Rogers’ EMT ride actually cost him over $3,000


Touching story this weekend about how our vice-mayor collapsed after hearing the election results and wasn’t discovered until later the next day by his wife. Apparently the point of it is to tell us that Burbank has some kind of wonderful insurance program where you can pay thousands of dollars in advance for city emergency services that 20 years ago used to be free.

Rogers and the article leave out a couple of big things:

— The only reason this monthly pre-benefit even exists at all is because Ted McConkey (and Bob Kramer) insisted that Bud Ovrom and staff come up with something to ameliorate the consequences of their sudden decision to want to charge Burbank residents for its fire service and EMT calls. They used to be free.

— This new surcharge — ostensibly created because of budget problems — was only supposed to be temporary. That was 20 years ago. Imagine how much the city has profited from this scheme.

— Rather than being a great deal, Rogers has presumably paid this optional monthly fee for over 20 years as a homeowner. Add up how much that is in total.

— The EMT charge is also often waived for deceased calls and other exceptional circumstances that don’t require transport. Insurance companies too will often reimburse the expense, and oftentimes it’s the landlords who get the final bill and not the tenants.

Let’s make them free again, OK? That would have been the better point for the vice-mayor to make.



Filed under Uncategorized

25 responses to “Rogers’ EMT ride actually cost him over $3,000

  1. chad

    Another example of the post-Reagan economy where you have to start paying “fees,” i.e., not taxes, for things your taxes used to pay for.

  2. Gary

    Ok so please tell me the last time our city council was majority Republican. To my understanding it has long been under Democrat control, while I agree emergency services should not be funded with taxes and then charge the very people for the services they already paid for let’s not try to make it a partisan issue. Further Semichorus is correct and McConkey was a dem while I belueve Kramer was a Repub so the two with the concern were bipartisan in it. They were the two who last reduced our electric bills with a long string of Dems increasing them every single year since.

  3. CornFused

    I can’t get past the fact that our vice Mayor fainted over an election result. What a weak, weak man…and he actually has people supporting him.

  4. Anonymous

    HERE’S WILL BEING THE CAUSTIC HYPOCRITE HE IS. This was taken from the City of Burbank FB page: (This man needs to booted off council for a myriad of reasons. )

    Will Rogers: For 25 years there have been claims and allegations that staff and a secret pro-expansion cabal exists in City Hall, and that a council majority contemptuous of the public and unconcerned about voters was on the brink of approving a 19 or 27 gate terminal. Even long before Dave Golonski wrote Measure B, David Gordon and his mentors (The Berlins, Ted McConkey) were literally declaring “the Bulldozers are on the way!” and that a “Mini-LAX” was about to be approved.

    Despite all that noise, the smears and the accusations, it has never happened. It never even came close. Whatever else councils might have disagreed on or bickered about, and despite the fact that just three members could have approved unrestricted expansion YEARS ago, it not only never happened. It never even came close. There wasn’t so much as a vote. Yet time after time, a handful of local Trumps have terrified neighbors and promoted the conspiracy theories, usually to promote their own candidacies, and taking advantage of dupes who don’t look any further than their heroes tell them to.

    And in the latest, they fought to try and make sure the Measure B vote was held with the input of as few voters as possible, and directly linked to one candidate’s reelection race.

    Like it or not, the record shows, and has proved over and again, that the City Council majority has opposed unrestricted expansion for 25 years, and it has and continues to care about protecting the residents of the city from the impacts of airport expansion. It’s years past time to consider that no one council member has an exclusive lock on caring about the city. And if fact, it has been clear that one has used the issue too many times for campaign purposes, this while ignoring so many day-today issues, a well as questions and contacts from residents on less controversial matters, and being the exclusive representative to a relative handful who support him no matter what.
    Like · Reply · 15 hrs · Edited


    Tony Noakes: Will Rogers “For 25 years there have been claims and allegations that staff and a secret pro-expansion cabal exists in City Hal”

    Oh Will, such drama! Funny, of the 26 years I’ve been here, I’ve never heard, nor seen, such silliness, which would explain why I don’t find your words accurate. I would, also, surmise the reason there was never so much as a vote was due to the litigations, of which millions were being spent to protect us, hence no vote needed.

