Memorial Day! Which means it’s time again to salute our Vets!

Enough said.

(Btw, why isn’t Burbank holding its ceremony at what used to be called Pacific Park, back before they renamed it after that forgotten war hero that everyone suddenly started cheering about?

Since the police mess has gone away guess they all forgot about both him and it again!)

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Achtung!

Where did this perverse mentality come from? And when will it end?

Although it took some hemming and hawing, Burbank Unified Supt. Jan Britz on Friday ultimately came to the right conclusion: It’s OK to alter policy and allow military sashes to be worn over graduation gowns by students who have enlisted in the armed forces…

We understand school administrators’ concerns that it could be a slippery slope to allow adornments not previously approved, but we would posit that the military is not the same as other organizations. As long as it can be confirmed a student has enlisted in a branch of the armed forces, the sashes should be allowed at Burbank’s graduation ceremonies going forward.

Sorry, there’s no good reason why the military (of all things) deserves to have a special privilege carved out for them on grad night. Where are we, Pearl Harbor? And it’s total cant for anyone to suggest otherwise.

But those Leader staff employees (and others) who indeed think so should keep in mind that the U.S. reserve forces take applicants way past the age of 30, even up to the early 50s. If they really feel that being in the military is so special then they should sign up for it themselves, all of them, rather than just play the pious hypocrite role.

This is an easy one. Let’s let all kids celebrate their futures onstage then, OK? Not just the wannabee killers and hard-asses.

Military sashes. You’ve got to be fucking kidding.

 

welcome to burbank

 

 

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Happy Memorial Day Weekend

 
Let’s cut the crap.

 

 

 

9 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Is this chick for real?


We have got to have the most stupid school board around. Or maybe it’s the town itself:

A 17-year old Burroughs High senior received tentative approval to wear a U.S. Air Force sash during her graduation, a reversal of district policy that forbids wearing honors unrelated to school during the ceremony.

Earlier this week, Frankie Baker, who will attend basic training later this year, approached the Burbank school board to appeal a denial by administrators for her to wear the blue-and-white stole.

“I’m standing up for what I believe in and standing up for what I believe is the right thing to do,” she said. “What would you do if you were so proud of yourself for accomplishing your dream but someone tried taking that pride away? I am no longer a kid anymore so why strip my freedom of expression?”

The dream of enlisting in the military, yes. And so her dream is better than the other students’ and thus she deserves special privileges. Got it.

Where did this inane person come from, FOX News Land? It’s an absolutely crazy definition of where “pride” comes from too. Worse, she’s going into the fucking military and talking about her freedom of expression and not wanting to follow the rules? She is SO full of crap.

Superintendent Jan Britz made some great points last week about why this was a good and worthy policy for graduation night. And now the school board undercuts her and makes her look like the fool. She must be very glad she’s leaving…

Hey though. So it’s OK now for a — say– UC Santa Cruz enrollee to wear a banana slug sash to graduation.

Right?

No?

Why not? You made a damn exception for the other one.

Oh, and of course, the sanctimony:

Her father, Kurt Baker, also spoke in support of his daughter.

“Burbank cannot ignore the very institutions that provide them their freedoms or the young men and women who make the sacrifices on their behalf,” he said. “We as a community must recognize and show due appreciation for young people among us who answer the call to protect our freedoms, the nation and individuals.”

Oh, go fuck yourself. She’s going into the damn Air Force for chrissakes. Being a crossing guard is more dangerous. And nobody called her.

What a phony, grandstanding, self-promotional bitch — ridiculously named the same as an infamous 19th-century murderer, btw — and one who obviously has no concept at all of what authority is about, let alone the military. Where does she think she’s going in a few months? Let’s see how long she lasts.

Right now though, the rest of these JBHS and BHS graduates should go out of their way to wear their own sashes announcing anything they want to about life ahead. She’s wonderfully helped to protect their “freedom” on that evening.

(Wouldn’t it be great if the BUSD tried to throw them out of the ceremony for doing so? They will, too.)

Now this is true freedom of expression, high school style:

 

070316_banner_hmed_6p.grid-6x2

 

 

8 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Does anyone really think that Burbank is going to establish its own minimum wage?

Although Dan Evans made some good points last week about the need for keeping up with Los Angeles — at least ethically — he obviously doesn’t know Burbank very well. Or Glendale, for that matter.

