Mailbag: M doesn’t measure up
Re: Measure M — Burbank and Glendale should oppose it. Burbank City Council refused to endorse the measure, citing a failure by Metro to deliver improvements in the city and surrounding area. In spite of billions from A, C and R sales taxes we have reduced local Metro bus service and a failure to expand regional rail, the lowest cost and fastest-to-deliver option to reduce traffic on our streets.
Measure M’s primary purpose is to fund the Westside Purple Line subway extension. For the price of a quarter mile of subway we could have frequent regional rail from Chatsworth and Sylmar to Union Station with connecting buses at all stops.
All Metro has delivered to the Valley is an extra freeway lane on the 405, which has failed to relieve traffic. They are in the process of doing the same on I-5, with anticipated similar results. We need a fairer plan, and a better way of funding local transit.
Paul Dyson
Chair, City of Burbank Transportation Commission
President, Rail Passenger Assn. of California and Nevada
..
Measure B’s bumpy questions
Regarding the upcoming vote on Measure B: This measure is asking Burbank voters to approve a replacement terminal at Hollywood Burbank Airport.
No architectural plans have been released, and construction won’t begin for five to 10 years.
“No cost to Burbank” sure sounds appealing, but if one really reads the fine print, it’s more appalling.
Federal grants mean tax dollars. We all pay those. Increased ticket, parking and concession fees are not free either.
Just because we keep our current number of 14 gates doesn’t mean there cannot be more flights.
A “no” vote is the only real protection left for Burbank citizens to retain airport accountability, transparency and oversight. I am not anti-airport, use it often, support improvements and upgrades. But they must be done responsibly and with an eye to the future. Why give up the hard fought protections that have cost Burbank millions of dollars and decades to achieve?
Measure B gets an F. Please vote no on B!
Roy Wiegand
Burbank
..
Terminal should take flight
The terminal at Hollywood Burbank Airport must be replaced, per federal regulation. This is not changeable, avoidable or up for debate. A “no” vote on Measure B, on our ballots on Nov. 8, does not mean we keep the old terminal, a fact that seems to have been lost in the debate thus far.
Measure B does two things. First, it allows for construction of a new terminal that will comply with federal safety regulations on a site that protects our local tax base. This site, preferred by the Airport Authority, will not require kicking out any Burbank businesses. Vote no, and those businesses might be forced to leave Burbank for the city of Los Angeles in order to make room for the new terminal — taking their tax dollars with them.
The second effect of Measure B has the potential to be even more beneficial for our city. Right now, the Airport Authority is made up of nine members, three each from Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena. This gives Glendale and Pasadena — great communities, but less impacted by the airport than Burbank — the power to outvote the Burbank representatives. Measure B promises to change that, giving Burbank’s appointed commissioners the power to block any move to expand or otherwise change the airport.
Here’s what Measure B doesn’t do: It doesn’t expand the number of gates. It doesn’t expand the number of flights. It doesn’t lift the voluntary curfew. And it doesn’t cost Burbank a dime.
I urge my neighbors in Burbank to vote yes on Measure B, and in so doing, to fix the airport on our own terms.
Joshua Goodman
Burbank
..
Concerns over super majority
According to the Measure B pamphlet, the new airport board will give Burbank a super majority. As it is now, Burbank cannot strike down a motion if Glendale and Pasadena are in agreement. Now at first blush, this super majority seems like a good thing. But, I’m wondering why we have to approve Measure B in order to get this consideration. After all, we’re the ones whose daily lives and property values are directly affected by the airport.
Furthermore, the board members are not elected, but appointed. Given the fact that they’re not beholden to the voters of Burbank, what assurance do we have that they will always act in our best interest? Additionally, Airport Authority meetings seem to be held on Monday mornings, which limits access for most of the general public. So much for transparency. I’m afraid this super majority is going to end up with carte blanche. We live a 12-minute walk from the airport and two blocks outside the noise abatement zone, so Measure B is of particular interest.
Carol Tensen
Burbank