Is Gabel-Luddy worried that someone might try to fuck the horses?


Must be. What else could explain this silly concern?

Additionally, council members agreed to allow single-story dwelling units, unless they are above a garage or part of the second story of a house; let property owners decide whether they want to have separate utility connections for their dwelling unit; and not allow granny flats in any R1-H-zoned area, which mainly pertains to the houses in the Rancho district that allow horses to be kept in those residential areas.

A few residents from the Rancho community and Councilwoman Emily Gabel-Luddy had concerns about allowing accessory dwelling units to be built in the backyards of those homes, where many of them keep their horses.

Like what concerns? They obviously think too that it’s more important to house a horse than a person.

Btw. Why is Gabel-Luddy being allowed to propose, lobby on behalf of, and then vote for a special exemption for her very own Rancho neighborhood? One that (they all obviously think) could be of benefit to every Burbank neighborhood.

Remember when she recused herself on other Rancho issues that came before the council? All of a sudden those old conflict-of-interest policies fly out the window.





Filed under Uncategorized

5 responses to “Is Gabel-Luddy worried that someone might try to fuck the horses?

  1. Anonymous

    I believe the mayor should appoint the council members to ensure that they work with the mayor and we would save money by getting rid of election costs.

    • semichorus

      Great idea! Let’s get it into the Charter.

      I’m sure they’d go for it if presented properly. Like with a check.

  2. Anonymous

    There should be no horses in Burbank. This is not the 1800’s. I hope Mayor Rogers gets rid of all the horses.

    • semichorus

      I agree. Many communities with equestrian zones also require sizable corrals. Barbaric Burbank doesn’t.

  3. Beth

    President Obama announced a historic climate change agreement with Chinese president Xi Jinping. Aimed at drastically curtailing carbon emissions into the atmosphere, the goal is to rein in the carbon footprints of the planet’s two major polluters, the U.S. and China.

    I wonder if the agreement contains anything about carbon paw prints. While humans and their ravenous appetite for growth remain the primary drivers of climate change and the accompanying specter of climate catastrophe, pets have a surprising negative impact of their own. Bowser and Mittens may be your best friends, but with around one billion pet dogs and cats in the world, eating billions of pounds of canned meat a year producing half a billion pounds of waste daily, Mother Nature might just consider them to be—after humans—Public Enemy Number Two.
    Cats and dogs eat meat-based diets, and we all know that is the most energy intensive diet there is. Then there is the staggering amount of bacteria-laden fecal material these beloved creatures produce. American dogs alone are responsible for 10 million tons of waste a year. Can anything be done to make our pets more planet-friendly?
    The Carbon Paw Print
    You consider yourself an environmentalist and are considering ditching that gas-guzzling SUV you bought a few years ago in order to reduce your carbon footprint. You might want to think of ditching Bowser instead. An average-sized dog consumes about 360 pounds of meat in a year and about 210 pounds of cereal. Taking into account the amount of land it takes to generate that amount of food and the energy used, that makes your dog quite the carbon hound. A 2009 study by New Zealand’s Victoria University of Wellington concluded that pet dogs have carbon paw prints double that of a typical SUV. John Barrett of the Stockholm Environment Institute, in York, Great Britain, confirmed the results of the New Zealand study. “Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat,” Barrett told New Scientist Magazine.

    OK, so maybe Bowser needs to go. How about Mittens? Well, Mittens is better than Bowser, but she still leaves a carbon paw print equal to that of driving a compact car for a solid year. The average carbon paw print of our dog or cat is higher than an average human from countries like Haiti or Afghanistan.
    While we love our pets, they share our propensity to wreak havoc on the world, and not just by generating carbon. In Great Britain, for example, there are around 8 million cats who yearly kill (conservatively estimated) around 200 million wild animals, including many threatened songbirds and other species. That’s around 25 kills per feline.

    Horses also pollute and destroy the earth we MUST end pet ownership to make serious differences in our environmental efforts.

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