And like this is a good thing?


We’ve just got to have faith that everyone in the future will do the right thing!


American animal actor Spook, as Lassie, sits next to child actor Jon Provost, as Timmy, who prays in an episode of the television show 'Lassie' entitled 'Cully's New Pet,' July 12, 1960. The episode originally aired September 25, 1960. (Photo by CBS Photo Archive/Getty Images)


Board Vice President Terry Tornek said both the Authority and the city have evolved to a point where they can work with one another on the replacement terminal project, noting that the relationship between the two agencies was more contentious in the past.

Good for whom?

Isn’t it funny how our city council members — except for Gordon on occasion – never speak up in these news articles about this unnecessary “replacement” terminal? It’s always the Authority doing the talking.

It was such a mock attempt to look independent, because now the council-majority insists on writing the actual ballot argument in favor! It makes you wonder if this strategy was cooked up somewhere by agreement. Like if they write the article in favor now instead of the Authority or some other flack it makes it look all the more credible.

Gordon writing in opposition of course makes it look like another whine job from the council crazies. But the council crazies aren’t writing any of the super-positive Yelp about the existing facility, and so what’s the explanation on that one? 

Any explanation as well as to why the Authority won’t drop their 27-gate plan with the FAA, or why our four council backers won’t ask them to do so?

It’s an uncomfortable topic, yes. So let’s just have faith instead that any future city council in Burbank won’t take advantage of the growth opportunities that a “yes” vote will give to the Authority in November.

Right Will?

As Gordon put it the other night, there are no more Measure B’s after November if this silly scheme passes. That’s it for any kind of community review. The Authority and the airport boosters may not always be so collegial.







Filed under Uncategorized

39 responses to “And like this is a good thing?

  1. Burbank Bill

    How ’bout the Leaderless, with not one but TWO articles boasting and boosting this rigged vote and just bashing Gordon as some sort of ogre …disgraceful , yet so transparent!

    • Anonymous 3

      HOW is the vote rigged? And Gordon was in favor of this deal before he was against it.

      • semichorus

        No he wasn’t.

      • Burbank Bill

        It is rigged in the sense that a new airport is built REGARDLESS of how Burbank votes: a Yes vote means one gets built. A NO vote means your cronies on the Airport Authority will build one anyway on another parcel of land . So yes , it is rigged

        • semichorus

          They won’t. The most they’d do is enlarge their current site.

          If “no” wins it’s easier to come back with another smaller proposal on B-6 adjacent.

          • Anonymous 3

            If it is no then the B6 property is out of contention.

            • semichorus

              Then great. I think re-doing the current site is the best bet. It will be a limited project.

              SW will never happen.

          • Anonymous 3

            Oh, they gonna build a new terminal SOMEWHERE. And only the plan on the NE B6 property includes supermajority protection for Burbank. The SW site includes the current AA rules of procedure, where by the other cities can run all over us.

            Just facts. And if you don’t trust appointed airport commissioners, there is no reason that the three could not be city council members.

        • Anonymous 3

          So make the choice that makes the most sense: The B6 with a supermajority.

          • semichorus

            And twice as big, with the potential to go even bigger, without any more community review.

            Oh yeah, it’s for the gift shops… and for a “safe” terminal!

  2. Anonymous 3

    “Gordon writing in opposition of course makes it look like another whine job from the council crazies.” I could not have said it better.

    As for future councils, they DO get elected, if my understanding of the city charter is correct. I have difficulty imagining the voters electing three expansionists who would OK 27 gates. Ever.

    • semichorus

      Then rescind the FAA document.

      You’re extremely naive. “People, they won’t be big gates!”

      • Anonymous 3

        You’re infinitely paranoid.

      • Anonymous 3

        Tell me how it is that the people of Burbank are going to elect 3 expansionists.

        • semichorus

          Easy. By closeted big-growthers running as “Keep Our Burbank family friendly!” That’s just for starters. Chamber and Leadership Burbank types are already half-way there.

          Economic growth is good for Burbank!

          Watch what Rizzotti does the next time he runs. Or some of the others. They’ll claim Slow Growth as a campaign slogan.

          An institutional mindset can also take over. That happens all the time.

