Council majority lies right out of the gate: upcoming vote is not “Yes on Measure B,” it’s yes on a new terminal

 

Will Rogers at his “unofficial” website last week gave everyone a preview of the council majority’s “pro” terminal argument in the ballot statement, and right off the bat it’s a total and complete misrepresentation. Which means of course that he must have written it…

Measure B was approved by Burbank voters 15 years ago. So why this title now?

 

screenshot-2016-09-20-at-12-25-29-am

 

Is this what they’re calling it now? What a phony ploy. This is NOT a vote on Measure B — it’s a vote on a big new airport terminal. Measure B already won … in 2001.

Why don’t they tell it like it is? The airport proponents are clearly trying to gloss over what’s really going on here by shading the actual title of this upcoming November event. A, “VOTE YES FOR A NEW AIRPORT TERMINAL!” ballot caption sounds much worse than what they’re clumsily trying to be deceptive about now.***

Here’s some of his content:

Do not be fooled: Measure B does not expand the airport. Measure B gives Burbank greater protections and power to stop airport expansion.
With Measure B approval, just two Burbank airport commissioners can BLOCK any effort to change the voluntary curfew, increase size, gates or other forms of expansion. These can be blocked even if every Glendale and Pasadena commissioner votes to expand!

Again, Measure B? The ELECTION itself is the result of the old Measure B; Measure B is not this current voter issue.  Those old protectionist arguments for the old Measure B are being used to falsely prop up this current pro-terminal “referendum” effort in November. And after the vote is over it’s all in the past tense if this stupid plan goes through, too. There are no more voter protections for the residents of Burbank in the future, aside from recalling any future expansionist council members. Which of course there will be.

This is Burbank we’re talking about. Just “two Burbank airport commissioners” supposedly against a future expansion could easily turn into two votes for. And that’s all it needs.

And btw, it IS an expanded terminal being planned for right now. Considerably larger in fact than what we’ve got. So that’s another blatant lie he’s got going on there.

These airport proponents are investing so much bad karma into this deal now, aren’t they? No good ever comes of it.

 

*** Too bad we don’t have any money. This clearly false representation of the ballot measure itself could be enough on its own to get it tossed by the courts if it really gets printed like this. Because it’s not what it is, a vote on “Measure B.”

The city can’t call the vote something it’s not. But this would cost $$$$ to fight…
 
 
 

Advertisements

11 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

11 responses to “Council majority lies right out of the gate: upcoming vote is not “Yes on Measure B,” it’s yes on a new terminal

  1. Anonymous 3

    You should go to council and call them out on it.
    If you could stand to leave your dusty apartment.

  2. Anonymous 3

    That was not Rogers nor the Council that named it “Measure B”, but rather the City Clerk. Address your complaints to her.

    • semichorus

      All conferred.

      So what’s Measure A on this ballot, if the airport is B? They’re all such cynical, manipulative assholes, this booster crowd.

  3. Anonymous

    So what would a lawyer go on? I’m trying to figure the angle. Can you put in words what you’d ask a lawyer to look into or Interpret about this deal. There are election watch dogs that might help.

    • semichorus

      False statements in the argument; improper labeling of the referendum itself per state law– not sequential, and used to cynically glom onto all the good will attached to the REAL Measure B.

      The same reason why advocates elsewhere in California can’t call their own ballot measures “Proposition 13” just to latch onto it.

      The council and city attorney can’t just name this ballot measure anything they want to PR wise, nor can its advocates blatantly lie in the advocacy statements. The official description also cannot threaten derogatory consequences per a certain voter outcome in order to craft a desired result.

      From the beginning staff and the council majority have been trying to force the voters’ hand on this stupid terminal plan, and it’s ludicrously dishonest for Rogers and the others to now claim that they didn’t vote for “any” particular choice.

      • Anonymous 3

        It was the Clerk who named the measure, not the Council.

        Send your complaints to her.

        • semichorus

          In consultation with management. These Burbank cc’s never act alone or on their own. It was strategized.

          No? So what’s “Measure A” on this ballot then?

          • Anonymous 3

            Uh huh.

            Take your complaint to the Clerk.

            • semichorus

              What’s “Measure A” on this ballot then?

              If there’s a “B” then there’s gotta be an “A.” That’s actually state law– sequential, so as not to fool or confuse or mislead people with other measures.

              • Anonymous 3

                Ask the Clerk. It was her doing.

                And the County approved it. Drop them a line.

                • semichorus

                  Why’d she do it?

                  It’s because they all (except Gordon) wanted it that way. I don’t believe for one second that she didn’t confer with people about it. It’s also dishonest as hell– it’s a blatant, cynical attempt to exploit the good will that surrounds the real “Measure B.” It’s deliberate name identification, like trying to call something else “Proposition 13.”

                  Vote Yes on Measure B! Remember Measure B? It was so popular!

                  You all voted “Yes” last time, Burbank!

                  Jesus, you really are a cynical and expedient asshole, aren’t you. Whatever works, eh? The glorious thing about it all is that this just shows how sleazy and desperate they are to win. And no good will come of it if they do.

                  This city clerk is also the same one who last month tried to hide the reality that not all “tenants” on the Landlord-Tenant Commission are tenant advocates. Some are landlords.

                  Like her own daughter!

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