Rather than being ashamed about the possibility of becoming a haven for poverty level wages, the people who run this town will just use it as another promotional calling card about how wonderful we are. “Come to Burbank!” they’ll say. “We’re still a great place to do business!”

Here’s why raising the minimum wage in Burbank by Burbank will never happen.

In about six months to a year it will be Will Rogers who’ll first broach this issue to the rest of the council in public. Good Democrat that he is, it certainly won’t be anyone else. But because the topic had already come up much earlier in generic form and on the news, both our CM and CA will be at the ready with their comeback, which will take some form of the following:

“Although council you do of course have the legal right to do something like this, we must keep in mind the effect it will have on several of our upcoming or just-approved development agreements that involve a potentially large number of new employees coming into our local workforce…

“Remember, those businesses that have agreed to or already entered into private agreements to come onto (B6 or Downtown Burbank or the new Talaria complex) only did so because of the understanding that their personnel and administrative costs were going to be based upon X, Y, and Z. But now — with your proposal to boost the mandatory minimum wage by over 50 percent in less than five years — you have in effect seriously altered the underlying business and regulatory conditions that these valuable employers agreed to in advance.

“By doing so council there is the strong possibility that you will thus be subjecting the City of Burbank to substantial legal culpability because of the previous regulatory understandings that are now being abrogated by your actions tonight. In fact, even a simple discussion of this raise in the minimum wage could be deemed to be inappropriate because of the lack of adequate noticing and the potential it has for jeopardizing any or all  still-outstanding negotiations between private parties. Thus, it is our (my) opinion that it would be ill-advised for the City of Burbank to pursue such an action at this time…”

Can’t you just hear this? We’ve been watching these council meetings long enough to know just how staff will respond to progressive sentiments. We can even do their accents. It’s the standard line about how the city can’t disrupt the status quo business environment. Or else

And if local history provides any indication of what will happen, at this point in that future meeting all talk among the council members about raising the minimum wage in Burbank will cease. The topic will never come up again.

Why? It’s because of WDYTWL. That’s short for, “Where do you think we live?” It’s why Burbank’s famously Burbank.

Actually, we wouldn’t be surprised if a similar discussion/excuse has already gone on during closed sessions recently. So it may never come up at all.

11 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

They won’t rest until they get it

Anyone else think that this newly conceived airport/high-speed rail “sustainable neighborhood” being planned at or near B6 is intended to circumvent the voter mandate behind Measure B?

Burbank residents have jurisdiction over a new terminal, but if they try to block a combined transportation center the feds or state could step in and sue the city in order to vacate the election results. And of course everyone knows that Burbank residents will not approve any new airport terminal if it ever comes to a vote. Let’s get real — they like things the way they are.

The airport boosters know this, and they want a big new terminal. How else are they going to get it BUT to somehow circumvent Measure B?

Think about it. We only have Measure B jurisdiction over a new airport terminal. If they combine the two, where does that leave us voters?

In court, at best– and dealing with the deliberately screwed up complications that resulted from rank airport boosterism and stealth. Which we’d probably end up ultimately losing on, if we even had a city council with the stomach to fight it. You think these council-majorities and staff members are going to spend millions of dollars in court for no new airport at all?

Dream on. Where do you think you live, West Hollywood? Ojai, maybe?

Keep in mind that people get paid big money to cook up schemes like this. This is “business friendly” Burbank we’re talking about. The lack of transparency that we’ve already witnessed the last few months doesn’t inspire too much confidence in this crowd, either. You think behind-the-scenes Emily Gabel Luddy is an airport opponent?

 

55 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Burbank: the new haven for low wage employers

Unless our city council makes the effort to eventually raise our own minimum wage, as Los Angeles did theirs yesterday, we’re soon going to become the proud home of an anachronistically low wage work force.

Staff has always loved to boast about how wonderfully easy it is to do business here, and every time some Chamber of Commerce group gives them an award for having fewer regulations than anywhere else you’d think that we’d just won the Nobel Peace Prize. Is this something more to add to our list of Burbank amenities?

Burbank’s on the spot now. Will they hold fast for “business”?

This is what Burbank wants to be known for? Ghetto wages? That’ll sure bring in the high rollers. We’d say, “Sun Valley, here we come!” but they pay more now.

 

9 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Buried within

 

Road-Map

 

Say what?

…That would make a proposed station near Bob Hope Airport a hub in a system that connects the southwest region, not just the major population centers in California.

