Those angry Georginos moved from their Hillside home last year — the one that sits under a (now) unused flight path


Keep in mind that those apparently still angry Georginos — Airport Commissioner Sue, of the instant walkout last fall after she was told she couldn’t keep serving on as a resident of Los Angeles — and Vic, the Developer (whose old business partner made a killing a few years ago over a shady Burbank Housing Authority deal) — both suddenly left their Hillside home last year and moved to Toluca Lake.

That same Hillside neighborhood they used to live in will soon be sitting under a renewed flight path to the airport — one that was also well used during the 1960s and early 1970s. So a precedent for its use exists.

Isn’t that interesting timing for someone who was so heavily involved in the quiet (i.e., secret) negotiations between the city and Authority? Get a big new airport going and then bail out right before.

Here’s an old Leader article about that shady business deal:


City Wants Sale Reversed

The seller of the property purchased by the city made a profit of $365,000, an amount city officials consider excessive.

March 24, 2007|By Chris Wiebe

CITY HALL — The City Council has asked the Burbank Housing Corp. to halt rehabilitation of a newly purchased apartment complex on Verdugo Avenue. It made the move because the property acquisition resulted in a sizable profit for the seller.

Records show that property owner David Augustine reaped a $365,000 profit from the city on the sale of a two-story, eight-unit complex to the Burbank Housing Corp. — a nonprofit agency that buys and renovates residential properties for affordable housing — after owning the property for just 10 days.

Though the council approved the housing corporation’s $1.4 million purchase in a 4-1 vote on Jan. 23, a city staff report providing the council with some details of the transaction did not include information that Augustine had acquired the property only days earlier for $1.035 million.

Now that the new information has come to light, the council has asked Burbank Housing Corp. officials to contact Augustine in an attempt to reverse the sale. In the meantime, the council has also asked for improvement work and steps toward tenant relocation to stop, as long as those measures do not negatively affect tenants. So far, two tenants have been relocated, said Ruth Davidson-Guerra, assistant community development director for Housing and Redevelopment.

The council’s move was intended to send a message that real estate speculators should not take advantage of the city’s attempts to provide long-term affordable housing, Councilman Dave Golonski said.

“I don’t want to encourage people in the land speculation business to be purchasing properties that they know the city is interested in, or that the Redevelopment Agency is interested in,” he said.

“I don’t care who they are; I just know it’s a bad practice to encourage people to do that.”

In order for the sale to be rescinded, both parties — Augustine and Burbank Housing — must agree to nullify the transaction.

The city’s appraiser, Otis Hackett, did not include the $1.035-million sale on his comparable sales chart because it was at a much lower price than the appraiser’s sense of the market told him it should have been, Davidson-Guerra said.

To prevent this type of sale in the future, city staff reports on real estate transactions will include a three-year history of purchases, she added.

“In retrospect, staff does acknowledge that information regarding the prior private-party transaction could have been helpful to the City Council as it was making its decision,” she said.

The city never reversed the deal btw. Instead, the entire council played dumb about it at their next meeting. “Purchase? What purchase? Oh yeah, that one…” There was also much more to the deal:


There’s More to the Story on City Deal

Nice editorial in the April 7-8 edition of the Burbank Leader, “The city should eat its loss.” However, we feel you left out some important information.

California is a community-property state, so Community Development Director Sue Georgino, along with her husband, are both partners of David Augustine.

All we have to go on is a statement made, after the purchase, by a subordinate of Georgino’s that the Community Development director never directly participated in the transaction.

Staff members knew of the Georgino/Augustine partnership. Staff knew there was going to be a $365,000 profit going to Augustine. Knowing this, can you imagine the indirect pressure redevelopment staff was under to buy the property? Why else would they have agreed to buy the property for $50,000 more then the appraised value? Why else didn’t they ask for a reappraisal when they found out it was going to cost more then $225,000 to make the property habitable? Why else was this information withheld from the public and the City Council? Why else did staff attempt to keep the transaction under the radar by placing it on the council’s consent agenda instead of making it a regular agenda item?

In addition, there is a discrepancy in how the city even knew of the property. City staff claims Augustine’s representative contacted them. However, in a letter to the city, Augustine’s attorney stated that it was the city that made the initial contact to purchase the property.

What the public needs is an audit by the state Attorney General’s Office or the District Attorney’s Office, not some private firm where the city can tell them what results they want and have the whole matter white-washed.



After they were threatened with a lawsuit over their stories, the Leader suddenly came up with this silly editorial mentioned above (they have apparently scrubbed the original stories from their archive, as they’ve done with many old pieces not complimentary to the City of Burbank).

It’s right here. Stupid and mindless as this old editorial is, it does though verify the potential conflict-of-interest problem for the Georginos.




Filed under Uncategorized

17 responses to “Those angry Georginos moved from their Hillside home last year — the one that sits under a (now) unused flight path

  1. Burbanker

    The FAA record of decision, issued in 1996 and allowed for and spelled out growth at the Burbank Airport. This is a video of the issue coming up ten years later in 2006. This week the FAA in a letter to the airport quoted the Recod of Decision once again. Remember folks this is the blue print plan for our aiport and all it needs is the acreage that the airport is given with a vote of YES on measure B. Vote no on Measure B

  2. Burbank Voter

    Has anyone considered that the reason a “project” was not described in the EIR is so the FAA’s Record of Decision (ROD) that was never rescinded is because it stands to this date.

