Too bad it violates Measure B

It’s gonna be fun to see the ballot measure language on this one. This is from the same crowd that’s trying to have five different contradictory names and titles for its one (1) facility.

Anything to get this thing through, eh?

Unfortunately, Measure B doesn’t allow any two-pronged, either/or, if-not-this-then-that multiple choice option. It’s one terminal up or down.

So why is the council agreeing to a complicated poison pill “they’ll build it anyway and we’ll let ’em” Draft Agreement?

After five years of negotiations between the city of Burbank and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, the two agencies have finally drafted a development agreement for a proposed 14-gate replacement terminal at Hollywood Burbank Airport.

Dan Feger, the airport’s executive director, told airport commissioners on Monday that council members will be reviewing the draft agreement, which outlines the conditions, rules and obligations both the city and airport authority have over the proposed 355,000-square-foot terminal proposed to be built on either the northeast quadrant of the airfield, known as the B-6 parcel, or on the southwest area of the airfield.

Though residents must approve a ballot measure, known as Measure B, to approve construction on the B-6 parcel, the draft development agreement gives the airport authority vested rights to build the replacement terminal at either site.

Vested rights? So this council’s in on this little blackmail tactic as well?

They’re validating it; but the claim has always been that the Authority can build on that other site absent a “vested” anything from Burbank. So why are they conceding this issue in writing? They don’t have to.

If the ballot measure fails, airport officials have said that they will forgo building the terminal in the northeast area and construct the new facility in the southwest quadrant, which they have said does not require any approval by voters because the property is owned by the airport.

No they won’t. It’s a bluff. It’s an untenable location for them. It’d already be there if a real option. Like they’d be working this hard for B-6 if they could just slip in over there?

It’s a lie — voter blackmail.

Whichever route is taken, the draft agreement opens up the public-input process, which calls for no less than six public design workshops at no more than one meeting a month. Hollywood Burbank would also be obligated to notify every Burbank resident about every workshop and community meeting.

Another violation of Measure B. This kind of work can only happen AFTER the terminal is approved. They’re blatantly jumping the gun.

The airport authority must also approve the design of the terminal during a public hearing.

Though the agreement would give the city additional protection and say on what happens with the new terminal, it will not go into effect unless voters approve the ballot measure, should it be called for, during the Nov. 8 election.

Should the ballot measure be approved, the development agreement would go into effect on Feb. 7, barring any legal action.

So why the early PR “design workshops” discussed above?

Feger also updated commissioners about the environmental-impact report for the project, in which the final draft of the report will be published on Tuesday. The city’s Planning Board will be reviewing the report during its July 7 meeting.

After being reviewed by the Planning Board, airport authority members are expected to approve the document on July 11. It will then pass, along the environmental-impact report, to the City Council, which is slated to hold public hearings on July 25 and 26 to review the report.

Should council members agree with the findings in the report and development agreement, Feger said he expects the City Council will approve the documents on Aug. 1, and there will be a call for a Measure B election.

First of all, who the hell is Feger to be telling us what Burbank is going to do?

There’s also a third violation of Measure B going on here. Which is:


All they can do is vote to put it on the ballot for the voters to approve. That’s it. Even Golonski agrees with this claim, and he helped to draft Measure B.

The problem here is that any such council approval would immediately require a second referendum to reverse it if the voters turn down the idea in November. A simple Measure B “No” vote would not do the trick.

Speaking of tricks, that’s exactly what this all is. This “draft agreement” is an obviously contrived blackmail/phony option “or else” deal that would involve tons of legal work to untangle if the voters turn it down in November.

So let’s keep things simple. Small is Beautiful, no new airport. We don’t need it.





Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

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