Under the guise of clarifying the legality of Measure A, City
Councilmen Dave Golonski and David Laurell have instructed the city's
attorneys to file suit against Measure A. While they talk clarification,
what they really seek is nullification.
Will City Councilwoman Marsha Ramos reverse her vote and stop this
charade? Time will tell.
How devious and sneaky is the City Council's lawsuit against Measure
A? Even Airport Authority President Chris Holden has expressed reluctance
to participate. His reason is that it appears to involve the Airport
Authority in an "artificial or collusive lawsuit."
Of the eight claims in the City Council's lawsuit, claim No. 1 is that
Measure A impermissibly delegates City Council powers to the voters.
What the City Council does not say is that Measure B also delegates
the council's powers. Measure B is even more likely to violate California
law, because it is a reactive measure that requires voter approval after
a deal has been consummated with the airport.
Measure A is proactive in that it states that the council cannot enter
into a deal with the airport unless a curfew and caps are in place.
It is not difficult to predict the likely outcome if the council
manages to shop around for the "right" judge and have Measure A nullified
in court.
Look forward a few years, or possibly months. The council cuts a deal
with the airport that provides no real protections on airport growth. The
deal is then submitted to the people, via Measure B. The people reject
the deal, and the airport then sues to overturn the election results
because Measure B impermissibly delegates City Council powers to the
voters.
The City Council members then whine and say they didn't know that
those bad old airport guys would be so mean.
The end result will likely be a huge new terminal with no enforceable
provisions on growth. Until the council comes clean on the weakness of
Measure B, they deserve no trust on airport issues.
RON VANDERFORD
Burbank