    As to your constant jabs at Dr. Gordon, it is very apparent to many, that you have YOUR own agenda….self-serving as it may be. BTW, you never wrote back about why a stack of Pro-Meaure B flyers were sitting next to the agenda stack in Council chambers last Tuesday night. Call me conspiratorial, but that’s about as bias (campaigning) as a Council can be. Perhaps, you would like to embellish on that fact?

    More of your conspiracy diatribe., ”Yet time after time, a handful of local Trumps have terrified neighbors and promoted the conspiracy theories,” Really Will? You, really, want to got there? Thousands of concerned citizens, many of who have witnessed improprieties and have proof of such, beg to differ. Does that make all Staff and Council culpable, of course not! So, I find it disingenuous and conspiratorial that you would make such asinine comments. But, then again, that seems to be a common filter you run your perspectives through.

    Perhaps if and when you attempt to campaign for re-election we can openly share our info as to the veracity of our opinions on the subjects you have chosen to attack. And, let the voters decide if they believe in your hyperbole.

    More of your words: “It’s years past time to consider that no one council member has an exclusive lock on caring about the city.”

    Who are you to tell me how to think or what I think? Better yet, who has stated or made claim to such a silly position i.e. “exclusive lock on caring about the city”? Is this another one of your jabs at Dr. Gordon, since he is up for re-election? Gee, Will, what timing on your part. You’ve jab at him no less than 3 times on your post I’m responding to, yet the thread is about me, the Measure B and about all citizens coming together and moving forward. Yet, you post attacking, polarizing, conspiracy theories. Call me conspiratorial again, Will, but I find that to be campaigning on YOUR part.

    Lastly, Will, your ridiculous statement:

    “And if fact, it has been clear that one has used the issue too many times for campaign purposes, this while ignoring so many day-today issues, a well as questions and contacts from residents on less controversial matters, and being the exclusive representative to a relative handful who support him no matter what.”

    Indeed, you have NO “FACT” just an opinion…and what appears to be an axe to grind. I know Dr. Gordon, and find him to be a highly intelligent, exceptionally hard working and a caring man. One who doesn’t waste his time spinning conspiratorial hyperbole and personal attacks on facebook. I suspect that is why he continues to get re-elected again and again. Perhaps, while you’re still a Council member, you should follow his lead. Good Grief!
    Like · Reply · 1 · 56 mins · Edited

    • semichorus

      Good points. I’ll add that,

      1. The ONLY reason there was Dave Golonski’s “Measure B” in 2001 was because of the active work of Ted, Bob K., Mike Nolan, Howard, Phil and Carolyn Berlin, David Piroli, and many other activists in 2000. It was ROAR that created the spirit of critical dissent in this town when it came to airport issues, and the proof of this lies in how badly they were all treated (and obstructed) by the status quo– including Rogers still. If these old city councils were on the same basic page, why then all the hostile and stubborn behavior?

      Without ROAR we’d have a helluva lot more than 14 gates, and long ago. Capitulation would have been swift. At least we were spared 25+ years of traffic and congestion. So thank you, Berlins et al! You held them out for a long time.

      2. No one’s ever claimed a “cabal” of anything. Some well-connected folks wanted a big new airport, and would do almost anything to get it. That’s about it. Rogers is full of crap to be pathologizing the opposition this way, as if dissent = stupid, paranoid nutcases. But it’s S-O-P for this dishonest clown.

      3. It’s not “unrestricted expansion” the critics have been worried about. It’s EXPANSION itself. No one ever accused the boosters of unrestricted anything.

