The Leader's write-up about the ROAR initiative essentially suggested
that a thorough debate of the issues begin. I am happy to stick to the
facts about why Burbank residents should vote no on ROAR.
This really isn't about being for or against an airport terminal
project. At the heart of my disagreement with the initiative is the
simple truth that the passage of ROAR would be bad government. ROAR would
waste taxpayer dollars, is unnecessary for maintaining local control over
the airport terminal project and, most important, ROAR could undo the
progress Burbank already has made in protecting our say.
I wish I could recommend that the voters simply read the initiative to
understand how ROAR threatens the power the voters of Burbank currently
have. But for starters, that's one of the problems. The language of the
initiative is so vague it is difficult to determine its meaning, so much
so that it will be tied up in courts even if it passes. And because of
flawed provisions in the initiative, the courts will likely find it
invalid. Still, the taxpayers will have to foot the bill for the
litigation.
If the intent of the ROAR initiative is to ensure that Burbank has a
say in the airport project, then it is simply unnecessary. Just last
November, we passed Measure B, which mandates that the public must vote
on any proposed airport terminal project.
Today, we as voters have the ultimate power. We can reject a project
that doesn't meet our criteria. One of the most important criteria for
us, as residents, is a curfew. The good news is that the Airport
Authority and the city of Burbank already have agreed that unless a
curfew is in place, no new terminal will be built.
The city has worked tenaciously to ensure that our quality of life is
protected. Thus, Burbank is on track for getting the terminal project
that we can live with. The current proposed terminal project speaks for
itself -- for starters, smaller square footage, fewer terminals and
mandatory curfews.
ROAR would jeopardize the progress our city has made in protecting our
interests. Perhaps most disconcerting is that if passed and when the
flawed initiative goes to court, all of the city's previous legal
victories regarding the new terminal would be put at risk. We don't want
to risk re-litigating the local controls that the courts already have
awarded us.
Burbank can't afford to have this initiative pass because of all that
we stand to lose. Make no mistake, this is about a bad piece of
legislation that is legally flawed and counterproductive to the power we
have as voters.
BILL WIGGINS
Burbank
