The Airport Authority has paperwork in place with the FAA to build a 27-gate terminal

 

And which for the last 20 years they have refused to either modify, repudiate, or rescind.

If Measure B “wins” for them in November, all it would take is for two Burbank airport commissioners to agree to an expansion plan that has already been in the works for the last 20 years. What this means is that their so-called 14-gate “replacement terminal” could easily be a Trojan Horse in benefit to the big-growth interests now or in the future.

Don’t laugh — it’s not like Burbank real estate isn’t being coveted by outsiders. Just look at what developers want to do Downtown, and with the enthusiastic help of our revolving-door staff members.

So it raises serious questions why the Airport Authority hasn’t asked to rescind their original 1996 “Record of Decision” for a 27-gate terminal. It’s still on the books with the FAA and ready to go.

Why is that?

Here’s something that’ll give Rogers a giggle. It’s an old video that Phil and Carolyn Berlin made about this valid but little discussed issue:

 

 

They’re right of course, still, and Rogers is a longtime airport expansionist who — though not as bad as some — is quite naive (or just arrogantly dismissive and pigheaded) about what could easily happen if and when that old booster crowd rides back into town.

A vote for this plan in November will mean a 27-gate airport terminal in the end. No doubt about it, and most likely sooner than later.

(You know, if we had a smart city attorney and a conscientious council-majority, they would have demanded that the Authority rescind this old ROD in return for Burbank sending that big Agreement to the voters. It could have been replaced with something much more conservative and limited in scope.

But they’re not any of those things. Or, they want a big airport.)

 

 

Advertisements

32 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

32 responses to “The Airport Authority has paperwork in place with the FAA to build a 27-gate terminal

  1. Burbanker

    Actually no one should have any trust in deals when ROGERS is involved due to the fact that he is a convicted criminal

  2. Anonymous 3

    ” all it would take is for two Burbank airport commissioners to agree to an expansion plan”

    Which could only happen if a majority of the Council appoints commissioners that would vote that way.

    Which means that such a majority would need to be ELECTED.

    And that ain’t gonna happen.

    None of the current Council would OK more than 14 gates.

    • semichorus

      Current. Not future. That’s what I’m talking about.

      And I wouldn’t put expansion past some of them. Talamantes could be talked into anything. “But people, they’re small gates…!

  3. Slim

    If the Airport came back after they get whatever terminal plan is approved and said you know it would be cheaper
    if we just added a few gates now the majority members would fall right in line. Even if they didn’t the part about disputes being arbitrated by “other” cities like Lancaster could make it all happen what would they care. Especially if Glendale and Pasadena put pressure on them.

    • Anonymous 3

      None of the four supporting the recent deal would allow more than 14 gates. Ever.

      • semichorus

        Not now, of course not. But they will allow a much bigger facility, which is almost as bad? And we’re not talking about now anyway. We’re talking about what this will easily lead to.

        Why hasn’t the Authority rescinded the 27-gate plan? Because that’s what the plan is.

        Why did they choose 27 gates to begin with? The airport boosters know that the only way it will happen now (in Burbank) is by one-step two-step.

        Guess what the one-step is?

        • Anonymous 3

          Jesus. Go hide under your bed.

          • semichorus

            Ah, the old script continues.

            Now we’re at the, “Anyone who thinks that the Airport wants to expand and doesn’t play straight about its ultimate intentions is a paranoid nutcase” stage.

            Next it’ll be what?

            Issues of “character”? Or maybe, “deeply troubling behavior on the part of the airport critics…”? Rogers was big on that one for about 10 years.

            Still didn’t get an answer about why the original 27-gate plan wasn’t rescinded. Is the FAA forcing them to have big plans for enlargement?

            That’ll be the next excuse.

      • Anonymous

        They don’t have too. I don’t trust Brown or Wiggns they’d sell us out in a heart beat council has no say.

  4. Anonymous

    All the amendments to the JPA for future expansion protecting the airport are laughable. All you need do is look at the history of lies, deceptions and disrespect the Airport Authority and staff have demonstrated repeatedly. For anyone to believe a future City Council or Burbank Airport Commissioners would be able to do anything to protect Burbank after this is approved needs to have their head examined.

    • semichorus

      You’re totally right. This is not just about a 14-gate “replacement” terminal. It’s pretext for a much larger facility. Jesus Christ, they’ve had a 27-gate plan on the books for years!

      Trust them? They can’t even play straight about the name of the joint.

      And it would be very, very easy to get an ideologically pro-growth council into Burbank. Pro-growth about EVERYTHING. All you need is three votes up there. For all the doubters out there, keep in mind that it’s happened before. Dan Remy and Bill Rudell anyone?

      I can hear it now. “So many of our new hotels are at under capacity. And that beautiful new transportation center with the new High Speed Rail train is being underused as well. So let’s make Burbank a 21st-century transportation hub for all of Southern California!

      “Burbank, your convenient link to the North!”

      Ever wonder too how they got CONDOS and APARTMENTS up on Skyline Drive in the early 70s? Do most people in Burbank even know that this neighborhood above Sunset Canyon right next to Country Club Drive has loads of multi-residential dwellings?

      How did that happen?

      A few elections in a row and boom — you’ve got a whole different mentality on the dais. Do people think that “Leadership Burbank” is training conservationists?

      I’ve never heard of a replacement plan for a facility that most people (such as almost everyone you talk to) already like, or even love. That alone makes it crazy. There’s no imperative or community demand for one!

