Gordon a year ago went on record as saying he couldn’t sign away on the airport deal unless there were “ironclad protections for the people of Burbank” in regards to governance and veto power (3:42). He wasn’t happy about Burbank’s simple two-vote “guarantee” being enough, and he said so publicly. There’s the evidence.
Rogers is such a lying douchebag, isn’t he? He’s already trying to undermine Gordon’s ballot opposition statement by falsely undermining Gordon’s credibility. Gordon was never crazy about the deal. We can see in the video that there’s no “flip-flop.”
Any contrary statements made in closed session are legally confidential under both state law and the BMC. It’s a misdemeanor to reveal them. But why believe Rogers on that one anyway?
Burbank, California 
Well Rogers, the Prince of Pepper Street, must be moving soon. Why else would he wanna ram this whole airport thing thru, when he lives directly under the flight path?.
Don’t you mean Rogers the fool of Pepper Street ?
Some people seem to forget reality and rewrite it with their own version, aka rogers and anon 3, wonder how fast after the election they will rewrite what the points of the airport deal mean.
“About the time I was elected, the then-council had just agreed unanimously to support a series of agreements with Pasadena and Glendale. ”
Gordon was for the deal before he was against it. Flip flop.
That’s a lie. Watch the video.
He was highly supportive of moving the term sheet along in the process. But that’s not the same thing as wholeheartedly endorsing its terms.
“He was highly supportive”
And then he flipped flopped.
I’m curious why you think repeating Rogers over and over again makes what he’s saying true.
The only way to make anything Rogers says true is to hope people get so tired of hearing it they just give up on it. Rogers never utters a truthful word ever in my opinion
So convenient for Rogers to say this or that about closed meetings where he can make up anything he wants due to the fact it’s a secret closed meeting now isn’t it ???
I love how this video proves that Rogers is lying. Gordon warned everyone a year ago that he wasn’t going to support the deal unless it had more protections.
Rogers lied about the Berlins last month too, in his continuing effort to make airport critics out to be a bunch of dishonest and contradictory nutcases.
Rogers lied to get elected, with that bale of bs he continuously spouted about being an “investigative reporter” (when he’d been out of work and living off his wife’s LADWP salary for almost a decade). That was the one decent thing former Leader editor Dan Evans attempted, when he held Roger’s little cloven hoofs to the fire attempting to force him to admit this big fat lie (which came out in black and white on Rogers campaign expenditure filing form).
Rogers is a contemptible, thin-skinned bully with all the integrity and political acumen of a sea cucumber. He fits in perfectly on the dais alongside equally incompetent lackeys Fuddy, Puffer and the mendacious, professional sell-out swine (“Adam took me to Washington!”) Frutos.
A3, can you clear up this purported professional “investigative reporter” employment quagmire for us? Or is that damning expenditure form the only lie attached to St. Rogers?
Yeah, Evans hated Rogers. It went back to when his wife worked there.
Women disliked working for some of those Leader guys back in the 90s.
Purported is the word. There is no quagmire. Rogers HAD been an investigative reporter, well known and respected. It was on that strong reputation that the people of Burbank in a democratic process chose him to represent them on the council. His credentials are so strong that he garnered more votes than any other candidate in that race.
There was no lie. There is only your desperation.
Will was addressing himself in the present tense on that one. Not one who HAD been. And Rizzoti would have beaten him but for the Young Life story. Most people under the age of 50 or 60 now have little personal familiarity with his old columnist job.
I broke the YL story here back in January, before the nominating election (sorry Will, you may have already known of the association earlier, but you did nothing with it.) Golonski and his friend picked up on it, then so did the Leader. It was VERY bad publicity for Rizzoti in this Burbank of 2016.
So he then tried to make it into an “I’m pro gay marriage” issue, which it was NOT. YL actively discriminates against gay youth leaders. That’s the problem, and it’s the reason why this outfit won’t publish its local sponsor rolls any more.
Now why don’t you address Roger’s blatant defamatory lie about this Gordon flip-flip?
Gordon was NEVER fully behind the terminal plan. He told the public a year ago that he couldn’t support it without better protections against expansion. He’s never been like me here, 100% anti-terminal.
Nice try, A3. But it won’t fly.The campaign expenditure form shows he hadn’t worked for many years during the period he trumpeted his non-credentials as a journalist. Everything about this dope pushing weasel is a lie, including his phony name.
What is phony about Roger’s name?
His parents named him William when born, and he chose to be known as Will.
His natural father died and his mother married a man named Rogers.
Thus, Will Rogers.
You got nothing. He was the first choice of the electorate and I hope it burns you up.
Just a coincidence that the “Will” had a familiar sort of ring to it….
… to put him that cut above!
Once again, asshole 3 knows w a y too much about Dopey Will.
Such great detail from an asshole buddy.
When anyone on this blog says RUNT, we know who they mean.
Here’s an example of what separates this petulant little blog from the “City of Burbank” facebook page.
Oh, the one that censors.
I hear they’re all arguing right now about the high cost of rent in Burbank. But of course, no solutions.
It’s called moderation. Where calling people “assholes” is not permitted.
Nor is having a prayer for Black Lives Matters.
