This is STILL on the planning books for your big new airport


This Record of Decision is still active and on the books.




Gonna make it easy for them, Burbank voters, if you vote for this big new and easily expandable terminal? You’ll get what you deserve.

Twenty-seven gates is still on the docket:



Ask them why they haven’t rescinded it.






Filed under Uncategorized

37 responses to “This is STILL on the planning books for your big new airport

  1. Doug

    Holy Shit I believe these people and it explains why all the secrets and the unwillingness to answer any questions

    VOTE NO on B

  2. 91505

    I have no doubts that if they get all that land they will build a much bigger than 14-gate terminal, hell they already want to double the size of it and say oh that’s baggage. Bull Crap its baggage, it is making it bigger for more people and more flights.

  3. Orchard Drive

    Why am I not surprised rule one is never trust anything that airport says.

  4. Dawn

    Why haven’t they rescinded this if they are telling us no more than 14 gates ?

  5. chad

    When I watched the video of Sue Georgino bringing Mr. Brown to the microphone with her I was reminded of the scene in Godfather 2 when Michael brings Frankie Pentangelli’s brother from Sicily to sit in the back of the Senate Hearing chambers.

    • Rob

      Chad it looked like she was brining her pupper there to stand with her. It also looked like she hit him and gave him a black eye.

  6. Nancy

    So if Measure B passes and then they say we are building a 20 gate terminal can we vote N because it is different from what they told us ?

    • semichorus

      You can’t vote anything. You already had your vote on the “replacement” terminal when and if you pass this one.

      There’s one vote only if this is “yes.” If it’s “no,” then they can conceivably deliver another proposal for another vote.

      • Nancy

        But why if they build more gates than they tell us now isn’t another vote to make it bigger than we would’ve approved? We are only giving permission for 14 gates if people vote yes right ?

        • semichorus

          The real Measure B from 2001 allows the Burbank voters an up or down decision on a new terminal.

          The Agreement the council made this year — and put on the ballot for everyone to approve next week — gives the Authority “supermajority” the right to make any future changes in the new terminal.

          So Measure B is a one shot — in theory the council COULD have required a future citizen vote on any airport expansion — but they didn’t. Or on anything else discretionary or made to be discretionary.

          So in short:

          — The voters are being asked to approve a 14-gate terminal

          — The voters are also being asked to ratify an “Agreement” between the council and the Authority that grants future expansion rights solely to the Authority — along with any and all architectural and design rights. Burbank will have no further discretionary rights in any area or part of what’s left of B-6 (the airport part). Glendale and Pasadena will even be doing all of the building inspections.

          • Anonymous

            Semi: “The voters are being asked to approve a 14-gate terminal”

            Indeed, that’s the carrot at the end of the stick. This is what I’ve been screaming about for weeks. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THEY HAVE TO BUILD ANYTHING. And, even if they did, they can add on to if or build another terminal. This is why this is being RUSHED. They want to ram it down our throats before we realize what we were truly voting on. That’s why there are no “building plans” or documentation of funding from the feds. Or anything. They are just looking to do a land grab of the B6 property and get free from voter control and they are using some slick marketing smoke and mirrors of artist renderings and so-called promises. WHO THE HELL VOTES ON VAPOR. When, I want to add to my house, I have to submit detailed plans and budget analysis etc….THE AA HAS DONE NONE OF THIS! IT’S A CLASSIC BAIT AND SWITCH.

            • semichorus

              What they wanted to do was get it on this consolidated ballot pronto so as to get the Millennials and other apathetic yahoos to vote for it, and not make it a controversial city issue during a regular city election.

              Or a special “mail vote” election that only the opponents would be galvanized enough to send back.

        • Anonymous

          ” Nancy
          November 3, 2016 at 5:19 pm
          But why if they build more gates than they tell us now isn’t another vote to make it bigger than we would’ve approved? We are only giving permission for 14 gates if people vote yes right ?”

          NO! They can add more gates, expand the building, build a second terminal, hell, not even build on at all, ALL without any voter input. Granted the would need a majority vote (that includes 2 Burbank appointed commissioners) from the 7 appointed commissioners. And, in theory, commissioners are suppose to vote the way their council members tell them to. But, they don’t have to. This is JUST A BAD DEAL. We can do better. NO on B!

