Burbank deserves to get fucked

Although Sharon Springer is hardly a revanchist Brian Bowman type, last night’s election results show that it’s become more than useless to try to slow things down around here any more.

We’ve been noting for years that the brighter and more pastoral types have been leaving Burbank in droves, and that the mock-entrepeneurial Millennial crowd which has replaced them are as naive as hell whenever they’re not being nuts. The kind of local “change” they’re headed for isn’t good, and they all truly deserve everything they’re gonna to get when that whip finally comes down. And it will.

For the last few months we’ve also been thinking that Dr. Gordon really should cash out while he can and retire away to some better environment. The great old Burbank mix of cranky Democratic oldsters and upwardly mobile Jews with brains and good sense is long gone. There are much better places to live now than Burbank, trust us, and it’s depressing as hell to have to watch someone with his obvious analytical talent and critical spirit deal with that pack of credulous mediocrities and self-promotional hucksters he has to sit next to on Tuesday nights.

Springer lost us a while back with her proud Elaine Paonessa connection — which is about as local establishment as you can get — and her fiscal/money/income thing is a total drag. Nothing good will ever come of her preoccupation with money and revenue except more and bigger development. There will also be a lot of deeply offensive thanks of gratitude no doubt for these outside economic interests’ fond willingness to help out with Burbank’s budget problems (you can fully expect that these big developers will soon be played off as Burbank’s economic salvation. It’s the inevitable PR move.)

Face it: Burbank’s a bum town now and has been for years. Gordon could still pull off a win next April, if only because the reliable anti-establishment vote was split between four different candidates and might cohere under one. But will it make any real difference? And is the local anti-establishment cohesive itself?

We learned a long time ago that all you can do is make this Burbank booster crowd look bad. Why? Because it’s pointless to try to make the life around you better when the people you’re forced to deal with don’t even know what “better” is.



Filed under Uncategorized

22 responses to “Burbank deserves to get fucked

  1. Extremely disappointed in the results and genuinely frightened by the prospect of Springer replacing Gordon. When asked she had no idea who the Bulldogs or Indians were in this town. Seriously. She wants to sell off “naming rights” to our city streets to corporations as way to bring in revenue, something that makes me a bit queasy. Costco Court anyone? Walmart Way? She based her support on Measure B from the flyers that were sent out as opposed to doing a bit of research on the FAA website or listening to residents who pleaded with her to please do her homework on the actual specifics of the Supermajority deal. I like some of her views on public transportation but everything else is a no go for me. And yes this town is gonna get what it voted for.

  2. Al in SoCal

    Would love exactly that .. Springer defeating Gordon. Gordon does nothing except cause an asterisk at the bottom of the page denoting the one vote against was Dr. Gordon.

    A good leader tries to get others to side with them – to compromise … Gordon has never done that. He’s never tried. All he does is badmouth everyone that disagrees – makes various noises during other councilmember’s speeches and basically demean and condescend anyone with differing opinions.

    Also – as for the folks not liking massive development like the Ikea, etc etc – Sharon Springer will fight things like that. She was adamantly opposed to it – and made her views known on the committee she was on.

    • semichorus

      Gordon always asks good questions and makes good points. He’s often the only one up there who cares about basic issues, or sees through staff bullshit.

      The others either don’t know or don’t care. At worst they’re credulous nincompoops, or they clearly stand on the other side of the issue and would rather deflect from that unpopular reality (such as backing unnecessary growth and development) by making Gordon the topic of conversation instead.

      If Springer’s elected there will be no bulwark against big growth. Even if it’s just vocal. She’s not nearly as anti-development as Gordon (they’re all against a 1500+ unit IKEA replacement, btw), and the proof will be in that proverbial pudding. Just watch.

      When has any other council member garnered a consensus on a topic of their choice? It’s been years. Nowadays staff does all the lobbying– which is part of the problem. This lack of “collegiality” argument has always been bullshit as well, especially considering the stubbornness and arrogance of what Gordon’s been forced to deal with over the years. They’d give him shit on everything and anything, no matter how innocuous. It’s what always happens!

      If Gordon wanted to build a new park somewhere (say) they’d all roll their eyes at each other. The guy can’t win.

      For the last 40 years or so the Burbank zeitgeist has been composed of a unique combination of smug spoiled-ness and arrogant, mindless mediocrity. It’s affluent enough to not have to worry about the basic problems of life but not sophisticated enough to know what else is out there. The council-majority well represents this sad state.

      A critical spirit? That’s for whiners and losers. What a great place Burbank is!

      (I could go into the latent anti-Semitism here, but that’s for later. Those Jewish-y guys from Woodland Hills are such annoying noodges we know.)

    • Anonymous

      Agree and disagree. Yes springer was opposed to ikea. But she is too much of a bike lane,tree hugger for my taste. I think Juan and Sousa voters will rally behind Gordon. The one who makes noise,Al, is your buddy Telamon, who leaves his mic open . We hear every puff, huff ,whisper,crinkling of papers. And Luddy, popping open what I assume is a soda can….

    • Anonymous

      LOL, Al in SoCal, you do and are doing EXACTLY what you accuse Gordon of doing….your ilk type is why we are “fucked”!

  3. Burbank Grip

    Well stated. See ya Burbank it was nice while it lasted.

  4. Al in SoCal

    Your own Dr. Gordon took a donation from Mr. Cusumano himself. I’ll sit back and watch the rationalizations & excuses from the sycophants and apologists.

