terminal first, then spending an indefinite period of time seeking
regulations aimed at sweetening the deal. In the real world, the
regulations probably are impossible to achieve.
The Restore Our Airport Rights initiative had flaws, but one element I
would never quibble over is the one requiring a curfew from 10 p.m. to 7
a.m. to be established before construction of the terminal. If the curfew
is not in place, there would be no construction. Current proposals
including the provision to establish the curfew, but it is always stated
to be a future event.
All of the deals so far have had bogus goals. Even if the airport
endorses the application for a curfew, it will leave no stone unturned to
see that it places no restrictions on its operations.
The Airport will always say the curfew is too costly because it
prohibits nighttime transportation of bank transactions. It doesn't occur
to them that substituting daytime flights could be done at no additional
Limiting the number of gates to 14 is not a restriction. The Airport
has never maxed-out using what they have now. The inconvenience of tight
gate approaches would be eliminated with wider spacing and additional
The city of Burbank talks about having a noise budget in the second
phase (if we ever get there). During mediation three years ago the
authority totally rejected the city's proposal. They said it is
particularly vulnerable to attack on grounds of discrimination and
interference with interstate commerce.
The Burbank City Council says it plans to let the voters have the last
word on approving any agreement. The airport response is to propose
building 14 gates without having a Public Utilities Code hearing. It
would only be required if they want more than 14 gates.
What utter nonsense. Both the city and the Airport know Judge Carl
West would not allow the airport to buy the coveted adjoining property
until Burbank conducted a PUC hearing. By what stretch of the imagination
do they think the latest agreements can sidestep the process?
Expansion opponents are blamed for finding all manner of objections.
That isn't necessary. All they have to do is read these ridiculous
proposals any responsible person would reject.
As repugnant as it may be, perhaps we should accept our blessings and
just walk away. Can maintaining the status quo be that bad?
DON ELSMORE is a 35-year Burbank resident. Reach him at 845-7569.