They can’t even play straight about what it is they want to build

 

We already know that this booster crowd can’t play straight about what they want to call the place. How many different identifying names does that airport have these days?

But now they’re not even telling the truth about what kind of project it is. So it’s just an upgrade now, eh?

The Burbank Planning Board unanimously voted during a special meeting Thursday to recommend that the City Council approve the authority’s project to build a 355,000-square-foot facility on either the northeast quadrant of the airport, known as the B-6 parcel, or the southwest area.

The recommendation includes approval of the project’s environmental-impact report and a development agreement between the city and the authority [sic], which lays out the powers and responsibilities each agency has.

As we’ve noted many times previously, the Burbank City Council lacks the legal authority to “approve” any development agreement with the (it’s supposed to be capitalized) “Authority” prior to the Measure B citizen vote. In fact, to do so is against the law.

“After flying this summer and seeing what some of the other airports look like and coming back to Burbank now, it’s in dire need of upgrading,” she [Planning Board Member Undine Petrulis] said. “I am thrilled to have this project before us.”

We agree with the need for an airport upgrade. Of course. But that’s not what this project is about at all. Instead, it’s a whole new and bigger airport terminal in a different location.

Petrulis added that she thinks authority staff members have thoroughly developed a mitigation plan for construction of the proposed facility. Additionally, she said she thinks one of the measures in the development agreement will protect Burbank regarding significant decisions.

Under the agreement, a supermajority-voting requirement would be established among the authority’s nine commissioners on major issues, such as increasing the number of airline gates, expansion of the terminal, acquiring land or entering into long-term contracts.

On those issues, at least two of the three commissioners from each city in the authority must approve them. 

So what happens if Burbank gets a pro-growth city council in there someday?

It’s happened before. In that case there will be NO protections at all, because there won’t be any “super” minority of Burbank commissioners to help block an expansion or enlargement scheme. No, they’ll be cheering it on instead!

So much for “protections.” Let’s build a much bigger terminal space with a grand potential for enlargement, and then rely upon the good will of all future city council members to help keep it smaller. That makes sense.

The development agreement would also establish that the authority has vested rights to build the terminal on either site.

Which is again a blatant violation of the express terms and conditions of Measure B, because only Burbank residents have approval rights on any “expanded” or “replacement” airport terminal. Not just B-6.

In order for the authority to build the terminal on the B-6 parcel, residents must approve a ballot measure known as Measure B.

If the ballot measure fails, airport officials have said that they would forgo building the facility on the northeast section and construct the replacement terminal on the southwest quadrant, which they say does not require voter approval because the property is owned by the airport.

Quite correct, except that any additional required (or desired) discretionary approvals are also subject to the same Measure B voter authority. That’s the 2001 law passed by Burbank residents.

Which … our current city council is apparently planning on giving away now through these latest “vested rights” to let the Airport Authority build whatever they want on their own site, if that’s what they have to do.

This is a big concession that we don’t recall being discussed (btw) back in November, when the council first presented this  B-6 plan to the public.

Board member Kimberly Jo said she feels reassured with the environmental-impact report that authority staff compiled and thinks that the proper mitigation programs are in place.

The report looked into the impacts of constructing the 355,000-square-foot terminal on the B-6 parcel and the southwest quadrant. It also studied the possible effects of constructing a 232,000-square-foot facility on the southwest area and what would happen if no new terminal was built.

Now that the Planning Board has recommended approval of the project, it will be before City Council to determine whether it should give the authority the green light.

Sorry, the Burbank City Council has NO legal authority to grant that other Authority (the one in capital letters) anything at all ahead of the Measure B vote. And we’re going to keep repeating this fact.

Again, it’s the Burbank voters who have sole and final authority over B-6, and also quite a deal of final authority over anything else that the Airport might need if they decide to build on their own non B-6 property. Anything discretionary and Measure B automatically kicks in.

Now this pre-vote obligation for the city council to stay out of formally acting on matters is such a fundamental right of the Burbank voters that it’s really astounding to see how our council members have the temerity to be such lawbreakers here. Even Golonski agrees with us on this one, and he helped draft the original Measure B ordinance. The express language of both the original measure, ballot statement, and ordinance itself is clear and compelling: no city approvals or agreements can be made until after the Burbank voters weigh in on them first.

Golonski even made a special trip down to the chambers in November to protest this blatant incursion on voter rights. He told the council members point-blank that Measure B had nothing to do with the city council being able to pre-approve a terminal plan ahead of the voters.

There’s such bad karma going on here with this crowd now, isn’t there? That means of course that any new airport project down there will end up being as FUBAR as can be. It’s inevitable.

So no new airport terminal, for just that reason alone. Small is Beautiful too, and we don’t need it anyway. Who does?

 

 

 

Advertisements

16 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

16 responses to “They can’t even play straight about what it is they want to build

  1. Burbank Person

    If you ask me, I think this guy makes a whole lot of sense.

    • semichorus

      He usually does.

      I like these videos. Keep them coming. I’d love to see what Golonski also said to them last November about how they weren’t following Measure B correctly by putting the development agreement to a council approval vote first.

  2. Anonymous

    **CLARIFICATION**
    In order to quell the whimsical assumptions and fantastical accusations surrounding the removal of a prayer/post yesterday… Despite the original poster stating that her post was “not Political” and then posting a warning today to all Republican and non-Democrat residents that their posts will be removed… Which kind of contradicts or rather- throws the “not political” statement right out the window- please know:

    The post was removed not because of political slant (one way or the other), racial bias, credibility, religious bias or any other reason that one’s imagination is able to contrive, other than it was causing inappropriately political/racial, name calling, and insult slinging comments to be made between members of this online Burbank community(similar to the comments I’m reading under your post from today!)… And that is not ok. So to be clear, it had nothing to do with the prayer or post, but rather the string of comments that were following it!
    I have no doubt that the original post was well intentioned, honest and in complete support for the safety of the men and women who protect us and our community. I will be the first to say that posting in support of the well being of our fire/police personnel after an ambush style sniper attack is not only acceptable but welcome and encouraged!
    I regret not making this clear to you earlier and I wholeheartedly Thank You for expressing your concern for the safety of our BFD and BPD personnel!! Thank you again for staying involved and for your contributions to this group!

  3. Burbank 1

    Because the previous person did not share just who or what that comment about clarification was from or was about here is the whole thing
    _______________________

    Scott Talamantes

    14 hrs
    ..

    **CLARIFICATION**
    In order to quell the whimsical assumptions and fantastical accusations surrounding the removal of a prayer/post yesterday… Despite the original poster stating that her post was “not Political” and then posting a warning today to all Republican and non-Democrat residents that their posts will be removed… Which kind of contradicts or rather- throws the “not political” statement right out the window- please know:

    The post was removed not because of political slant (one way or the other), racial bias, credibility, religious bias or any other reason that one’s imagination is able to contrive, other than it was causing inappropriately political/racial, name calling, and insult slinging comments to be made between members of this online Burbank community(similar to the comments I’m reading under your post from today!)… And that is not ok. So to be clear, it had nothing to do with the prayer or post, but rather the string of comments that were following it!
    I have no doubt that the original post was well intentioned, honest and in complete support for the safety of the men and women who protect us and our community. I will be the first to say that posting in support of the well being of our fire/police personnel after an ambush style sniper attack is not only acceptable but welcome and encouraged!
    I regret not making this clear to you earlier and I wholeheartedly Thank You for expressing your concern for the safety of our BFD and BPD personnel!! Thank you again for staying involved and for your contributions to this group!
    —————————

    Now for a few of the comments

    eve Wisner Thanks for the clarification Scott. It helps to see this! Thanks again!

    Like · Reply · 2 · 14 hrs

    ..

    Anna Zappia

    Anna Zappia Glad you removed the post, she can post it on her personal FB page.

    Like · Reply · 2 · 13 hrs

    ..

    Lisa Komorowski

    Lisa Komorowski Did you not read what he said. He said there was NOTHING wrong with the post! But the comments the rest of the people were writing were the problem!!

    Like · Reply · 2 · 13 hrs

    ..

    Lori Payne

    Lori Payne Yeah, pay attention!

    Like · Reply · 2 · 13 hrs

    ..

    Loba Ojo

    Loba Ojo I think y’all are missing Anna’s point. The post was the cause of divisive commentary, and thus it wasn’t representative of the intention of this group. So Lisa’s page was a much more suitable place for it.

    Like · Reply · 2 · 13 hrs

    ..

    Lisa Komorowski

    Lisa Komorowski Most points on this page cause trouble are you kidding me! You can’t ask about a traffic accident without being attacked by some of these people! Why would I put a post for the community, BPD and BFD on my personal page they don’t know me. I’m just a supportive resident!

    Like · Reply · 11 hrs

    ..

    Lisa Komorowski

    Lisa Komorowski *most posts . stupid spellcheck

    Like · Reply · 11 hrs

    ..

    Loba Ojo

    Loba Ojo True, there are a number of ugly comments on here (someone commented that the admins need to be consistent, and I agree)

    Like · Reply · 2 · 11 hrs

    ..

    Anna Zappia

    Anna Zappia Yes, Loba Ojo, that is exactly my point.

    Like · Reply · 2 · 10 hrs

    ..

    Marcia Mitchell

    Marcia Mitchell Loba Ojo thank goodness I missed it this time!! wink emoticon;)

    Like · Reply ·

    Mary Anne Been Please make sure you’re consistent with removing posts then. As there have been MANY posts with “name calling and insult slinging” – and if others can’t behave in a respectful manner then remove them as well.

    Daniel Moss Let’s all say a bunch of stupid and mean-spirited things on this post and see if Scott removes it…

    Daniel Moss I’d be able to count all the posts left on one hand if Scott deleted all the posts that included name calling. Notice he didn’t delete the post from today that he mentioned in his back-handed response to Lisa? I’m curious just how much “name calling” is allowed? Also, I’m so thankful that our moderators look after us so well! What would we do without them? We might have our feelings hurt or something!

    • semichorus

      I can understand dropping the post. But the given reason for doing so is b.s., because if there’s a problem with the comments then just remove the comments.

      No, both the prayer and the expressed sentiments behind it were race-baiting to the max, and that’s why it was removed. Black people shooting cops is not going to be happening in Burbank anyway, and so it’s no reason to be worried about the BPD or praise it.

  4. Reese Place

    Yeah we were very naïve back then just like Rogers says, but that should wake us up to the fact our council is being foolish again today with this airport deal

    • semichorus

      No one there is talking either about how a new B-6 “replacement” terminal will end up re-routing many of the flights over the City of Burbank– especially the hills. The Southwest Quadrant could do this as well.

      That topic is strictly verboten. Burbank has a good deal right now, and so why anyone would want to screw around with this is beyond me.

      What happened too to that “Permanent Nighttime Curfew” that was supposed to be a part of the deal?

      A big new airport, more overhead Burbank takeoffs and landings, and no nighttime curfew. That’s a great deal you got there with your new “replacement” terminal, Burbank.

      I almost want this project to win just to see how fucked up it gets, and how fucked up the new operation will be for the voters of Burbank. It’ll be gloriously horrible for sure.

      • Anonymous 3

        The suggestion that the flights would take off over the city is just scare mongering.

      • Phil

        The Hideous Building as Paroli calls it or RITC is connected to areas by moving sidewalks and then an escalator.
        Quite often the sidewalks are broken and do not move.
        As for the escalator, it’s been broken for who knows how long.
        They have relocated the car rental spaces to this mess.
        Oh, and they raised all the prices to pay the Airport.

        • semichorus

          A good preview of how well their “replacement” terminal will go.

          • CornFused

            No kidding. If the current group can’t oversee the repair of a couple moving sidewalks…or 1 escalator, I can only imagine how a new terminal would function.

            • semichorus

              It’ll be a total disaster.

              Every time you play the kind of dishonest games that they’re into you end up with a FUBAR result. Burbank will SO regret what is going to happen if this thing wins. And the voters will deserve it.

  5. chad

    I admit I’ve been slow to appreciate this FB page issue. This is a FB page that is called City of Burbank and administered by a current council member but you have to be vetted before you can be a member. Is this really a good idea for a current council member to be doing this? Perception is a big deal here.

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

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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