“About the time I was elected, the then-council had just agreed unanimously to support a series of agreements with Pasadena and Glendale. ”
Gordon was for it before he was against it. Flip. Flop.
So saith … Rogers! Who wasn’t even there.
They agreed unanimously to (secretly) work on this term sheet.
Come on, we just “know” that Rogers and Anon 3 “heard it” from Miss Emily and Amy the Runt.
They “always” can be counted upon to keep Rogers clued-in.
Runt? More of that Misogyny that you are so well known, eh Mike?
Those of us who have been watching elections over time remember the Campaigns of Mary Lou Howard, Mary Kelsey etc.
We also remember those that supported women as our representatives, not for any reason other than their positions on issues, as opposed to any knee jerk reaction.
Later, when Gabel-Luddy and Anje came along, those women were rejected by many based on their positions and very poor attitude.
Playing a ‘woman card” won’t help Burbank.
It demeans those who play it, male or female.
You weren’t there either, now were you?
We have the video.
He was for it before he was against it on that video. When he was Mayor he was all for it. Now that he is running for reelection, he is naturally against it.
I do wish he would lose, but I know that his pandering to all the NIMBYs means he will win yet again, Dr. No always does.
He’s in favor of a new terminal- or at least he was (he may have since changed his mind, which is perfectly fine). He was not in favor of this deal. Big difference.
I can see that the airport boosters are eager to turn this into an issue about “Dr Gordon.” That’s because there’s no need for a new terminal.
So … let’s change the subject. The council’s “selecting” Gordon to write the opposition statement was an obvious — and quite childish — trap.
Then Gordon is stupid to do it, yes?
The problem is that there is nobody more credible to write the opposition statement. No other politician is against it. The NIMBY leaders have given up, they know it is a done deal.
Who else would YOU propose write the opposition statement?
I could write a great one– it would make some incredibly compelling arguments against a “replacement” terminal.
I love this “done deal” thing– like it’s even true or not. It’s only being used as a substitute for real argument, because there are no good ones in favor.
Burbank is so fucked if that stupid plan gets through. Why screw with something that works, and that people like, and even rave about.
Yeah. They should ask the ex-janitor who lives in mommy’s basement to write the anti-argument. Could you do it without expletives? I doubt it.
I love Burbank’s circle-jerk intelligence squad.
When you are lucky enough to never be a nimby in Burbank, it’s easy to walk around with that robotic smile. Get on the wrong side of the establishment and you will experience things that are not to be believed. Nimby people are the ones who need assistance. If you’re not running into obstacles, you don’t call on the council for assistance.
I love this NIMBY accusation from these boosters.
Like who WOULD want an airport in their backyard??!!!
Anyone who buys a house and THEN discovers that there is an airport (school, freeway, what have you) adjacent has none of my sympathy.
No one’s complaining about this airport. Just an expanded one.
Elected to what? Who are you? Sue is not fond of you.
The more you say it the more you like like a clown just like Rogers does
Say what you want anonymous Rogers I watched the video.
Will Rogers is a congenital liar
He’s just your typical local hustler. Whatever works.
The kind of guy who thinks it’s a smart move to import out-of-state weed in to sell to the local yokels for rent and Tommy’s money. He’s still on that level.
Not a whole lot on the class or literacy level. Whatever potential he had was “Burbanked” long ago. I’ve seen it happen often.
So no one on staff ever thought that if we consolidate elections we might not get “b” as the measure? This is just another reason the ballot measure called for a LOCAL election.
Unless it’s named appropriately, it’s going to get lost in the mix.
I love it. With such a huge and confusing ballot, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if many local voter numbskulls just skip it on by.
EXACTLY the voters they want and need to win!
How perfect. It would be SO devine.
It will become the battle of yard signs. Only the yes side will have the organization and money to send mailers that could backfire. Someone will come up with NO signs and that will make the difference in the drive by voters.
8:14 and the council meeting is all wrapped up? Such a heavy agenda. Tell kneed keeps telling people to watch the tape if they want input. Well Jess, there is no tape anymore. The replay avail online does not allow fast forwarding or rewind. Some media capital we are huh. Some meeting can last 6 or more hours. Good luck finding the point You wanna watch. And was Rogers actually reading during final orals and not paying attention rude.
What browser are you using? On mine the replay indexes fine. They’ve even got little dots on there to divide up the video by subject.
Just like Pornhub does. Only instead of “creampie ending” and “squirting finish,” it’s “Report from Authority representative” and “Presentations to council.”
Anon 3, if you hold a position in the city of Burbank, you need to step down. You are very condescending and closed minded. Are you the one who tried to intimidate people into not viewing or responding to this site? At City Council you said the police may have to review some matters and see who is participating on Semi. If the site is so inaccurate, don’t worry about it.
Bottom line is that it addresses the unfair crap going on and you know it!
Look beyond the cussing and this site is full of heavy duty reporting.
Who said that?
Did someone in the city call for the police to investigate this site?
I missed that one. Money in the bank for me if true. How do you spell S-M-O-K-I-N-G G-U-N?
Hehehehehehe.
You will believe anything, as long as it is improbable.
This site is full of heavy duty paranoia and nihilist reaction.
Who the hell are YOU?
At least come up with an individual moniker.
And no, I don’t work for the city.
Pish.