t there a bit of a conflict of interest too for this guy’s employer to be the one who’s also prosecuting him? Shouldn’t the DA be doing it instead?

There’s also this blatant attorney-client conflict. The city is now in the position of representing both sides of the allegation:

The Burbank city attorney’s office, which is responsible for reviewing Gambale’s claim, is also prosecuting Montano’s pending criminal case. Montano is due in court next month.

If they’re doing their job for the public in good faith, they have to defend the allegations against the kid at the same time they’re prosecuting him for them. How is that fair for anyone, let alone justice?

And again, when did it become a video camera? Was MyBurbank originally lied to? Or is the Leader just trying to overly sensationalize the case by making it sound like the kid had standing cameras down there running all the time?

They seem to be big on this type of sex stuff lately. Headline news, and without much scrutiny of the details. Kudos to MyBurbank for doing a much better and more honest job of reporting.

 

 

 

 

 

President Trump, let’s bring back the Bellamy Salute!

 

Since the Pledge has been in the news lately, let’s all remember how it used to be done.

 

 

They didn’t have God in it back then, so that’s a minus.

 

 

 

No, there’s no racism at all to these Trump supporters

 

How dare you liberals be so bigoted to claim such a thing!

 

Jesus H. Christ. pic.twitter.com/D6gHGffcBa

— digby (@digby56) September 16, 2016

 

 

What race-baiting?

 

He only wants to know…

 

 
After all, how many Black people go to Harvard?
 
 

You can always dream

 

 

We’ve heard some are even born in America.

 

Trump supporter on CNN right now. Obama was "probably" born in the US. pic.twitter.com/JVP8MzHInN

— John Aravosis (@aravosis) September 16, 2016

 

Ought-oh!

 

The blue curtain at the back of the ballroom in the Trump hotel just collapsed, taking down some American flags with it.

— Olivia Nuzzi (@Olivianuzzi) September 16, 2016

 
 
 

No wonder Chantal Akerman called it all in

 

 

Not to be confused with this:

 

 

Or this:

 

 

Or this:

 

 

Or this:

 

 

Rule No.1: Pick your title carefully. Unless you’re a well-practiced genius, the first thing off the top of your head is not going to be it. If in doubt, Google.

Rule No.2: Young people should avoid making films about old people. The reason? There are about 10,000,000 of them.

And just asking– why does a short film have a trailer? How silly can you get?
 

 

Notice how with video you can always see the wheels turning behind the performers’ eyes? Close-ups should always be avoided lest it look like a soap opera.

And, if you can’t afford real film, dirty the actors up and don’t let them get any sleep. Then keep them away from the camera. It’ll look more like a real movie.

Great advice, yes. But, it will take an immense amount of ego sublimation before most “filmmaker” people will follow it, and that’s not why these people are in it.

(Yes, we noticed it. Best female short film.)