It’s official. The Airport Authority gets to buy its own election


This says it all:

The City will seek reimbursement from the Airport Authority for the total cost of the November 8 election and the production of the supplemental pamphlet, estimated at about $200,000…

Like that makes everything better, eh?

The Authority gets to pick and choose exactly what election venue they think will be the most favorable for their desired result. The fact that they’re actually paying for this selective little stunt makes it all the worse, not better. It shows us exactly what’s going on here.

Is this supposed to be some kind of favor they’re doing for us? Whose election is it, Burbank’s or the Authority’s?

And since when has a supposedly independent city clerk anywhere in California also distributed promotional literature for a single-issue referendum? It’s one thing for a school board somewhere to mail out “informational” brochures on an upcoming bond issue. That happens. But for the city clerk in charge of the election process itself?

That’s the kind of thing for the Authority to do. But of course, it would look (and would definitely be) avowedly self-serving and promotional to most people if the Authority mailed out something like this themselves; and so the council is having the city clerk do it instead in order to make it all seem so much more independent and impartial.

To anyone who’s sentient it’s not; it’s just incredibly and transparently manipulative. It’ll be fun too to see how “informational” only this planned booklet will be, and not a piece of illegal advocacy.

In a letter dated July 20, 2016, the officers of the Airport Authority Commission voiced their unanimous support for Measure B election cost reimbursement, which they believe is an appropriate action.

Nice of them to think so, isn’t it? It’s still an obvious common law conflict of interest. Rather than waiting until February for the next city election, they’re buying their own date where they think they can do better.

This upcoming November election won’t be an all-mail ballot one either. And so the next time you hear someone at city hall tell us how wonderful Burbank’s all-mail ballot system is, and that we should never, ever change it, tell them to go fuck themselves.

Just watch someday … it’ll be Talamantes or Gabel-Luddy. For sure.





Filed under Uncategorized

14 responses to “It’s official. The Airport Authority gets to buy its own election

  1. Anonymous 3

    Seems fair to me.

    More democracy is a good thing.

    And I just love watching you and your chorus shrieking into the wind, uselessly.

    • semichorus

      It’s not democracy, it’s manipulation. No one keeps Burbank voters from voting during Burbank elections — especially when ALL local voters get the mail ballots. So how is “November” more inclusive or participatory?

      It’s not.

      It’s also going to be an overloaded ballot.

      What I love the most about this crowd though is their hypocrisy. “All-mail ballots are SOOOO great for Burbank!

      “Ah, except when they’re not…”

      • Anonymous 3

        Turnout in Nov will be 50%. Turnout for the city elections is like 17%.

        More participation is good.

        • semichorus

          That’s not the concern, “turnout.” If this is such an ethical and good-faith matter for the City then let’s consolidate ALL of our Burbank elections. (Yeah, right. Especially with a slow-growth or true “preservationist/sustainability guy on the ballot.)

          No, the reason this time is because they think they can better curate the kind of electorate they need to win this thing: younger voters, less attached to Burbank, out of touch with airport history and shenanigans, and in love with shiny things.

          Make you a deal. Let’s put just an advisory rent control proposal on the ballot, and then vote on it during a consolidated general election just like this upcoming November’s.

          That’ll be the day.

          In fact, if someone in Burbank DID get enough signatures together to place a rent control initiative on the ballot, there is no way in HELL that the council majority would vote to place it on a consolidated ballot. (Rogers and Gordon might– Rogers for kicks just to see what happens…)

          Quite the contrary. Both Talamantes and Gabel Luddy would once again extol the great moral virtues of our “all-mail ballot system!”

          Nothing good comes from this kind of political hypocrisy and bad faith. If this terminal thing wins in November it will end up being a total botch.

  2. DixieFlyer

    Each and every dime spent by the Airport Authority comes from the Public.

    The can’t PRINT money.

    The Rental Car Companies collect from us——pay to THEM.

    The Airlines collect from us—–pay to THEM.

    The Uber drivers collect from us—–pay to THEM.

    The Vendors collect from us—-pay to THEM.

    The Federal Aviation Administration collects from us—–pays to THEM.

    semi has it right.An all mail ballot was SOOOOO important.

    ‘Save Money” Eliminate polling places., etc.

    BULLSHIT. Look at them now????

    Glendale & Pasadena called the election.

    Puppy Dogs on our Council lap it up, num-num-goooood.

  3. chad

    If the argument is that they want as full a participation as possible then they have to weigh that with existing voting protocols. It seems to me that if the city wants to have this on the ballot then it has to pay for it. The other option seems like the election is being literally bought by an outside entity with a vested interest in the outcome of the vote. What is staggering is that the city doesn’t seem to mind that the Authority will pay and doesn’t seem to see this as a conflict of interest. The best approach is for the city to pay for it and they should do this in a fiscally responsible way. Thus, they should wait until February, three months later, and use as an existing system it has established and extolled.

    • semichorus

      It’s just so blatant, isn’t it? Now the airport is buying their own election.

      • Evelyn

        Telemoron knew in February, and insisted on a written report.
        Registrar-Recorder Office of L.A.County wrote a letter to our City Clerk in February.
        S L O W Public disclosure, until Dr. Gordon asked about it.
        Guess who cut him off? Telemoron, of course.

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