Since the announcement by the City Council of the proposed
development agreement, several of us in Burbank have joined a new
group called Burbank Voters and Taxpayers.
Many in our group have actively spoken out against this proposed
agreement at council meetings. While I think it is fair to say that
we have made reasoned arguments against it, we have not been
reluctant to vent our emotions.
These emotions have ranged from dismay, to distrust, and, at
times, to outright anger. At the Aug. 31 council meeting, Councilman
Todd Campbell asked why we were so upset given that the council had
not yet even voted on the matter. Since Campbell is fairly new to the
council, and, since I believe his question to be sincere, I would
like to try to answer the question here in the Leader.
I am not an official spokesperson for the Burbank Voters and
Taxpayers; I can speak only for myself. I do believe though that most
members of our group will be in agreement with my comments.
The reason I feel so many are so fed up with the council regarding
airport issues is that the council has repeatedly lied to, and
back-stabbed, Burbank residents.
These are strong words, but I believe I can make my case that they
are accurate.
The first wave of lies emanating from the council on airport
issues came in 1999. In May of that year, Burbank was successful in
winning the PUC case in which it was determined that the city had the
absolute right to control land use for the B-6 property, which was
being acquired from Lockheed by the airport. Once this court decision
was announced, the council went in to its secrecy mode and repeatedly
lied that they were even having meetings with the airport.
The council was, of course, having meetings with the airport all
along and these secret meetings led to the now infamous framework for
settlement. The framework contained several flaws and at least two
additional lies.
The next lie was that the framework would restrict the airport
from building anything more than a 14-gate "replacement" terminal.
What the framework actually did was to allow the airport to build a
new terminal which, upon completion, would have had 19 gates.
Further, the framework would leave the land vacant for the airport to
add on another 8-gate concourse bringing the total number of gates to
27.
The third lie regarding the framework is that if the airport did
not begin construction within six months that the B-6 property would
have to be sold. Almost five years have elapsed and the property has
not been sold.
