Airport boosters lying about “local control”


Here’s from their PR “Vote for US!” webpage:



Less desirable to whom?

Burbank also actually has more local control now the way things stand without a new terminal. We have the Measure B vote — the real Measure B. But if this thing wins in Novٖember the voters will never get another chance to weigh in on anything that comes up the road.

That’s it– there will never be another citizen vote once a “replacement terminal” gets built. And you could easily see a 28-gate terminal there in the future (and will– why do you think they want to relocate to a bigger space, and won’t pull their late 90s expansion plan from the FAA?) The terminal they have planned post-election is already almost half again as big as the current facility.

If it loses, they’ll just have to present a better plan to the voters. So don’t buy this scare tactic. Don’t buy either their other claim that the airport’s not earthquake safe, and that it was built in 1930.

It is, and it wasn’t. Actually, is there anything still left there from 1930?

Here’s some pictures of the original facility on opening day:







Looks familiar, doesn’t it? See, we need a new one!

They just lie, don’t they. They’re desperate to get the voters to approve an expensive new boondoggle that most people know we don’t need. We like the old one just fine.

Notice too how the ballot statement lobbies for a “yes” vote?



Whatever works, eh? It also repeats the “greater voice” lie. The future’s already been pegged out.

Your only voice is now, people. So vote “no.”



Filed under Uncategorized

48 responses to “Airport boosters lying about “local control”


    Dr Gordon talks about how we lose the protections we have if we vote YES on measure B,

  2. Thanks Semi. But it’s even worse. There’s no mention of “next gen” air traffic tech that will allow for many more flights per day even if they don’t expand the terminal beyond 14 gates. This explains whey they’d want to expand the taxiways. Hoping to have more information soon.

    • semichorus

      Good work.

      • Gary

        Nobody would spend 500 million, go in debt without a plan to add more flights. How would they make it pay for itself otherwise. I smell an international airport in our future because that explains the need for more shops and restaurants. The cheer squad from the chamber of commerce keeps saying more shops and restaurants like LAX, but LAX is an international airport where you wait for hours.

        • semichorus

          Wonder how our current shops and restaurants feel about more competition. Thanks, Chamber!

          • Ron

            The Burbank Chamber does nothing for Business in Burbank. The chamber is an old boys club with skeletor Flavin as their leader. Flavin and the gang are just there trying to hold in to the corrupt past.

            • semichorus

              It was a good outfit back when Pam Corradi ran it. And earlier than that, Tony Frank.

              And remember that really YOUNG guy they brought in for a few years (or months)?

          • Anonymous 3

            Competition is good for the customer. What are you, a communist?

        • Anonymous 3

          Seriously? An international airport? The runways are too small for aircraft that would get to NY, much less Tokyo or London.

          Get a grip.

          • Tom

            Don’t think it is impossible to enlarge and lengthen the run ways, after all all it takes is approvals after a super majority vote and enough establishment cronies pushing for it.

          • Burbank Bill

            Will, look up from Pepper Street. You will see 737s flying over your house. These same planes are now used by Jetblue to fly from Burbank to JFK. With all that square footage being added, a Customs area is certainly possible. Most passports processed via kiosk now anyway.. so like many of your arguements, fail. Keeping 14 gates does not mean fewer flights. Just the opposite

            • semichorus

              It’s long been desired and talked about that Burbank would and will handle flights to Mexico and beyond. I believe at one time it did.

              This planned new terminal is BIG. And can and will be bigger. With little effort, too — step by step. It won’t happen all at once.

    • Anonymous 3

      Why can’t they instigate “next gen” with the current terminal?

      Go hide under your bed.

  3. Anonymous 3

    The SW quadrant is less desirable because, among other things, it would require aircraft to cross the runways twice. The NE location does not have the airplanes crossing the runways at all.

    Not a small difference.

  4. Jess

    The Public Comments at the Council meeting were News, in and of themselves.
    The non=answers and “pass” to Amypoo was also News.
    What happened to the Follower?
    When have they printed ANY questions about the Airport messes?
    The management should be embarrassed by now..

    Mr. semi, you are more important, all the time.

  5. DixieFlyer

    WOW Did you all see and hear Ron Davis go apeshit???

    When amy was too unsure of herself to respond to the Public at the meeting, there was talk of an Agenda item for the next meeting.

    “No back-and-forth” he cried

    Since when is a Council discussion dictated by Davis?

    The questions deserve to be answered.

    • semichorus

      I wonder what they’re worried about in always trying to shut the council up from talking about matters?

      Certainly not the Brown Act. That’s just being used for cover.

      I’ll bet the closed sessions are pretty interesting with two big talkers like Gordon and Rogers around. Debate, concern, and possible uncertainty over policy issues is something that staff DOESN’T want to see leak out,

    • Anonymous 3

      Did you get up and start shouting bullshit at him? Or have you come up with some sort of insulting nickname for him yet?

      Get a hobby.

  6. Mayor’s son deletes multiple “Vote No on B posts.” Just gonna leave this here:

    • semichorus

      Is he allowing “yes” posts?

      I love his “kool aid” crack. Does that mean Albano’s statement too?

      • The issue is pretty quiet on the page so not many YESs at this point. But plenty of people argue for yes when we post our side.

        • Chuck

          I have never understood how the city leave that City of Burbank page without challenge. The name they use mixed with the mayor and councilman Rogers participating on it and the mayors son running it is confusing and makes it look official from the city of Burbank when my understanding is that there is nothing official about it.

        • Burbanker

          The mayor and his son should not run a page called City of Burbank. Someone remind Tellthemoron that he took an oath to uphold the constitution and not an oath to be the speech police.

    • Anonymous 3

      I saw a long discussion started by a woman who wanted a no a few weeks ago. Most of the responses were for a yes.

  7. RINO Poacher

    Here’s Mr. Crony:

  8. Chuck

    I have never understood how the city leave that City of Burbank page without challenge. The name they use mixed with the mayor and councilman Rogers participating on it and the mayors son running it is confusing and makes it look official from the city of Burbank when my understanding is that there is nothing official about it.

  9. Orchard Drive

    The best way to figure out when Burbank politics is against the interest of the public is to look at just who supports something. I received the flyer supporting Measure B and when I saw the Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Realtors all involved in promoting the Measure along with local developers and school unions I knew the bottom line is this measure is designed to fool and screw the residents of Burbank. Names like Linda Barnes, Chris Rizzotti, Pam Corradi, Susan Georgino, Jack O”Neal, and Mary Alvord only pop up when bad things are happening. The last time Alvord popped up was when the police misconduct cost us millions, she was our city manager while things went terribly wrong.

    Don’t get me started look back at the history of the names supporting this measure and you know it requires a no vote.

    • Jim

      Sue Georgino and Mary Alvord assisted in the suicide of the Magnolia Park PBID. They permitted the city employees to not follow the guidelines and be very rude to the landholders. They watched their assistants squander money and not complete anything they set out to do (except party). Three very disgusted guys had their fill of the craziness and joined forces to end it all. Has anyone noticed how many city employees look down on the residents? It starts at the top and works down. Too many city employees treat people like losers and are totally out of line.

  10. Ryan

    Is there anybody who gains any information from Aninymous 3 and his endless rants ? Speaking for myself Anonymous 3 rambles nonsense just like Rogers does.

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