One of the things that first struck us about the inclusion of a larger Southwest Quadrant proposal to the main Measure B “adjacent property” consideration on the ballot was this basic question:
Why talk about it at all? At first look, the idea seems to have always been that the negotiated agreement makes the “adjacent” B-6 plan the main project of discussion and newsworthiness — the one that everyone’s been talking about — but now with a possible alternative S/W Quadrant terminal plan thrown into the works, and with little public fanfare (this isn’t the one that they’ve been threatening us with if we all vote “no.” That would be a smaller terminal– this S/W would be bigger, and would supposedly need part of B-6 to make it complete).
Albano’s “impartial” analysis is confusing about this new terminal proposal (to the public), but the Authority and the council have apparently agreed that if the Authority wants to go this S/W Quadrant route in the end, they’ll drop the other contested site and only use this “adjacent property” as some kind of turn-around or loading zone area. The main terminal will instead be located on the S/W Quadrant.
Now we’ve been hearing alot lately about how a certain PUC code provision requires council approval before the Measure B acquisition-of-property agreement can be amended from its original negotiated and agreed upon use. In fact, the boosters are enthusiastically citing this law to (now) claim that a future 14-gate terminal cannot be enlarged without an additional layer of City of Burbank protection and approval. So don’t worry about it people.
This legal review though does NOT apply to the Authority’s current property which is not subject to this decades-long acquisition rigamarole. That is, the older property that they admittedly now hold out the slim possibility of building their replacement terminal on, and that Albano acknowledges in our voter pamphlet as perhaps then needing some of that new B-6 property for ancillary and “loop” uses if they do.
But let’s say they go the main route and build their terminal as they’ve been saying they want to if “B” wins on Tuesday. Since the S/W Quadrant property site is not subject to PUC 21661.6 (e) consideration, why couldn’t it then be used for future gate expansion on that new terminal located on B-6 A1? The one that the Burbank voters approved on November 8, 2016?
It’s something to think about. It would mean that their current property adjacent to the about-to-be acquired “adjacent property” at B-6 is eminently expandable. By talking about it so readily, and by bringing it into the Measure B mix, did they also let it slip that it might just end up being used for something?
Like a multi-gate annex to a new “14-gate” terminal on the “adjacent property” that you all voted “Yes” on tomorrow? Again, why talk about S/W at all in a non-blackmail, tit-for-tat locational way?