      • Irv

        Anon 3 is naive or has something to gain from all the secret deals.

        • Anonymous 3

          Darn. Ya figured me out at last. I may as well admit it. I get $1million dollars is a 27 gate terminal gets built.

          And all I have to do is post on this petulant blog! Such a deal!

          • Chelsea

            Darn. Ya even sound like willie peter.
            Let’s name four sell-outs for the Airport Authority.
            Fuddy Duddy, Telemoron, wee willie AND now unimproved Fruitloops.

    • Anonymous

      Mr. Rogers, if you are so sure the Airport would never want a 27-gate terminal and only wants a 14-gate terminal — why does the Airport want the authority in the JPA to expand the terminal in the future with 2 votes from 3 Burbank Airport Comissioners? If they truly only want a 14-gate terminal then that should be all they get, period. If they want to expand to more gates in 20 years let them come back to the city council and ask for more gates. This council is giving away authority to the Airport that is just plain nuts.

      This is the worst City Council since 1990 except for David Gordon. 3 don’t know anything about the airport except they want it bigger, and Will Rogers is disgraceful because he knows better. Everyone except David Gordon has SOLD OUT!

      • semichorus

        Rogers does know better, but it’s all about expedience. He hates the ground-level boarding (which apparently many people LOVE), etc., and so he wants a new facility.

        He’s admitted too that the political complexion in this town could someday change to allow in a bigger airport.

      • angthetang

        Exactly! This council seems in favor of every development that comes their way, regardless of what the citizens say. It’s not at all inconceivable, or crazy, to think that that there could be a pro expansion airport authority in the future. All the they have to do is put it in writing, 14 gates, and there is no issue, yet they refuse.

  3. chad

    Anon 3, you say David Gordon first supported the new terminal project. You have been contradicted and you have not responded. I note that you are a Hillary supporter as am I. (Although I voted for Sanders in the primary.) One of the things that Trump and the Republicans do is constantly state things that simply aren’t true and if they are called on it they typically ignore the contradiction and move on hoping the original “misstatement” will linger in people’s minds and serve a propagandistic function. This is a roundabout way of sincerely asking you if you are sure Gordon initially supported the project. I don’t remember this. I remember him pissing off his colleagues because he kept referring to closed-meeting discussions and wanted the Council to go public which they are doing now and frankly inadvertently admitting to lengthy closed-meeting discussions which they never reported out. Please don’t accuse me of being an echo chamber for Gordon as I don’t always support him. I will admit that these days I find myself aligning with him more than anyone else on the Council.

    • Anonymous 3

      Gordon supported the recent deal with the AA and the previous deal negotiated while he was Mayor.

      Don’t put so much account into the fact that I had other things to do than read this petulant blog.

  4. Anonymous

    Just read the LA Times today. Too much inventory of new and rehabbed apts. Fire sale rents and freebies. Again developers and corrupt city officials continue to do what’s best for “us”even when we tell them we don’t want anymore growth congestion and traffic. Just like the Airport.

  5. Anonymous 3

    Will Rogers said it pretty well:

    “Yes, along the way we did lose the support of one council member. But that flip-flop appears premised more upon an imminent reelection effort than any legitimate objection. He now cites features that supposedly came up since July, 2015 as the motivation for his reversal, but an ample record shows he’s offering a Trump-like version of the calendar. He was once a proponent of features he now condemns. We’re now in a strange “Twilight Zone” world where assuring the ballot measure is voted on by the largest number of city voters is supposedly scandalous, part of the devious machinations of the dark side – at least for those who always imagine a dark side, which coincidentally makes it that much more urgent to reelect the great protector.

    It’s possible the turnaround came about just because the fifth council member was eager to accept credit for an agreement accomplished when he was Mayor or Vice Mayor. But once he was simply one of five, he reverted to his years-long pattern of distinguishing himself from the crowd by being the one to bellow, “no!” clumsily juggling for supposed reasons after the fact.

    I can’t read minds, and so can’t explain another’s change of heart. In fact, even he claimed two weeks ago to have no serious issues with the terminal plan. Instead, he said his newfound doubts are premised upon an alleged “rush to judgment,” this because a council majority supports putting the plan before Burbank voters in an election where it will be considered by significantly more voters than the average municipal election turn-out. He claims that by November the public will have had too little time to consider the issue and offer input.