City officials have been working with the [High-Speed Rail] Authority to develop an agreement to receive funding for planning a station. This week, a team of officials from the authority and the city are in Portland, Ore., for a workshop to help create a “road map” for a sustainable neighborhood in the area around Bob Hope Airport.

What the hell? Where did this come from? A rail station is one thing (wasn’t it also going to be well out on SF Blvd?), but now it’s a “neighborhood”? Of what?

Not subject of course to any required Measure B review, right? Or — no doubt — a citizen vote as part of a new terminal/B-6 project.

Where was the public discussion on this ahead of time? Why did ANYONE think that this was an appropriate closed-session item according to the Brown Act? We’ve heard Dr. Gordon remark earlier about B-6 that if the city council thinks something should remain in closed session then that’s where it stays, as long as they agree on it.

But that’s not how the law says it’s supposed to work. A council cannot just vote to keep things quiet or secret.

Where else could this “road map” plan have been cooked up but at closed session? We don’t recall any city hash-out about this “sustainable community” dream at any of the several public informational meetings on the topic of high-speed rail in Southern California.

And what the hell does that mean anyway, sustainable? Sustainable for whom?

 

11 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

The District needs to stand firm on this

Apparently this young graduate and her mother think that the purpose of a high school promotional ceremony is self-promotion.

A 17-year-old senior at John Burroughs High is speaking out against a Burbank Unified policy that won’t allow her to wear a U.S. Air Force sash — indicating she will be joining that military branch upon leaving high school — during her upcoming graduation ceremony.

Frankie Baker was given the sash by Air Force officials to wear during her graduation ceremony later this month.

However, she learned that district policy only allows students to wear pins, medals or similar regalia connected to activities in which they participated while in high school.

“I just want to walk across the stage representing where I’m going after school,” she said.

Frankie is planning to bring her concern to the Burbank school board during a meeting on Thursday, and she’s hopeful school officials may alter the policy.

“I didn’t accept the fact that I was told ‘no’ because that kind of hurts. I find it very disrespectful,” she said. “I personally didn’t think it was right. I thought something had to be changed.”

Disrespectful? You’ve got to be kidding. Annoying maybe, if that’s your feeling. But an attack on your person?

The overweening sense of privilege some of these kids have. Wonder what she’ll say about the incoming shelling.

Her mother, Maria Aviles, also plans to attend the meeting to support her daughter, who she said became serious about joining the Air Force after recruiters visited Burroughs during her daughter’s junior year.

“The school district allows them to come in and recruit our children,” Aviles said. “They’re all for kids putting [their lives] life on the line to fight for our country. These are kids you should be proud of. This is one that she should be allowed to wear, in my opinion.”

Sorry, there are no special privileges attached to joining the military, nor should there be. It doesn’t make you more special.

It also sets a bad precedent. If this advertising stunt is allowed then so should everything be. How about Valley College sashes?

Why not? Oh yeah, those kids aren’t as worthy as our young warriors.

It’s even sicker than that. Remember the days when fighting for free speech meant something other than being allowed to promote military service? This is the screwed-up level that so many of these students are at nowadays.

We’re touched too about her willingness to place herself in harm’s way. In the Air Force.

There’s more. From CBS comes this confused comment:

“The military is a very important part of my life, and I want to stand up for what I think is important,” said Frankie Baker, 17…

Baker says her stance on graduation is her way of living up the Air Force motto: “Aim High.”

Wow. If she thinks that following this graduation ceremony rule is insulting, just wait. Where does she think she’s going, FIDM? As such, we have to agree with this viewer response:

This is one young lady that is soon going to learn that rules are rules. If you don’t like the rules tough luck. The school has it’s rules, just like the AF and it doesn’t include the sash. Get use to it, it’s your life for the next 4 years, following the rules.

Not that we’re big on rules and authority too much, but isn’t she?

 

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Staff’s trying to hide an excessive number of dark council nights by calling them “flex”

From the same guy who last year brought us the concept of “remnant properties” to describe why it was OK to sell the Cusumanos their desperately needed city land on the cheap, here’s a new one. While the previous CM got in a bit of trouble for scheduling so many dark nights on his yearly calendar, this current one thinks that calling some of them by a different name will help slip the same idea through but without as much rancour and unpleasantness.

If passed, one of tomorrow night’s agenda items will allow staff to pawn off a new “flex day” designation that’s really just a mask for the more accurate description of “nothing’s going on that night.” Calling it a flex night sounds a lot better for sure than saying that for 40 percent of the year we’re only going to be meeting the minimum two times a month.

