Do Burbank voters know that legal contracts and agreements do not hold eternal?

 

Although much is being made about how this wonderful Burbank Airport agreement that the council cooked up with the Authority last year has a “supermajority” clause that will supposedly end all of our problems and answer all of our questions, what most people don’t know is that the enforcement of legal agreements like this doesn’t last forever. There’s always a shelf life of sorts to any explicit legal agreement between parties, no matter who they are or what it’s about.

No court in the world (say) is going to enforce every term of this Airport agreement 30 or 40 years from now. They may in fact hold all of it to be invalid after time. Just like everything else in life, contracts and agreements (and enforceable bequests for that matter, where rich people demand a certain action in return for their property, such as free admission to a museum made possible by their beneficence) don’t last forever.

There’s only so long that the express terms of this Airport agreement will be enforceable in a court of law if Measure B passes next week. Just like benefactors can’t rule from the grave for an extended period of time, a strict requirement by old parties who are long gone that was made in exchange for something else cannot be considered still valid and enforceable after so many years have passed. Not necessarily.

The precise way of putting it is that there is no assurance that a future court will allow these terms of agreement to go on forever. In real life you’re lucky if you can keep a contract or legal agreement going for more than 8 years without someone seeking its dissolution, at least in part. (Roughly put, ask Warner Brothers what happened when Olivia de Havilland years ago sued to get out of her own legal requirements with them. Although it was a personal contract for binding services, the idea’s similar: legal deals can only last for so long. They’re not forever.) City Attorney Albano won’t tell you this, nor will any of the rest of the Boosters.

Something else to think about:

— Do Authority bylaws specifically allow a “supermajority” vote to occur and be valid? If not, they can bargain with and assure anyone and anything they want, but it won’t be legal for them to do what they promised to do unless their own rules allow such an action.

— Who’s to say that future Authority members won’t just suddenly void such a supermajority privilege for their own expedient reasons, and by a simple majority vote? Burbank would then have to sue to enforce that now-ancient agreement, which brings us back to the problem of whether or not old signed documents like this are still enforceable after a certain number of years.

If they did it five years from now, sure. But fifteen?

It’s a bad deal folks. Burbank’s giving away all of its (in the 1990s) long fought discretionary power over what’s left of B-6, and for what? A weak “agreement” for a supposed airport size limitation that might not even be binding and enforceable when we actually need it to be. And that’s just one of the problems with it.

Even if you want a new terminal, it’s a bad deal. Not this one.
 
 
 

Advertisements

29 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

29 responses to “Do Burbank voters know that legal contracts and agreements do not hold eternal?

  1. Claudia

    Take a look at this. So they tell everybody it won’t bring more flights but once they have it these people say there are more flights and over different places and flying loud and low. These measure B yes people are LIARS and our council are LIARS and Traitors. Watch this and please vote no

  2. Burbank Voter

    You are bringing up good points, Semi, but someone(s) would have to come up with millions to sue the airport. History has shown they will spend tax dollars to go to the Supreme Court to stall or win on any technicality whatever they claim. If you remember, they claimed Burbank had no rights to control anything for years and it took a big change on the City Council and $12million for Burbank to take back the rights they had. So once they get control the Airport will do whatever it takes to get whatever they want. Burbank will be known as Hollywood-Burbank once a mini-LAX is built.

    Since it is faster to load on the tarmac they will just add more and more passenger holding facilities and baggage areas, not necessarily gates as we know them today. There used to be authority for international flights, or customs facilities, and apparently still exists for non-commercial, charter flights like the one Angelina Joli & Brad Pitt came in to Burbank on recently when they had their big blowup.

    This could easily become an international airport.

    Just VOTE NO on B.

    • semichorus

      Well that’s it too. If the Authority decides in 10 or 12 years (or less) that this 2016 agreement is old hat, who’s to say Burbank would even try to sue to enforce it?

      An Amy Albano Jr. might advise them that it was worthless to pursue.

  3. Way I feel

    The more I look at all of this with the airport the more I am convinced that we have been sold out by councilmembers who are traitors. At this point it does not matter to me if they were just lazy or they were sell outs, in the end we are poorly represented and in either case they are just traitors. Why didn’t they tell us about Next Gen ? Did the council members know about it and if not why not ? This deal can’t be trusted because the people who gave it to us can not be trusted.

    • semichorus

      They all want a new airport. So what ever works.

      • Dale

        Their super majority. It has to be voted on by Glendale, Burbank and Pasadena councils right ? So they do that after Measure B gets approved and what happens if one city votes no ? Does that mean the measure vote doesn’t count ? Or what if say 5 years from now one city sues to ger rid of the super majority ? Can they do that ?

        • semichorus

          Sure. Any affected party could sue to vacate that section of the Agreement — such as the airlines.

          Which will happen no doubt.

          • F..J.

            I suspect once we give up our right to vote by passing Measure B they will challenge all the so called protections and we will lose everything. Keep the names of these Yes people like Walmley and when it happens we all need to remember those traitors to Burbank

  4. Voter

    The other night Rogers said he knew about NextGen 2 years ago! So why didn’t he bring it up during the environmental review? If he knew he had a responsibility to ask that it be analyzed. He is the biggest TRAITOR of all next to Fruitloops.

  5. Yes on B Supporter

    Please stop positing all this information and facts about Measure B – you are making us look bad!

  6. NO on B

    I was speaking with a Measure B supporter a month ago and they were telling me it was going to pass easily like Measure S. All the important people and organizations were supporting it and there was no real organized opposition. Boy were they wrong! Fast forward to today and Measure B supporters are now in full panic mode scrambling to phone bank and canvass neighborhoods. They are very concerned they might actually lose Tuesday. Not only are they very pissed off with Dr. Gordon, they’re upset with all the gadflies who spoke at the last Council meetings. This wasn’t suppose to happen. You think Georgino was mad Tuesday night, if they do end up losing they’re going to go absolutely nuts at Gordon and his Gadflies. Come on Burbank, lets rock the vote. NO on B.

    • Scott

      Funny, so all the chamber and non profits support it and most of them don’t even live in Burbank. I think they supporr it because they don’t live here and could care less what the impacts are on those of us who do live here. The chamber looks for personal profits and not for our besr interests. Vote NO

      • semichorus

        Of course. It’s always been like that in Burbank. Those enthusiastic studio supporters (for instance) of every bad idea that comes along never live in Burbank.

  7. JoeSlice

    Where might someone acquire a few “No on Measure B” lawn signs?

  8. 91506 NO ON MEASURE B

    Time to burst the Yes on measure B deceptive bubble.

    • Ron

      Thanks Measure B busters. The airport has lied for my whole life. Never trust them. Just look at them, they are not people I trust. The city council brought us a bad deal don’t say yes to a bad deal vote No

  9. 91506 NO ON MEASURE B

    91506 SPEAKS OUT AGAINST Measure B

  10. Going Nuts again

    Speaking of Going Nuts, I hear Measure B supporters are Going Nuts with all the NO on B Videos propagating social media. I also heard through the grapevine that a former Councilman completely lost it and went on a crazy tirade against Dr. Gordon and the NO on B people on Facebook. LOL!

    • Donna

      I heard he called us all rats and went on a rant that made no sense even against Semichorus. Can someone post his rants here ???

  11. chad

    Going Nuts rocked.

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