See how they’re lying from the start?


This is the tagline from the Airport Authority’s new “replacement terminal” promotional website.

Talk about dishonest:
FireShot Capture 152 -  BUR Replacement Terminal I Bob Hope Ai_ - http___burreplacementterminal.com_


They’ve already had one. Several, in fact.

That Airport hasn’t just been remodeled and expanded a half a dozen times since then, it’s been completely rebuilt several times on top of that. The original facility from 1930 is long gone.

So if the Authority and its friends aren’t even playing straight about something as historically demonstrative as this, what else are they trying to deceive the voters about?

They can’t even decide on the name of the place yet, either. They’re being sleazy and evasive about that one as well. That alone means a vote of no-confidence in these people and their bad ideas.

This mailer they have btw is illegal. It’s not just “informational,” it’s using taxpayer money and resources to advocate for voter passage of a new airport. Just because they don’t mention Measure B specifically doesn’t mean what they’re doing is legally kosher.

The council has already decided to put it on the ballot. This means no lobbying by govt. agencies.





Filed under Uncategorized

23 responses to “See how they’re lying from the start?

  1. Anonymous 3

    Yes to the new terminal.

  2. DixieFlyer

    Some sentiments are SO predictable, and flat as with anon 3.

    The efforts to avoid an Election concurrent with our City Council is typical.

    WE, the People of Burbank, duly registered to Vote should demand that the

    Vote on ANY Airport Proposal be concurrent with OUR local elections.

    Glendale and Pasadena should have NO influence on our decision makers.

    Misrepresentations are and have been, the Hallmark of the Authority.

    We haven’t been able to count on the Local Community News for the

    recent past, to inform the local Electorate on various issues.

    We dare not start now.

    The history of the evolutions at the Terminal site are available to the

    employee’s at the paper, they just can’t be bothered to look it up.

    BTW, why is the NEWEST structure, TSA (a Federal Agency) built in such a

    location that the FAA has no objection?

    • semichorus

      The specific Measure B ordinance says that it has to be held at a city election. That language was inserted specifically because, as McConkey put it, “Otherwise they’ll try to hide it in some damned college board election in LA.” Which could have been easily done without the explicit limitation, because Burbank is part of the LA Community College District, and it gets those limited ballots every once in a while.

      I remember those discussions, and how the Measure A people were justifiably suspicious of Measure B and how it would get run. They got nothing but grief for it too, from the likes of Rogers and Golonski and Laurell and the rest.

      The idea was also, as you say, that the council would have to run concurrent with the Measure and defend as well their position. There’s no legal justification for them to consolidate this referendum with a consolidated election in which no other city issues will appear on the ballot. Not with that contained language, and which btw is not found in any other Burbank election ordinance.

      The plan too to have the city council “approve” a “yes” position on the terminal before the residents vote on it is also a clear trick. If the voters should happen to turn it down, they will then have to also legally reverse this earlier council “Yes” vote before their decision can go into effect. Just voting “No” on Measure B will not be enough.

      Someone comes along and sues to vacate the “No” vote would thus find easy pickings. You can’t just direct a city council to do something through a simple vote. Isn’t that what the successful Measure A lawsuits were about?

      The voters would have to legally reverse the earlier council “Yes” decision through another referendum before their Measure B “No” vote will be valid. I can see this one coming down Fifth Avenue when it comes to the legal problems it will create.

      • Anonymous 3

        The coming presidential election is by no means a “damned college board election in LA”.

        It will be a very high turnout election. More democracy is good. Better a 50% turnout than a 15% turnout. More participation is good.

        • semichorus

          The language was inserted into the ordinance by design. The idea was that this was to be part of a dedicated CITY election, not one watered down (or, in the case of the LACCC, blown off) in another.

          But the supporters know they can’t win in a city election, and so they have to broaden the electorate to include people who care so little for Burbank that they never, ever vote for anything here.

          Wonder if they’ll start having voter reg drives in Burbank too just to get the stooge numbers up?

          Ooops — I shouldn’t give them any ideas! They’re desperate,and know they might not win if the play by the rules.

          That also explains their new advocacy PR mailings, which by how they have clearly crossed the line from being merely informative are now illegal.

          • DixieFlyer

            An informed electorate is always helpful.

            So far, the flow of information has been sketchy.

            Council Candidates should be capable of rooting out the facts.