Their rationale is that a flex night can be used for something else if need be, but so can dark nights. Until that time they’ll remain dark. So why not just call them what they are and add them to the list?

The answer of course is that then everybody will see how many nights the council will be free of open meetings next year. This evasion’s sleazy of course, but then — yes — at least he didn’t call them remnant nights. The council should reject these word games and possibly even demand that their upcoming calendar be filled a bit more.

They should also reject the BWP’s request tomorrow night for long-term alliance contracts with single vendors. That’s where an outside company comes in and takes over their inventory control — because the BWP’s too lazy or inefficient to do it themselves — and then supplies the city’s parts needs on their own.

If this sounds like the very definition of “conflict of interest” that’s because it is. The vendor determines what you need and when you need it, and then sells you everything they say you need from their own inventory stocks, without any outside competitive bidding, and for years at a time?

No wonder these big companies love their public-sector alliance “partnerships,” as they’re so sentimentally referred to in the trades. The BWP should do all of their own inventory control and the council should say “no.” If it’s more work for them then that’s too bad.

28 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

One more rescue dog on the market

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Maybe the Burbank Airport is trying to sabotage itself

These kind of things happen.

People get paid big money these days to scheme. When expansion foes of the New York Public Library successfully prevented the conversion of that wonderful Fifth Avenue landmark into a touristy museum-cum-lending library, the powers-that-be immediately retaliated by closing down the famed Rose Room and shipping most of the research collection off to New Jersey, thus making the place a dismal pain-in-the-ass to use. Gutting the old library also sets the stage to keep trying to re-convert it.

Rust never sleeps, nor do people with money and bad ideas.

This letter writer might be on to something and not know it. We too were against that grandiose “transportation center” because we knew it would make things much more cumbersome to deal with and easily defeat the purpose of a cool little local airport. So let’s see what else they have in store to ruin the old facility and induce people to vote for a new one:

The operators of the Bob Hope Airport appear to be running the airport into the ground. In addition to high parking prices, scarcity of reasonably priced nonstop flights to major West Coast cities and high air fares compared to Los Angeles International Airport, the Burbank car rental concession has been moved from its former convenient location adjacent to the terminal to a distant location quite far from the terminal — and shuttle service is lacking between the two spaces.

After meeting with a business associate from the Midwest who recently had surgery to rebuild a crushed foot and was forced to hike the great distance to the new rental car offices, I was disappointed to hear him say he will never fly into Burbank airport again.

Those airport operators seem to be doing just about everything possible to discourage the use of our airport.

Claude Soderstrom
Verdugo City

9 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Talk about putting a damper on the future

This has got to be the funniest headline of the year. So much for that new 21st-century sustainable lifestyle they keep pushing on us:
 

Trio of Bike to Work Day events in Burbank postponed due to rain forecast   Burbank Leader

 

Yes. It’s too chancy!
 


 

Coming up: Rescue Animal Adoption Week cancelled due to dog bite.
 
 

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

“An ordinance is required to amend or repeal an existing ordinance”

Or so says the legal authorities we’ve consulted the last few days.

Which means that the Burbank City Council cannot circumvent the express residency requirements of BMC 2-1-407 just by passing a “resolution” that establishes two special commissions operating under different rules. It’s not that easy or convenient.

Of course, it’s much more difficult to pass an ordinance than a resolution. There are serious public noticing and timeline/hearing requirements with the first, and in the case of commission membership it would have necessitated a “pure” discussion about how appropriate it is in general to let outside residents help run our city.

So, staff picked the sleazy way out to help get those studio exec friends and other outside business interests onto these two new economic-oriented commissions. And our hapless, credulous council members have once again bought the company line.

You’d think with Rogers aboard there’d be a lot more scrutiny up there, but guess not.

 

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

A Resolution does not trump an Ordinance

The answer we got on non-resident commission members being allowed membership despite the express BMC prohibition is that because the Sustainable Burbank and Cultural Arts Commissions were established through a formal council resolution, they can be allowed to have non-resident members as spelled out in the resolution itself. Apparently the idea is that because the same group sets both ordinances and resolutions, everything they do comes from the same place, and thus it’s OK. Or something like that.

Of course this Resolution-over-Ordinance hierarchy makes no sense, because then what’s the point of having a formal ordinance? Is the BMC just a guidebook for city policy?

