Posts Tagged ‘Save California’

2016 Election – Local Races & Measure B

November 1, 2016

genelect16

Our 2016 Local Election Endorsements & Value Voter Guide Links fyi:

* State Senate (District 25)Michael Antonovich #45 | WebsiteFaceBook

* Supervisor (5th District)Kathryn Barger #76 | WebsiteFaceBook

* Measure B – Vote NO #192 | WebsiteFaceBook – SaveBurbank

Other Suggestions: U.S. Senator – Loretta Sanchez #36. U.S. Representative (28th District) – Lenore Solis #40. Assembly (43rd District) – Neither. Judges – Steven Schreiner #62, Efrain Aceves #65, Susan Townsend #69, David Berger #72. State Ballot Measures: See Below links.

Voter Guides: Craig Huey | Robyn Nordell | SaveCalifornia.com | Platforms

Candidate Forum Videos: State Senate | Supervisor | Assembly | Measures

*** Special Burbank Election Commentary: Vote NO on Measure B

I have many friends both opposing & supporting Measure B and have tried to keep an open mind and listen to both sides arguments for/against a new 14-gate 355,000 sqft terminal & governance changes. The main arguments for Measure B seem to be increased safety (distance from runway, seismic standards, ADA compliance) and improved passenger amenities & conveniences. Having flown into the recently built Sacramento airport, I can say it certainly was a pleasant experience & I have no problem with the modernization & improvements being proposed. That said, the Airport is safe “as is” & has a certain character/charm I would hate to loose if the replacement terminal is not done right (please see the unsightly, blinding RTIC car rental monstrosity). Unfortunately there are no actual architectural plans or models I can find to see what the replacement terminal might look like, so I guess we’ll have just have to wait & see.

The problem & primary reason I cannot support Measure B at this time is the governance changes that take away Burbank residents rights to vote on any future airport expansion i.e. increases in # gates, and gives them to unelected, unaccountable Airport Commissioners appointed by the City Council; I simply don’t trust them to protect Burbank residents best interests & quality-of-life. Nor do I trust any politician, so replacing them with City Council members who have made many decisions I disagree with (Talaria, BPD litigation “mess” etc.), does not make up for the loss of our voting rights. We also give away our land-use powers, meaning the City no longer has zoning/easement oversight on future airport development. These 2 changes are deal-breakers for me & should never have been agreed to by our City Council.

There are many other concerns I have. The measure was rushed onto the crowded November Ballot instead of being voted on during our local City Elections next Spring where the topic could be debated in much more detail. Most people have no idea what Measure B really is & simply don’t have the time to read through all the measures on the Ballot (17 State + 4 County/Local) and make an informed decision.

We also just learned the FAA is switching from a Radar based air traffic system to a Satellite system called NextGEN, a system that leads to greater flight efficiency and has lead to increased air traffic & new flight paths in some places where it’s already been implemented. And while the Yes folks claim there will be no increased flights due to NextGEN outside of market-driven forces, I prefer to wait-&-see what actually happens beginning November 10 when it’s implemented at BUR airport.

There are serious environmental concerns that still need to be addressed. If approved, construction wouldn’t begin for about 5 years but it would take 5 years to complete. The proposed replacement site is toxic and would need to be cleaned up of all the hazardous waste ala the Empire Center & Home Depot sites and constantly monitored. The construction will have major negative environmental impacts on those who live adjacent to the site, as those adj. to the 5 fwy construction are suffering through. Some opponents have even expressed concern about possible Easterly take-offs over the Hillside based on old FAA documents, although it appears this is not possible based on current FAA rules that prohibit such take-offs due to the runways proximity to the mountains. And while the Airport has threatened to build a new terminal anyway if they loose on the SW Quadrant, this is not their preferred site as it would takes years more to build (7 instead of 5), cost Millions of dollars more, &  may involve land-use related litigation with both the City of Burbank & Los Angeles.

At the end of the day, I believe we can do better than what’s been proposed and will be in a much stronger negotiating position of we Vote NO on Measure B now and force the airport to bring the item back with the above-mentioned protections that should have been there in writing in the first place, on our local election ballot next April. These protections should include a written guarantee that the number of gates can never be increased under any circumstances &/or a Measure B vote of the people, retaining the proposed Super-Majority in light of the fact that airport decisions directly effect/impact Burbank much more than Glendale/Pasadena, retaining existing zoning/easements oversight, continuation of the existing voluntary curfew & ongoing efforts to obtain a mandatory curfew, even though I don’t believe this will ever happen (the FAA already said NO to our Part 161 Study application), actual architectural plans/models for the replacement terminal, and a written guarantee that there will never be flights taking off to the East (regardless of FAA) and no commercial flights landing from the East ever! Do this, and I will support Measure B in 2017.

Links: City of Burbank Measure B information | NO on B | Yes on B


%d bloggers like this: