City caught using its P-BID brochure to promote outside developer projects that haven’t even been approved yet


Why is the City of Burbank using its new P-BID brochure to actively promote huge controversial development projects that haven’t gotten anywhere near the starting line yet?

Like who says these projects are both on the way…?


FireShot Capture 207 - - http___burbank.granicus.com_MetaViewer


This is so completely inappropriate. Those are private projects, not P-BID. How could this flack-work have possibly happened in a brochure that was produced with downtown tax money?


FireShot Capture 208 - - http___burbank.granicus.com_MetaViewer


Oh, that’s why. Look who’s running the P-BID. (Someone just reminded us that the brochure also left out that 1,000 unit IKEA project being planned on the other side of the neighborhood. It too is in an equal state of indeterminacy. So why was it left out, and the Cuso’s put in?)

Do we still have a responsible city council running this town? You wouldn’t think so with this kind of crap going on. Where’s the oversight of their own staff members?

Exactly who is their staff working for? Where’s the neutrality?







Filed under Uncategorized

13 responses to “City caught using its P-BID brochure to promote outside developer projects that haven’t even been approved yet

  1. Stuff

    They just show up on Tuesday and nothing else. There is no oversight otherwise the Chief and Angel would have been fired.

  2. Anonymous

    Cue A3. Denigrating ad hominem attack followed by sniffy, matronly statement about how Burbank “needs more housing… ” Zzzzzzzzz

  3. Anonymous 3

    I see “proposed” in both titles.

    • semichorus

      What you’re seeing is them being selectively promoted in the brochure — and as “future developments.” That’s the point. And if they’re only being proposed, why then even a mention?

      Why not then a mention of ALL the projects being “proposed” for downtown while they’re at it? There’s LOTS of them — more than people know right now, such as both sides of Glenoaks between Olive and Angeleno. The IKEA replacement (big, BIG competition to the Cusos) is also conspicuously absent…

      Once again your kneekerk effort to confute goes nowhere. There’s also a done-deal aspect to this blatant promotional effort that is more than suggestive.

  4. Anonymous 3.5

    Waiting for dearest anonymous 3, official pal and maybe only pal of Rogers, to tell us how great this all is.

  5. Ted

    These extra little taxes are a sham. Funny thing is street improvements are what we pay property taxes, sales taxes, utility user taxes, gasoline taxes, annual vehicle taxes, and the list of takes goes on and on but they always want even more. Taxes are the reason for the weak economy.

    • semichorus

      The property owners down there (actually the tenant merchants) pay taxes for this. But then, they’re also asked to pay the P-BID assessments for (apparently) the same work.

      Most of the merchants/landlords are against the Downtown P-BID. They want it out. But because it’s a proportional vote per amount of downtown property owned, and because most of the property down there is owned by only four or five entities — including the City of Burbank, which has a big percentage of the vote as well — the little guys are always outranked.

      A couple of years ago the odious Sue Georgino tried to claim to the council that “The majority of the voters!” voted to approve the downtown P-BID.

      False. It was the majority of the weighted vote. The actual vote count was something like 150 to 12, with the 150 being AGAINST continuing the P-BID.

      Those 150 only controlled a small amount of the total downtown real estate. Thus, they lost.

      • Anonymous

        Do you have a report or facts to back up your statment or just assumptions?

        • semichorus

          P-BID works on a weighted vote per property ownership. The guy that owns Book Castle property does not have the same vote as the Mall.

          Georgino used to do this all the time. Anytime a P-BID vote came up she’d claim that “89 percent of the stakeholders” or whatever the vote was wanted whatever the goal was at hand. She’d try to play off the results as the majority of the voters. Then you’d look at the actual count and it would be 167 to 8.

  6. Burbanker

    Wonder why the left out Walmart oh wait its one of the few things not owned by the cusamanos lol

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s