How about the council voting a resolution to allow the Police Commission to suddenly be allowed to start hiring people on their own? Or maybe the council can pass a resolution to waive the requirement that the planning board has to have quorum in attendance whenever a big project comes through. The list would be endless if the city council could just pass a resolution to quickly violate a law that they had previously gone out of their way to put on the books.

This mickey-mouse rationale of course makes no sense, and you could tell by the way she was talking that Albano clearly knew it. Can anyone also figure out what she was getting at when she said that a council member was welcome to abstain from voting for non-residents if that’s how they felt? Is that a good substitute for not having to follow the law?

How sloppy this is, and it’s still not legal. You can’t pass a resolution that violates an ordinance. The Municipal Code clearly prohibits non-residents on any of our deliberative or advisory bodies and for very good reason. These aren’t supposed to be patronage jobs for outside studio executives, are they yet? With corporate oversight responsibilities?

And they also get to help make policy over the rest of us? Sorry, but the council either needs to change the law or follow it.

14 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Business art

Of course the irony of using an out-of-town venue to celebrate Burbank art-making wasn’t lost on us here.

And isn’t this supposed to be about the kids? Or at the very least, art?

BAFA Party On The Plaza Honors Burbank Arts Supporters

Burbank Arts For All Foundation (BAFA) hosts its fourth annual Party On The Plaza fundraising gala on Friday, May 15, at Universal Studio’s The Globe Theatre. NBC4 Weathercaster Fritz Coleman returns as Master of Ceremonies of the event honoring three Burbank arts advocates and supporters: Nickelodeon Animation Studios, Burbank High School teacher Jonelle Pickett and longtime Burbank Unified School District volunteer and parent Debbie Wade… 

“Burbank Arts for All Foundation is so appreciative of the support we have already received from our sponsors and donors,” commented BAFA Executive Director Trena Pitchford. “For our small Foundation, this event allows us to further our mission throughout the year providing much needed funding for arts education programs and our community engagement opportunities.”

“We’ve gained a reputation for hosting one of Burbank’s most-fun and original fundraising galas every year,” she said. 

“In order to keep this tradition going—and to accommodate our growing number of guests—we chose The Globe Theatre, on the recommendation of one of our board members,” Pitchford explained as the reason for the move to Universal Studios for this year’s gala. “It’s a spectacular venue for what we hope will be another spectacularly successful event.”

Just not in Burbank.

If you can figure out what this following elaboration on their mission statement means in English, please be our guest and explain it:

Background

In 2004, The Los Angeles County Arts Commission invited the participation of Burbank Unified School District, along with selected districts from each Board of Supervisor’s area to participate in the 2004/2005 planning process supported by Arts for All: Los Angeles County Regional Blueprint for Arts Education.Arts for All is an ongoing strategic plan and initiative dedicated to restoring dance, music, theatre and visual arts to every school district in Los Angeles County.  Technical assistance is provided to districts through coaches, professional development, matching funds, materials and resources. LAUSD has their own version of an overall arts plan.The Arts for All plan was formally adopted by the BUSD Board of Education in December of 2006 after a rigorous planning process by the Burbank Arts for All team.  As a direct result of activating the Arts for All plan, the district hired a full-time Visual and Performing Arts Coordinator – Peggy Flynn, and helped to establish the Burbank Arts Education Foundation (now called the Burbank Arts for All Foundation).  In 2012, the original Burbank Arts for All plan came to a conclusion.  Leadership saw that in order to remain a vital partner in LA County’s Arts for All efforts, it was critical to re-engage in a new planning effort that would capture the current needs, goals and dreams for the arts in the Burbank Unified School District.  An outstanding team of diverse individuals, representing every level of the district and all the key stakeholder groups in the community convened to collaborate on the updated plan.

For starters — yes, we know that this is about art and all — but doesn’t anyone believe in splitting things into paragraphs any more?

Here’s a sample page of that official blueprint for the arts they eventually came up with.

 

AFA_Burbank_Roles_v2-page-001

 

That’s a lot of institutionalism there. We can’t figure out who does what. What happened to the “art” part? And which way is it to Cucamonga?

We obviously have a big problem with outside business interests helping to develop school policy and curriculum. This is exactly what you end up with. You don’t ever see musicians being asked to weigh in on executive hiring or investment strategies, do you? It’s vulgar and unseemly to let most of these people tread around the creative wellsprings like that. That’s not their forte.