    It sounds like the Airport already spent some of the FAA’s money that was involved in that Decision. The ROD remains active on the FAA’s website so that means the Airport has approval to build a terminal at least 27 gates, possibly larger if Measure B passes on Nov 8.

    Imagine that! After all these years the Airport could build whatever they want. All this makes the argument clear for everyone within reading distance to vote NO on Measure B. This could be the most important election ever in Burbank and it isn’t even a LOCAL election. There is always a reason to look deeper when the Airport tries so desperately to hide something by not putting it on the regular Burbank election.

    You need to contact your neighbors and ask everyone you come in contact to vote NO on Measure B next Tuesday. Make sure you ask all your neighbors to ask everyone they know as well to vote NO!

    • semichorus

      Well said.

      They’re hoping that the Millennials — as I’ve said before — who never vote in local elections but are always impressed by shiny new things will all go to the polls in a national one and say “Yeah!”

      It’s just so damned manipulative. So much too for City Hall’s famous love for our “wonderful” all-mail ballot system.

      Only when it’s useful to some people.

      • Staar

        They might count on the millenials for a shiny new airport but after that Frutoes and Talamantez can face the wrath of the municipal voters running for reelection. Those two are on a suicide run at this point. Frutoes has yes in B signs at his house anyone know if Takamantez does to. Fruitoes also has Portantino and Ardy signs next to his measure B signs so do what Im doing and vote no on all three

      • Peggy

        That’s true why isn’t measure B an all mail ballot, maybe they don’t really believe in those ?

    • John

      Interesting Burbank Voter and yes it all adds up. Fool the voters and get the land and then tell us later that we never saw any plans for 14 gates so surprise here your 30 gates and by the way we can now accomodate customs so welcome to your new international airport.

      • semichorus

        Oh, it’ll start at 14.

        And then the parade will begin. “People, we need to add just two more gates. Just two. For safety reasons, and to solve that darn overcrowding problem at peak hours and cut down on your street traffic!”

        And then a few years later it will be, “Folks, we need to add four more gates because the economics just aren’t working out for us quite yet. And that great new (XXXX) transportation center is so far away from where the customers need to be!”

        And then a few years after that, when everyone who counts has either forgotten about 2016 or disappeared forever, it will be, “People, according to the original FAA documents it was always going to be 27 gates!”

        And the voters of Burbank won’t have one bit of say in the matter.

  3. Burbank Voter

    Having Sue Georgino working for the city of Burbank on anything was a huge mistake. She came from a very corrupt city, Brea, where her boss went to jail. In Burbank she continued the same developer giveaways. She is the “liar” — not Dr. Gordon. If you give her the benefit of the doubt, she just doesn’t know the difference she has been doing it for so long. She had so many conflicts of interest she should never have been hired. The Airport always has looked for people who would say or do anything for money and she fits the bill to a T.

    Dr. Gordon believes we should vote NO on this airport deal and he does the research and knows what he is talking about. Don’t believe Frutus and Rogers, they are either stupid or just puppets.

    • semichorus

      Kramer and McConkey were both against her advancing in the ranks.

      Her conflict of interest problem with Hubbie the Big Developer was long and well noted.

    • JIM

      Sue Georgino controlled the failed Magnolia Park P-Bid. It was a joke beyond a joke. Mary Alvord, Gayle Stewart, and Sue Georgino were defiant and rude to the merchants. They broke all the parameters of the P-Bid and blew all the money. They loved being dictators and were very fulfilled as they denied people’s requests. The merchants on the board put up with all their defiance (and as usual in Burbank), they stayed quiet because of fear and/or their need to feel important.
      Sue Georgino should have never been allowed so much power with the P-Bid.

  4. Strom

    Those angry Georgino’s are elitists who don’t even care enough about Burbank to live in Burbank. They sold their home here and moved so they get top price before this enlarged terminal puts flights over everyplace. How much money are they getting from the airport ?

  5. Ernie

    I know why that Georgino guy is so mad, he can’t stand the TRUTH and Dr Gordon speaks the Truth. I remember years ago when Dr Gordon called for us to end redevelopment and get the millions of dollars these people went off nut crazy but it ended up the state ended redevelopment a few years later and Burbank lost millions. They should have listened to Dr Gordon just like we all should listen to Dr Gordon now.

  6. Mr. BurBUNK

    How convenient for the Georginos. Work in a city that protects your every move. The muckety mucks protect each other. It’s because people have not united in mass and demanded change.
    I personally notice that even people who “Get It” don’t speak out because they want to be loyal followers and feel important. To me, it’s more than strange.

  7. Claudio

    Victorpoo got caught with his paw in the CityCookie Jar.
    The YMCA wasn’t allowed to double dip.
    Time to call Dr. Gordon names.
    Poor Victorpoo.

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