    • semichorus

      So what? They all do. The difference is that the bulk of his contributions don’t come from the Chamber crowd or outside development and business interests.

      The Cusumanos are small potatoes now. Far bigger things to worry about.

      I love all these red herrings about the council critics. It’s always been a phony attack mechanism, as well as a clearly intended diversion from the issues at hand.

      It’s always “Look at them!” rather than “Listen to what they’re concerned about.” Rogers little hypotheticals are getting a bit psychotic by now too, as seen in his recent Facebook postings (glad to see he’s finally learned how to do paragraph breaks by now though). His basket of imaginaries needs a fresh update.

    • Anonymous

      Boy you need to get more informed it was a dirty trick exposed.

      February 25, 2017

      Public Statement by David Gordon
      Re: 2017 City Council Election Campaign Contributions

      On February 14, 2017 an unsolicited online contribution in the amount of $400.00 was made via PayPal by Michael Cusumano to my campaign. My campaign’s PayPal account requires the account holder to individually transfer any contributions received online to the campaign’s bank account in order to access and utilize the contributed funds. Since I was aware of one or more Cusumano development projects in the pipeline for discretionary review by the City Council I decided not to transfer any of this contribution to my campaign bank account and have not done so. Further, to avoid even the appearance of any conflict of interest related this campaign contribution, I decided to return the entire contribution to Mr. Cusumano and am in the process of doing so.
      However, candidates are required to declare by report contributions and expenditures received and incurred during various periods of the election cycle. Since the contribution was received during the most recent reporting period, February 12 through February 22, it was necessary to report receipt of this contribution regardless of the funds’ ultimate disposition. Once this contribution is returned to Mr. Cusumano it will be reported as being refunded in the appropriate form.
      Unfortunately, certain members of the community, including Vice Mayor Will Rogers and Council Candidate Sharon Springer, have pounced upon the reporting out of this entirely legal contribution by Mr. Cusumano with an aggressive smear campaign suggesting that somehow my integrity and commitment to protect Burbank residents and their neighborhoods has been compromised by this contribution.
      I do not ascribe any particular motives behind Mr. Cusumano’s contribution and trust he will fully understand my reasoning for not accepting it. At the same time, I want to assure all my supporters that I will not be, and encourage them not to be, distracted by the childish and misguided antics of Mr. Rogers, Ms. Springer or their cohorts and will continue to focus on the important issues of this election.

      • semichorus

        Did the Cusos give $400 to everyone? If not, I agree, it was a clearly transparent setup.

        I don’t think this paltry donation really matters anyway, but Rogers’ posturing about it is phony as hell. Twas’ ever thus with that dude.

        Always keep in mind too that Gordon is far better educated than Will “I have no idea how many college credits I have” Rogers.

        Imagine how many paragraphs, interjections, personal historical asides, and semicolons it would have taken for Rogers to explain the same as the above. Gordon is far more lucid.

        • Anonymous

          Sent one to Juan also not sure the rest. Will is all over Jess’s page with insults and lies. Big debate and petition started to put pressure on the CC.


          • semichorus

            Good petition. Well written.

            Who can sign it? Anyone? Is all personal information required?

            I thought btw that this We Love Burbank So Much facebook page wasn’t going to allow any election talk. Guess it depends on who’s talking.

          • Al in SoCal

            Let me guess – these are all the people that were part of the closed Yahoo group Burbank Taxpayers sponsored by the Berlins? Hypocrisy is abounds – that said 2 wrongs don’t make a right. He should change the name or make it an open group.

            Thankfully I don’t use Facebook except to serve as a contact for old Army friends.

            • semichorus

              They didn’t call it “City of Burbank” Yahoo group.

              Big difference. And it wasn’t run by the mayor, or fawned over by a council majority as a quasi-official instrument of communication and input.

              Listening to Rogers too much will make people dumb and crazy, yes. You’re picking up his habit of false analogy making.

              Btw, the only reason “the Berlins” kept it closed was to keep Rogers from trolling them. He was obsessed with disrupting it.

              Speaking of Will, where was he during the entire police mess a little later? Not a peep was heard from Burbank’s No.1 Opinion Meister.

              Wonder why.

      • Anonymous

        Why did it take Gordon eleven days and the prompting of a posting at CoB to decide to return the money?

        • semichorus

          How do you know it did?

          It was only $400. He doesn’t need the money. I believe him on this. I also don’t think the Cusos have a history of giving him campaign money, which if it were me in his place I’d be very suspicious. I’d turn it down too.

          Gordon can’t win. If he trumpeted his rejection he’d be accused by Rogers of grandstanding to his nutcase supporters over a paltry amount of money that gets cancelled out to his advantage because it’s given to everyone else.

          But if he accepts it like everyone else — or doesn’t immediately grandstand his rejection — he’s a blatant hypocrite full of nothing but bluster about others.

          And, uh … what about the issues? Rogers’ longtime tabloidization of local politics is getting wearying. It’s always alleged personal foibles with this guy that take the same twist. “Gotcha!”

          The sign of a little mind? Or morbid preoccupations perhaps.

          Do real ideas ever float through his head? Consistently?

          • Al in SoCal

            “Gordon can’t win.”

            Thankfully. Sure taken out of context – but it works. =)

            • Anonymous

              Al on so Cal you really are a very nasty hateful person. Something must have happened to you as a child to cause it. Now I will sit back and watch you do what you do best – spread more hate while you pretend to be the kind one in the room.

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