    Odd that wasn’t a concern when the council was taking positions with the discussions held in secret. Despite virtually countless invitations for public comment and input in recent years, running the gamut from public meetings and presentations, to council members pleading for questions from constituents, now we’re being told the public will not have had enough opportunity to comment and offer input if they’re asked to vote on the current proposal in November.”

    • semichorus

      Rogers is full of shit.

      Who’s saying there wasn’t enough comment time? Not me. Golonski back in the fall, as far as I know. Who’s he talking about? Gordon’s arguments in opposition go WAY beyond the time element.

      And Gordon has also been consistently against a new terminal except only in the best of circumstances. Thanks to my helping to point it out, these aren’t them. He’s never been a booster.

      Rogers is also blatantly LYING when he claims that putting this issue on the November ballot wasn’t an obvious stealth move on the part of the supporters. They’re trying to curate the kind of electorate they want– younger Millennials who like shiny new things and don’t know a lot about the Authority’s history.

      He’s also a hypocrite, because they will NEVER move to consolidate our other Burbank elections for the same supposedly beneficial reason. If maximum voter turnout is such a righteously good idea, why not?

      Put it into the Charter– consolidate as many of our city elections as possible.

      Yeah, right. That’ll never happen — one rent control initiative or anti-development referendum and they know the dangers of such a move. Or a populist slow-growth candidate in the mix. The election results in such a consolidated vote wouldn’t be pretty for the local establishment.

      Rogers is such a pious asshole, isn’t he? Such a phony. Always with the straw man arguments too.

      BTW, isn’t he violating the BMC by divulging some of the supposed content of the council’s many closed session meetings on the topic?

  6. chad

    Anon 3. Okay, I trust you are correct. I don’t remember. I don’t think you need to insult the people who democratically support Gordon. I think Will has a compulsive need to sabotage himself. Wait a minute. You mean the Council really did have detailed discussions that weren’t reported out? I’m shocked.

    • semichorus

      One of the reasons I recommended people vote for Rogers over Rizzotti was that I cynically wanted him to screw up just like this new Facebook posting he wrote. I knew it wouldn’t take long.

      He has no business publicly using closed-session discussions against the others, especially for political purposes. He’s doing that here in part (some of it’s based on Gordon’s public remarks from the dais). Worse, he’s trying to already undermine the ballot opposition statement by using confidential discussions against Gordon to harm his credibility.

      And it’s so innuendo-laden as well. Classic Rogers.

      • Anonymous 3

        “One of the reasons I recommended people vote for Rogers” more of your grandiose imaginings.

        You have zilch influence and I love seeing you howl against the new terminal. You cannot stop it. Gordon is already telling people it is a done deal. All he is doing now is building his cred with the NIMBYs for the next election.

        He’s probably HAPPY that Measure B will be on the Nov ballot. If it passes he can pose, and I do mean pose, as the defeated but honorable champion of all Burbank’s NIMBYs. If it fails he will take all the credit for that, leaving none for you, to be sure.

        • semichorus

          I broke the Young Life story, which hurt Rizzoti considerably. It cost him the election after it caught fire. (Oh, that’s right. Will’s personal home visits charmed the electorate. Yeah.)

          You guys sure have some hard-on about Gordon, don’t you? Talk about delusional imaginings. Those Nimbys you refer to will vote for him anyway, and as I recall he’s gotten top vote turnouts in the past. Some loser, eh?

          This terminal is a stupid idea, and most people like what we’ve got. Burbank will regret fucking things up if they vote this travesty in. It’s inevitable.

          You guys can never engage in confronting these issues head-on, and so it’s personal defamation time again. Welcome to Burbank.

          Such sleazeball goings-on over this Measure B “referendum.” It was long ago predicted to be such.

        • Anonymous

          It’s all so very personal for A3, ain’t it? It’d be laughable if A3 wasn’t such a transparent pathological troll-shill. So reminiscent of a former weed dealer turned long unemployed “investigative reporter” turned city hall payaso…

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