council considered the matter after the city clerk's March 15 decision to
reject the initiative petition because it didn't include the names of
Members of the Restore Our Airport Rights group submitted more than
7,400 names March 14 supporting stricter noise measures at Burbank
Airport, including a mandatory curfew on nighttime flights. Some
officials have embraced the idea of putting the initiative before the
voters, others have criticized it as sloppy and unrealistic.
"I have some very serious concerns about the legality of it,"
Councilman Dave Golonski said. "There are some very serious flaws in it."
Councilman Davis Laurell joined Golonski in opposing the ROAR
petition. Laurell said he voted no because of preliminary advice from
City Atty. Dennis Barlow.
Ted McConkey, ROAR founder and initiative author, said Barlow
shouldn't have expressed an opinion on the initiative.
"What he's doing is trying to influence the voters by saying it's
constitutionally flawed," McConkey said. "What they are doing is
interfering in the electoral process. They're stacking the deck."
On Thursday, Laurell reiterated his view that the ROAR measure could
elicit lawsuits from the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority,
Federal Aviation Administration, the airlines or other affected parties.
"Why would I want to put something on the ballot that would put the
city in jeopardy?" Laurell asked.
However, neither Laurell nor Barlow would say which provisions of the
initiative raise legal questions. Barlow said he was preparing an opinion
on the initiative for the council.
"We'll do the analysis and then we'll see," Barlow said Thursday. "I'm
not going to go into that until I go to the council."