None of this committee-mongering has anything to do with art to begin with. It’s also why we end up with nuttiness like adding “Culinary Arts” to the regular Picasso and Beethoven lessons, which they made sure to do on pg. 1 of the plan.

Yes, we know — they’ve got to be kidding. But they’re not. How then can you take this group (or the school district) seriously when it comes to teaching students anything about the arts?

Let’s just hope they know how to cough up the money. If so, then all of the phony verbiage and self-congratulations might be worth it. If not, well, what’s the point of getting them involved.

 

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

What “market”? It’s more like landlord greed.

We’re big fans of rent control here, and firmly believe that most residential  tenancies need to be eventually regulated in the same way that basic utilities are,  and for the same reason. Not only is housing a normal human need, but as far as we know no one ever forced a landlord to get into the landlording business at gunpoint. And how many get out of it?

Some day we will all have rent control because there’ll be no other choice.

So in the next few weeks we’ll be exploring some of the b.s. myths that landlords love to throw out whenever they’re challenged over their notoriously greedy and perfidious ways.  No one ever questions them either, especially in the conventional media. The way most of them carry on you’d think that some mysterious external entity was forcing them to raise their rents all the time.

“Don’t blame us,” they claim. “It’s the market that made us do it!”

Until then, let’s pose a few understandably rude and uncomfortable questions of our poor, involuntary housing providers:

1) Landlords always love to talk about the rule of the marketplace, but when’s the last time  yours ever lowered the rent in response to depressed economic conditions and reduced demand? Isn’t funny how their version of the market only flows in one direction?

2) When we build more apartments in Burbank the rents still go up. In fact, the nicer and more expensive the new ones are, the more everyone else gets raised– and on the weird rationale that they’re now undervalued. How’d that happen?

3) When did landlords get the idea that the upper limit on individual rent could now exceed over 50 or 60 percent of a tenant’s monthly income? Even during the worst of the housing shortages after WWII, no one would have thought that this was either rational or feasible, let alone ethical. The upper limit was reached long before that. So what changed?

4) Landlords love to cite a housing  “shortage” as the reason why they are always being magically compelled to keep raising the rent to whatever maximum they can squeeze out of their tenants. Like it’s never their fault.

So how come they always freak out and fight like hell whenever the City of Burbank debates about whether or not to allow more granny flats and backhouses in town? The realtors are always for the idea as an owners’ rights issue, but the landlords go completely bananas.

The truth is that they don’t want more competition. They like things just the way they are. And absent rent control, the only thing that will curtail their greedy, exploitative ways is a huge surplus of new units.

That’s not going to happen in the real world, because why should it.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Is there anything that’s better now about Burbank as compared to 40 or 50 years ago?

Somebody asked a variation of this No.1 question a few days ago. What with all the obnoxious 21st-century boosterism going on, exactly how is our local life here better than it used to be?

We can think of maybe one improvement — better restaurants — but that’s true everywhere. Better coffee, too. But when it comes to things particularly Burbank, what?

We could even have a good debate about the food. But what around here is better than what we had 50 years ago? It looks to be rather that we’ve suffered quite a singular decline in living standards and quality of life since then.

The case can easily be made that nearby towns like Glendale or Alhambra or Eagle Rock are much more interesting places these days than they ever were, and with much more to offer the community than in years past. Alhambra had been slowly turning into a dive after many decades of affluence, and Eagle Rock barely had streetlights.

Alhambra had also lost its once extensive industrial base, which sounds familiar for sure. But Burbank’s improvements?

Those were all White towns back then too, and better now either because of or despite the  acculturation. So it has nothing to do with Burbank being a mostly White population in 1965, as if that’s the source of our historical fondness for the place.

No, they all were. So why did Burbank lose out on the change? What went wrong?

9 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Why are outside business interests allowed on our boards and commissions?

Per tonight’s agenda, we’ve got a question in down at city hall about where the legal justification is for allowing non-residents membership on the Cultural Arts and Sustainable Burbank Commissions, because the Municipal Code clearly forbids it.

But until we get an answer, does anyone honestly believe that the purpose of these exceptions is to allow an interested North Hollywood or Van Nuys resident the chance to help Burbank out? Like say, Dr. Karam or Chappy Czapieski?

Even if it was, does that make sense?

Of course not. Let’s get real — it’s all about allowing business interests to help run these groups. It’s not to get Ansel Adams or Rachel Carson on the Sustainable Commission. At least not in Burbank.

26 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized