If you think that Rogers and the council were looking a little grim the other night, consider this possibility.
They’ve obviously been discussing in closed session any and all potential pitfalls of the Measure B election, and the winning (or losing) prospects for a new “replacement” terminal. But what if it turns out that we’re right about the illegal nature of their wanting to quickly approve this DA ahead of the public vote in November?
No doubt they’ve been talking about that possibility as well (although of course they’d never admit it to anyone). According to Measure B, any such formal act of approval before the election will be automatically invalid under the law. And there are really no if’s, and’s, or but’s about the express language of Measure B in this regard.
Which means that a simple court injunction could easily halt the implementation of any post-approval “yes” vote from the electorate. If it’s invalid under the law then that’s what must happen if the law has any meaning. They don’t get a post-vote “redo.”
You wouldn’t even need to venture into a complicated election law case in order to obtain this result, because the judge wouldn’t be asked to actually vacate an election result– which btw is almost impossible to obtain after an election. A “yes” result would still stand, but its effect would be moot, because that’s what Measure B requires.
The ultimate effect of such a negative judicial decision of course would be that the airport boosters would have to hold another Measure B referendum if they really wanted to slip in their new terminal. But do it correctly.
So if the City of Burbank wants to go ahead and arrogantly vote to approve of this thing ahead of time, so be it. That might turn out to be the best possible result for the terminal’s opponents. It won’t count.