Gordon doesn’t need to rebut Rogers’ accusations. Golonski already did

 

 

Rogers is right about one thing though. This supposed controversy about community response time is not much of an issue when it comes to real concerns about The Plan.

But this is. The Berlins were way ahead of their time on this one. The question is still relevant:

 

 

Among the other specific criticisms about the deal, it raises serious questions why the Authority insists on keeping 27-gate paperwork on file with the FAA. It obviously means that they still want to be able to dramatically expand the size of the Burbank Airport if and when they want to. And all it would take is two Burbank votes to do so —  and just step by step if need be.

Rogers of course would rather ignore substantive issues like this and focus instead on the supposed foibles and character problems of the critics. Always fraudulent, it’s an old and stale trick in Burbank.

And so the immediate concern about the council “designating” Dr. Gordon to be the author of the opposition statement was that it was nothing but a blatant attempt to turn the Measure B vote into a personal referendum on this (now) lone wolf council member. It seemed to be transparent as hell.

By going after Gordon so soon with the “Twilight Zone” nonsense, Rogers easily proved that very theory about their motive, or at least his: ignore most of the real criticisms by making it about Dr. Gordon and his supposedly odd and dishonest behavior. And he’s doing so in an attempt to already undermine the Measure B ballot’s opposition statement.

 

 

 

Advertisements

13 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

13 responses to “Gordon doesn’t need to rebut Rogers’ accusations. Golonski already did

  1. Anonymous 3

    “And all it would take is two Burbank votes to do so”

    That’s right, that’s all it would take, two faithless commissioners flouting the Council’s will.

    How likely IS that? Not.

    If it makes you feel better, the three seats on the AA could be filled directly by Council members.

    Do you REALLY think that three pro 27 gate Council members could get elected? I know they could not.

    • semichorus

      Ever thought that Burbank could get a pro-development, growth-happy council majority? With two growth-happy commissioners?

      Oh that’s right. It’s never happened before.

      Bill Rudell? Who was that?

      Brian Bowman who? George Battey who?

      • Anonymous 3

        I don’t think that anybody will be elected to the Council without a clear understanding that 14 gates is the maximum.

        Not going to happen. They just will not get past the voters.

        • semichorus

          2025:

          “Folks, it’s just 19 gates we need. Just five more to help run the operation more efficiently…”

          2032:

          “People, in order to pay for those new and safer runways for the FAA, we need to add several more gates and expand our operations a bit. It’s only eight we need… ”

          Get real.

          • Anonymous

            Don’t even bother responding to A3, Semi. She is always right! ALWAYS! The Oracle of Pepper Street ha ha haaa

          • Anonymous 3

            And the AA could build 27 gates on the SW corner, without the City having boo to say about it.

            The voters will not cave on the 14 gates.

            • semichorus

              Let them then. I want to see them try to put a 27-gate terminal there.

              If they could have they would have. Already.

              Measure B does have some oversight on that property — unless the council illegally “vested” that right away as well — the term that Golonski was trying to figure out in that video back in the fall.

              • Anonymous 3

                No, the AA wants the NE site much more than the SW. The SW requires that aircraft cross the runways twice to get into position to take off. The NE site does not require any such wasteful and hazardous maneuvers.

                • semichorus

                  Exactly. That’s one of many reasons why SW has not been and never WILL be built.

                  You’ve proven my point about this sham threat. So let them fix up the current terminal. That’s the best idea of all!

  2. Anonymous 3

    ” by making it about Dr. Gordon and his supposedly odd and dishonest behavior.”

    And it is so easy.

  3. chad

    There’s no way a 27 gate terminal would ever be built. The environmental impact alone would stop it. That’s a straw man threat. So the real issue here is more than 14 plus added expenses. The solution is to renovate the existing structure for far less money with no more gates. The baggage claim area could use an upgrade but leave everything else the way it is. I travel a lot and Burbank airport is a breeze thank god. The only other airports like it are maybe John Wayne and Columbus in Ohio that I know of. How’s Oakland these days? I was there in ’82 so I’m sure it’s changed.

    • semichorus

      Right. The SW and current site could NEVER be that big. SW is also untenable.

      If B-6 gets built, in a few years it’s going to be:

      “People, we’re only asking for five more gates. That’s all!”

      “We have to find new ways of paying our expenses for the new terminal — you know, the one the voters approved in 2016 because the old one was so unsafe!”

      • Jan

        Yes renovate the terminal we have, that’s the affordable and common sense idea, as for impacts they keep doing things that gave negative enviro impacts, and its easy just say there are no impacts they have been doing that a whole lot already.

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