Sorry we can’t embed it here:
Pretty funny. It’s made it to Canada, but not Burbank?
Filed under Uncategorized
No but this is there
3 hrs · Burbank
Not sure what can be done but more than 10 people now live around the street parking area around McCambridge park. It was not a big deal when it was 1 or 2 but is now growing at alarming rate. Most are parking their cars and living out of their cars around the park and the gentleman who lives in the park has now set up a campsite on the parking area. What can the city do?
Camping in parks is illegal in Burbank. If that’s going on at night then the police should be called.
The same thing happened at Izay a few years ago with the cars. Word got around and people congregated. The police eventually dispersed them. The Izay parking lot also became an R/V hangout which the BPD let slide until that crowd started to get into fights with each other.
Yes, people will abuse their right. The solution is to make them scatter around — which the smart ones will do on their own.
One of the BIG problems is that outside agencies are pawning off their problems on Burbank. Ascencia in Glendale is a HUGE culprit about this. And BTAC gets the brunt of it. So word gets around.
LAPD has played a part also.
“Scoot down Victory, past the cemetery..
They won’t bother you ’till morning.”
“We can’t have you here at the library.
Head over to Burbank, they have a Park & Library past the 7-11
at Victory & Hollywood Way.”
Let the coyotes have at them.
Expanding airports is not legal in Burbank unless we vote to give that power away so vote NO on Measure B and don’t fall for the snake oil salesmen like Frutos
A “yes” vote will give it away. Permanently. From Burbank. ( I obviously don’t take this “supermajority” right seriously. And is it even allowable under the Authority’s own rules? Some “agreement” made with Burbank won’t just make it so. Has anyone bothered to check if the Authority’s voting procedures will even ALLOW a supermajority result margin? It has to be codified somewhere first in their own rules.)
This “supermajority” veto right only applies too to actual gate expansion. They could double the number of flights with impunity, and through no review at all — which is how of course this “replacement” terminal is going to get bigger.
As part of the Agreement, the council should have also forced the Authority to allow any future expansion effort to go in front of the Burbank voters as well. The council could have allowed this under “B,” or easily drawn up a new ordinance authorizing such a vote.
I think the same thing about the super majority. Do we even know if the airport or someone sued that a court won’t say the super majority is illegal ? If a court says it’s illegal do we get everything back that we gave away with measure B or are we just screwed ?
If someone successfully sues over this supermajority veto right (such as an afflicted airline that wants to expand its own gate section in the future — which they in fact will pay for themselves) then that portion of the “Agreement” will get severed from the rest. And the rest of it will continue on as before.
These agencies have to follow their own procedural rules. For instance, the city council could — say – strike an agreement with the YMCA to require a supermajority veto requirement to — say — change some kind of property or lease agreement with them.
But if they did so, they would also have to change their own 3-2 voting rules, which are (I believe) enshrined in several city ordinances from long ago. Which may not be so easy to do. Just telling someone, “Yeah, it’ll need a supermajority from us before we can change the deal with you” is not enough.
Like, do their own rules ALLOW it? Does state or federal law allow it on these relevant issues? How about on an FAA request that treads on Burbank’s “Agreement” rights ?
The culture of super over development with this council is all the clue one needs to pick up on the subtle pervasive hint of a bigger better terminal is great for Burbank. I have found its what they fail to reveal will bite us in the ***. Just what do you expect from the two supermajority, a favor (bribe) here and there and business as usual. It’s a joke to think the residents have a voice.
BTW, as of today there is more news from Ralph’s at B.V.&Victory.
Lockheed’s long time well-drillers, Cascade Drilling, started drilling
a brand spanking new “monitoring well” between Walmart and what
is called Operable Unit Two on Victory Place.
They will be checking for Chromium 6 and other contaminating chemicals.
A short field trip to Walmart confirmed the information.
The main source of the ever migrating toxic slop were the Glory Holes
utilized by Lockheed within the walls of the buildings referred to as the
That area is now referred to as the “B-6 Property”
Gee folks, that’s where they want to build the $450+ Million Replacement
Now who’s in a rush to bamboozle the Burbank Voter’s???
The Stack is Back!
Oh I have no doubts that where they want to build that new airport terminal is super polluted with who knows what and it could probably fry the skin right off your body if you get in contact with it. They never mention that they want to disturb horrible demons that are laying in the ground there, and those demons are just waiting to affect all of us once they go airborne
The We love Burbank page now requires everyone in it to sit with pom poms while they read
Tom forgot to mention that they keep their hands “busy” by doing that.
I have read the city of Burbank page and most there avoid substance and prefer to use it to talk about themselves and just how fantastic they are as individuals. It really is just a self promotion page and they get down right annoyed if anyone talks real issues with substance.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s