      So who’s it benefiting? Who’s it for? The only rational explanation for this project is that will pave the way for a larger airport. One-step two-step is the way they’re gonna go about it, and you’d have to be a moron not to see how this will pan out.

      Or an airport expansionist.

      • Anonymous

        jerry brown wants to loosen the environmental restrictions on massive development. Fast track it.
        http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-essential-poli-the-governors-housing-proposal-should-be-even-str-1463521216-htmlstory.html

        It’s over folks open season for developers Burbank is going to adopt these types of nonsense regulations and no one can stop it.

        • semichorus

          As I’ve said before, Burbank has a HUGE percentage and number of apartment units and renters. The 2010 Census seriously under-reported the total # of tenants in town. So anyone who claims that Burbank has a moral, legal, or economic imperative to provide more of the same is a liar. It’s just an excuse to build.

          “Affordable” now means nothing. $50,000 a year is considered to be a “moderate” income under the standards, and so the “affordable” rents can go up to 18- $2,000 a month, when the “prevailing” rents are over 3,000. What a joke.

          That’s NOT affordable for people who need affordable housing. It only helps the crowd that already has a bit of money. And that’s who gets them. If you’re TRULY low income you get Section 8 — maybe….

          Brown’s a strange character. He’s terrifically uneven on economic/green issues, and he’s way too much of a cop advocate for me. He’s always vetoing bills that restrict the police.

          Dems are all sellouts these days. Unlike Republicans though, they always think they aren’t. (Bernie’s not a Dem, and he’d be beating Trump no problem if the nominee.

  5. chad

    11:59 PM Saturday night an airplane flew over my house and landed in Burbank Airport. Another flew by at 12:08 AM Sunday nine minutes later. The only thing I can say is that it flew over Bill Wiggins’ house as well. Anon 3 wrote, “None of the four supporting the recent deal would allow more than 14 gates.” What “deal?” There’s no deal, yet. Does Anon 3 know something we don’t?

    • 91505

      Chad planes fly out of Burbank as late as 3 am on a regular basis i mean so regular I can walk out at certain times to see them. We need a real curfew.

      • semichorus

        There won’t be any curfew, which is reason enough to defeat this expansion plan.

        Notice how all that talk about a “curfew” has ever so quietly disappeared? That’s because it’s not going to happen.

        Notice how the Leader made a big deal out of it during the fall, as did the council and Authority, but no mention of it now?

  6. Faux Fuddy Luddy

    they may claim only 14 gates, but say nothing about increasing the number of flights . They WILL increase flights, they have to pay for that airport somehow.. Also, just watched the replay from last week .Telemones is SO angry and cranky. Even muttered “Jesus Christ” into an open mic when Gordon was bringing up a legit issue. He really wants to ram thru this vote. And the scary thing is, at least from what I read on that Facebook page, a lot of voters have NO IDEA that there is a new airport being developed

    • Anonymous

      He’s an idiot he leaves his mic on all the time. You hear him eating shuffling papers and occasionally you get to here a gem like Jesus Christ muttered out loud.

  7. 91505

    No doubt they will build it if this gets approved and when they do the sellouts Frutos,Luddy and Rogers will have already sold and moved out of the city.

    • semichorus

      I can’t tell whether they’re sellouts, or just dumb and naive, or whether they don’t mind a much bigger terminal in truth, or whether this is just circle-the-wagons behavior.

      You know, the classic, arrogant, “No one’s going to tell us what to do, especially at this point. And no one’s certainly going to tell us that we’re wrong!”

      I used to see this with the school board all the time. They’d push themselves into a foolish position where they’d even begin to ignore court orders.

      • Reese Place

        Watching the council live on television right now and Mr Rogers is supposedly answeribg an email question he says claims on good authority the resident believes that 4 council members are secretly meeting with the airport planing to help the airport sue the city if they loose on the election for measure B. It sure explains to me why the 4 are acting so strange and sneaky about the airport. Frutos can forget about his campaign sign in front of my house this time around I don’t aupport sneeky sleezy people.

        • semichorus

          Rogers is just mocking the critics.

          He likes to marginalize the complaints by focusing on the ridiculous nutcase accusations and stuff, and then generalizing it to everyone else. It’s an old, OLD tactic of his.

          It’s called engaging in red herrings. No ones accusing them of that– although it could be true (!)

          Nothing would surprise me. Measure A night, anyone?

          • Yolanda

            Don’t know here the only nut case I see is Rogers himself. Does he have a clue how ridiculous he looks/sounds on a regular basis. As for secret meetings just how they reacted to it told me they are in secret meetings selling us all out. We have got to all vote no on this airport proposal.

            • semichorus

              Rogers is just trying to bait people. He thinks it’s still 1998 and he can play off the airport critics as paranoid whackjobs, and for laughs.

              Too bad Ted’s not around for him to use as a punching bag. It was always fum to watch Ted punch back.

          • Anonymous

            Thats rich the convicted criminal trying to say others are nut jobs. Rogers got his start with drugs and theft and that gets him in a trusted council position calling others nut jobs ? Such a great city Burbank is.

  8. Citizen Cane

    The Burbank we all loved is gone. The days of quiet Sunday afternoons with very light traffic on the boulevards is a thing of the past. The quiet streets, sound of a lawn mower, kids on bikes being able to ride on the streets, are days of the past.

    Now we have congestion, noise, overcrowded commercial areas, and rift raft coming to town. All this so the city leaders can have tax revenue and development lining pockets of our council members and developers. There was nothing wrong with having a town that was quiet and slow. Not anymore. That is why I left!

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