Golonski’s a sad dude

 

Someone just told us about this fun little missive of his from yesterday on that **WeLoveBurbank!** Facebook page:

 

 

How did he get “$750,000.00” dollars? (We always love those extra zeroes for effect.)

In the real world it was actually a sought-for maximum $8,000 business incubation grant for PR work on a new high-tech business venture that already had a list of clients waiting to go for electrical conversion work.

And what was the purpose of this grant program they were all talking about? To help incubate small local startups in the high-tech field.

Yes, what a corrupt fiend Gordon was to think that this venture might have been an appropriate use of these funds, which btw were to be awarded at the public hearing.

Did we also mention that this guy was hardly a “friend” of Gordon’s?

But, oops! Apparently the reaction to the G-Man on Facebook isn’t too good…

 


 

 
One woman there tried to make a feeble defense of Springer, but that’s it. Outside of that one the opinion is universally condemning of Dave Golonski and his silly and dishonest little stunt.
 
 

 
 
 

Advertisements

11 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

11 responses to “Golonski’s a sad dude

  1. Anonymous

    Just got word our council woman Emily-Gabel Luddy is making phone calls on behalf of Sharon Springer and asking if they voted for her, and if they haven’t voted, would they vote for her. HMMMM?

    You think with all that is going on in Burbank, she’d be doing her job instead of campaigning for a very controversial, mug-slinging, lying candidate. Perhaps, those “gremlins” and “gardeners” she so convinced do things unbeknownst to all is behind those phone calls!

    • semichorus

      I hope she isn’t slurring her words over the phone.

      I wonder too what’s in the pipeline now to be so worried about Gordon. Or a Gordon/Guillen pair.

  2. Greg Sousa

    I’ve also noticed posts in which supporters of Sharon Springer are disparaging other candidates for not revealing how they voted in the recent presidential election. This is inappropriate, and should be discouraged.

    During the primary election, I too was asked to reveal for whom I voted in the presidential election. I chose not to answer such questions for the same reason I declined to state my party preference; that is, because I believe partisanship has no place in our local elections.

    As a candidate, I soon discovered my support came from all parts of the political spectrum, and in fact, some of my strongest support came from people who supported presidential candidates to whom I was opposed. Despite our differences at a national level, we shared an interest in good governance at the local level.

    This is precisely why our local elections are supposed to be non-partisan, because in city government, a pragmatic approach is preferred over the party line. Yet, there are those who would have it otherwise; these are the people we see attempting to impose party politics upon our elections.

    For example, the LA County Democratic Party announces it only endorses registered Democrats, thereby putting a not-so-subtle party label on each of their endorsees. It now appears that members of the Burbank Democratic Club have taken things even further, and so we see the demands for candidates to reveal for whom they voted in the presidential election.

    When viewed in the context of the smear campaign being conducted by Ms. Springer and her supporters, these demands should be seen for the cheap tactics they are, intended only to distract the voters from the real issues of traffic, overdevelopment, and corruption. I reject these attempts to make our local elections just another partisan fight, because while the political parties might enjoy it, the stakes are too high for those of us who actually live here.

  3. Fred

    And Dave Golonski, friend of developers gave away millions of dollars of land in downtown Burbank for 100 dollars. Golonski who is the cause of our budget woes today

  4. Doug

    Hey Semichorus is that money from the same mall with sex in the bathrooms ? No wonder they supported Golonski and now the want to build a monstrocity at the abandoned old IKEA ? They must need Springer for deals on the over bloated project.

  5. Juan S.

    I trust Dr Gordon and do not trust Golonski

  6. Anonymous

    The Burbank machine is in gear. The groupies have joined together to overthrow Gordon so they won’t have anyone addressing the corruption. It’s disgusting. I can’t bear to even imagine what comes next.

    • semichorus

      There’s still more votes to come. I’ll be looking at the precincts in this one and compare it to the last. Gordon did well in many, if he didn’t this time it will raise a big question: what happened to all his votes?
      I think the better way to put it is address the incompetency. Springer’s an obvious dingbat. The others are either ain’t too bright or lack good judgment. Or–like Rogers — they don’t give a damn.
      Burbank’s an obvious pit– almost no one on the outside takes it seriously. It’s SO easy to take it on and make it look bad. Terrific mediocrities abound– including many of the new arrivals. Most of the good people I know have left. Most of those still here are either fools or personally fucked up. Sad but true. They have no class and no culture and they lack education. Even the college graduates get stupid quick. Something about the place…

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