Your editorial, "Easy does it on ROAR initiative," March 28, lacks an
important perspective that started long before the California Supreme
Court ruling giving Burbank the right of granting or denying permission
to the airport before the entity could purchase land.
Members of the Burbank City Council participated in the first writing
of the Joint Powers Agreement on June 14, 1977. Shortly thereafter the
authority stated it was in complete control and that the three cities had
no ability to affect anything it planned to do. It was the dawn of fierce
resentment to their arrogant indifference.
From the beginning, there has been a concerted effort by the authority
to conceal future plans. Throughout the long history of attempts to buy
land from Lockheed-Martin, through three periods of formal mediation --
including prolonged attempts by various City Council members and Burbank
airport commissioners -- the cloak of secrecy has prevailed.
It is unfair to name one or two current council members as the focal
point and basis for accusations of conspiracy. The only valid indictment
of city negotiators is that they cooperated with the authority to
perpetuate nondisclosure of current topics under negotiation.
It is unfortunate that pro-airport factions choose to view the
opposition as kooks. Airport supporters often attribute efforts to gain
protection for the city as being politically motivated for personal gain
and attention. They fail to recognize the magnitude of resentment toward
the airport prompted by their callous non-concern about adding noise and
pollution.
The first ROAR initiative was a big disappointment when it failed to
qualify on technical grounds. The second effort has turned into a resolve
equal to the determination of the U.S. Marines storming Iwo Jima.
Claims that the Public Utilities Commission rules will be overturned
are unfounded. The rule clearly states city entitlement to police powers
on land-use matters. The rules do not contain restrictions or parameters
on application.
ROAR emphatically tells the city what its residents expect. How the
city accomplishes those goals is left to the inventiveness of the city.
No court in the land will take away the power of the people to govern
themselves no matter what the pretext. If the opposition tries to do
that, then there will truly be grounds to fight it all the way to the
U.S. Supreme Court.
Members of the pro-airport faction piously quote objectives of the
Federal Aviation Administration as a utopian goal. They find it
inconceivable that anyone would dare challenge their motivation.
There will never be any resolution to this conflict as long as the
airline community insists they are entitled to do anything they please.
Once they acknowledge landside residents have rights, then and only then
will there be any hope for reconciliation.
Don Elsmore
Burbank