            Their positions will afford the electorate the opportunity to evaluate their abilities to separate the “wheat from the shaff”.

            We need the Burbank electorate to focus on Burbank issues and prospective Burbank candidates rather than Mary Jane, or some other issues of a statewide or regional concern.

            Remember, we can NO LONGER count on the Burbank Leader to offer unbiased coverage of our local affairs.

            The PIO for the City is married to an employee of the Airport, also.

    • Anonymous 3

      Yes to the new terminal.

      • semichorus

        People are going to be so unhappy with any new terminal they get, compared to the ease and convenience of the old one.

        What’s the Authority going to do then — blame the old one for their unhappiness and disappointment? Lie about how dangerous it was?

        Blame the voters for being so stupid?

        • Anonymous 3

          The new terminal will be better that the existing terminal. It will be easier and more convenient.

          • DixieFlyer

            Creating a replacement terminal “better”, “easier and more convenient” would be nigh impossible.

            The existing traffic loop affords the easy pick-up–at the curb–of most passengers, both able and disabled.

            No escalators or elevators are required to access the ticketing areas or to access the boarding areas.

            Maybe anon 3 can point out a Public Airport that meets his expectations.

            Where’s the M-O-N-E-Y to come from?

  3. chad

    It is almost a complete con job. Decision makers who are trying to push this down our throats do so not for the betterment of the community but for the padding of their own resumes and connections and favors they will make along the way. Look no further than Joy Forbes.

    • semichorus

      These institutionalists get an idea in their craw and just can’t let go. It also becomes an ego thing, yes.

      The same thing happened with the old Burbank High. A small group of influential interests wanted to rebuild the place starting in the early 70s and they made sure they got their way.

  4. One big problem is that if voters don’t approve the terminal the authority wants, they will be free to build one off Empire Ave. Depending on where the entrance is this new location will cause absolute gridlock at Buena Vista and Empire and all around the Marriott area on Hollywood Way if they don’t re-route the streets to accommodate.

    • semichorus

      In theory they can still build one on the same or nearby property, but such a scheme is unlikely. There’d be little advantage for them to do so given what they already have.

      Is this their new threat? I don’t see how the traffic would be any worse than what they have now, and the city would still have some control over what ends up there.

      • Not sure about a threat but I heard this from someone who attended the most recent authority meeting. There will be a detailed presentation at the coordinating council meeting tomorrow at noon. I have a client meeting otherwise I’d be there.

        • semichorus

          Sounds like blackmail to me. They will say and do ANYTHING to get this idea through.

          Let them build a terminal on the property. It’ll be better for Burbank than what they want.

          People need to keep in mind too that this idea that Burbank won’t be able to control construction on the same site also applies to their big plan.

    • Anonymous

      Either location uses the same entrance from the presentation I remember. Both locations are nowhere near the RITZ so buses on Hollywood Way will be needed to serve it.

      • semichorus

        If that center ever gets built you’ll be able to count on both hands the number of people from the airport who will need to use it during any one day. The most that would happen is travelers will use it to get downtown.

      • Update: Looking at the DEIR both Southwest Quadrant options use both the existing entrance and service road at Hollywood Way / Thornton and a new road off Empire Ave. DEIR Part 1 Pages 2-25 (or page 67 on my pdf reader). Pg 36 states the following: If the voters do not approve the proposed project through a Measure B vote, the Authority’s JPA will not
        be amended to add the above protections and the Authority may decide to proceed with a replacement
        passenger terminal of no more than 14 gates, 6,637 public spaces, and 232,000 square feet (the current
        terminal size).

        • semichorus

          They’ve been threatening that for years. But they’re not talking any more about how it’s a substandard choice for them, highly undesirable, and not a very big or suitable alternative.

          If it was at all desirable, don’t you think that THAT’S what they would be planning for instead?

          Threatening a replacement terminal on the same site is a phony tactic. Let ’em. How are they going to get the money for a substandard plan?

  5. DixieFlyer

    Leave it to a Pasadena Member like Madison to want LA in the name.

    Pasadena is soooooo lucky the Airport is still Open.

    The cab fare from LAX would be NO help to Pasadena Hotels.

    This crowd needs very close watching.

    Madison wanted NO Burbank Building Inspectors.

    “Keep your enemies closer.”

Leave a Reply- (comments take a while to appear)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s