      Trafficking in red herrings like this, exactly who’s being “Trumpian”? As long as I’m around Rogers isn’t going to be able to rewrite our local history. And I wasn’t even part of ROAR!

      • Anony Miss

        In my efforts to figure out why Burbank officials misbehave so much, I googled Tony Noakes. Yes, another citizen who is bringing facts and fairness to the city council and pleading with them to be fair.
        This semichorus site has some anger displayed for good reason. A lot of very educated and active minded people are blogging. To people offended with the occasional wild language, I’d suggest that section be passed over and keep reading.! You will learn things that may not be happening in your back yard, but are definitely happening in YOUR CITY.

  5. Anonymous 3

    What a moronic joke on your part. Rogers collapsed more than a week before the election results and gave his PSA on the ambulance insurance the week before the election.

    Sheese you are an idiot.

    • semichorus

      Tell that to the Leader. It was a misleading story. I wasn’t serious anyway, and that wasn’t even my point. I also don’t read Rogers’ little missives or PSAs.

      My point is that if anyone’s an idiot, it’s Rogers. He’s paid 10 times over for what should be free– and used to be. He has nothing to cheer about.

      And, that the only reason Burbank has this prepaid Fire Department insurance deal at all is because of Bob and Ted in about 1997 or so.

      It needs to end, too.

  6. chad

    Yeah, I don’t get the “Trumpian” thing. He’s equating leaders of the anti-B movement to Trump who used scare tactics, lies, hyperbole, foreign operatives, etc.. to sway an election. Christ, in retrospect, I only wish those community folks were “Trumpian.” We might have succeeded in voting down B.

    • 91505

      Rogers is a complete idiot. Grab the vapors and help Rogers remain standing. Rogers is the one people should be very afraid of, the man has a vote on our council and he’s a lunatic.

      • semichorus

        I don’t know about lunatic, but I do question why he insists on posting on a website where one of the main sports is ridiculing poor people.

    • CornFused

      A stretch for sure. When I went to pick up a lawn sign, I was overwhelmed by the amount of “no on B” signs that were propped up in many of the yards. These were in the area that will be directly affected by the additional flights. The signs I saw in that area were there to protect their quality of living, not some political agenda.

  7. Anonymous

    A3 sure knows every intimate little detail about Will’s bilious personal life–paid troll AND caregiver, perhaps?

    • semichorus

      And like Rogers, there’s not much of a sense of humor there.

      • Willie Watcher

        Like Rogers, anonymous 3 redoes words, is mean spirited, extremely sarcastic, has a vast knowledge of Burbank happenings, loves to blog, is enamored with his own humor, hates Dr. Gordon, despises Mike Nolan, loves the passage of measure B, and is outwardly aggressive to anyone who does not share his viewpoint. (When he was campaigning, he forgot to tell us that part.)
        Tony Noakes, I savored every word of your response. Delightful.

      • Dina

        How many places does anon3 bleed from at the same time?

  8. Anonymous

    Semi, me thinks this gadfly, Anonymous 3, is Will’s little attack dog, Kevin Harrop. It, certainly, has all the shortcomings of this gnome.

    • MackTen

      anon3 was off this blog from 10/22 to like 11/10 or so. If someone knows that Kevin Harrop was indisposed between those dates you might have a winner here.

      Either way Kevin may be a participant in the anon3 postings. He is one nasty SOB – a total loser and an establishment puppet.

      • Penelope

        Hey MarkTen,
        Forget Kevin Harrop who is a nasty S.O.B.
        Haven’t you followed the responses on past blogs calling out Will Rogers for being
        Anonymous 3 ? Remember , Will was out of
        Commission on those dates? It’s hard to
        blog from an intensive care bed at the
        Hospital? After a major “Heart Attack!”
        I think that it’s pretty clear who anonymous 3
        Is ? Our Vice Mayor ….
        Who is indeed a “Buffoon!”

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s