  7. Burbank Voter

    Semichorus is 100% accurate. Not only will the voters never get to vote again on airport expansion, but even the City Council is giving up all their rights to ever vote on the size of the airport.

    A No vote in this election is the only thing that can possibly save Burbank from giving away all the rights to any future say as to what is built at the airport.

    If there were such a thing as treason by a City Council, this would be it. They are campaigning for major airport expansion. They are giving away all the rights of the people of Burbank and turning everything except some vague promise that 2 airport commissioners from Burbank would save the day sometime in the future, and we all know how that will go. We’ve been screwed too many times by the Airport.

    It was only in the mid-1990s election when the voters made such a fuss that finally the City hired new lawyers and won legal land use control after spending $12million. Now this is stupidly being all given away by Emily Luddy, Will Rogers, Jes Tellemuntes and Bob Frutus. (Remember those names and vote them out of office.) This is the ultimate betrayal of the people of Burbank. Only one City Councilman — Dr. David Gordon has stood up once again for the people of Burbank.

    • semichorus

      You’re right. The history’s important. From here on in Burbank loses ALL discretionary power if this terminal agreement is approved by the voters. All that Lockheed struggle for land-use rights gets turned over to the Authority in exchange for this agreement.

      Not even CUPs and AUPs will go in front of the city. Burbank won’t even be doing the building inspections– that will go to Glendale and Burbank (which I’m not sure is even legal to give away, and could be severed if challenged in court).

      A “no” vote might force this back to the bargaining table, and where the Authority won’t be able to extract as many concessions from the city. Not if they want a new airport.

      • Sandy

        Mr Frutos could care less about history. All Frutos cares about is being one of the cool kids with the developers. Real sad o see again and again that Frutos has no morality at all.

    • Orchard Drive

      Not just giving away our rights but also giving away the millions we spent fighting for those rights. If B passes it will lead to years of more court battles in the future.
      Jess Talamantes. TRAITOR
      Bob Frutos – TRAITOR
      Emily Ludy – TRAITOR
      The Rogers – TRAITOR

  8. Burbank Voter

    Don’t forget to add Dave Golonski — TRAITOR to the list.
    He helped orchestrate all this before getting voted out of office. He may try to make a comeback.

    • semichorus

      I’m not sure he did. He publicly came out against their formal pre-approval of the deal. He said it was a clear misreading of the original voter ordinance.

      • Anonymous

        Semi on Golonski:
        “I’m not sure he did. He publicly came out against their formal pre-approval of the deal. He said it was a clear misreading of the original voter ordinance.”

        He’s got a Yes on Measure B sign in his front yard. Plus, he’s BFF with Will Rogers i.e. Will’s the puppet, Golonski is the puppet master.

        As to his defiance at council, he was just pissed cuz council changed (well 4 traitors did) the intent of his legacy errr..the original measure ego. Man do have an ego.

        • semichorus

          I think what he was concerned about was that airport foes would use this council pushiness to show that they were obviously placing their thumbs on the scale.

          Which might have been a real fear in 1996-2001. Nowadays not so much. There ain’t as much of an organized opposition any more.

      • Anonymous

        Dave has a “Yes on B” sign on his front lawn….

  9. Tye

    Keeping it real and all them secrets

  10. Anonymous

    I wonder if Rogers will pursue this

  11. Marcos

    We don’t need Gun Control we need jobs.
    Vote Trump 2016 it’s time for a change

  12. Bryan

    I think Milo is right

  13. Norm

    vote NO on measure B we can get a better deal. These council members brought us a really bad deal shame on them

  14. Elizabeth

    They did not want it on our city election in spring because that would mean they would need to answer questions, Instead the shoved it on us in November and refused to answer any questions. Don’t fall for their crooked trick vote no

  15. Voter

    Except for Dr. Gordon, the council are all Traitors & Liars. They should all get out of town like Georginos.

    They didn’t want it on a Burbank ballot because they would have to say they had signed off on giving everything away to the airport and they would not get re-elected.

  16. 91506 NO ON MEASURE B

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 )

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