There is one viable solution for business owners who lose their undocumented workers. If Trump's voters are constantly kvetching and complaining that "illegals" are stealing jobs from citizens, business owners need to look to the Trump voters who want their jobs back and hire those people to work in those vacated positions once held by "illegals."
While we are at it, we can also use some "extreme vetting" to get lazy people off their collective rear ends and back to work doing the jobs that "illegals" once did. It'll be a great day in America when Trump voters scrub toilets and flip burgers for $10 and hour. They'll be glad to have these terrific but low-paying positions.
It's not just about what is made in America, but what is done in America that will "Make America Great Again."
Elections should have coincided
Congratulations to Sharon Springer for qualifying for the general election. She will have the opportunity to be the lone rational voice on the City Council and could possibly limit the stranglehold that the developers have on this city. Sharon cares deeply about the residents of Burbank and their quality of life. Hopefully, she will prevail on April 11. The voters need to turn out for Sharon.
It is shameful that only 16% of eligible voters took the time to vote on Feb. 28. If the 84% who did not vote are dissatisfied with the city government, they had the opportunity to let their voices be heard but it was too much of an inconvenience for them to fill out their ballots and mail them. It is truly pathetic that there was a 16% turnout in an important election that will determine the future of Burbank for several years. Indeed, the election winners know that they were elected by less than 10% of eligible voters.
Although there is no justification for the incredibly low voter turnout, the timing of the election is questionable. If some voters were confused by the fact that there was a Los Angeles County election on March 7, that situation needed to clarified by the city of Burbank. Why wasn't the city election scheduled for March 7 and somehow combined with the county election to include in-person voting instead of only by mail? It is somewhat of an inconvenience to vote twice in consecutive weeks.
A real scandal waits in wings
It is truly fascinating to read that City Council candidate Sharon Springer is "infuriated" and Vice Mayor Will Rogers has concerns over unaccepted campaign donations to David Gordon and Juan Guillen. Gordon and Guillen both pledged not to take developer donations during this election. When a local developer made an online contribution, both candidates kept that promise to the public and returned the money.
Ironically, in the 2015 election, Rogers accepted at least $2,000 from developers. Any citizen has the right to donate to any candidate. It's what happens to the money afterward that is most telling. Will Rogers chose to keep his developer money. And he had way more than 10 days to return it!
Curiously, Rogers and Springer don't seem nearly as disturbed about the $50,000 donation of taxpayer funds to the Yes on Measure B campaign. These were public monies used to influence an election. Where is the disgust and outrage over those campaign finances?
Anyone by chance, feeling "infuriated" now at this lack of transparency? For months, David Gordon, along with a number of citizens, has been calling for a public hearing to shed light on this election fraud. So far, no other council member will join him.
This $50,000 is the real scandal and speaks volumes about who to vote for in April.
Springer, Rogers ire unwarranted
We found it sad and irritating that the Leader reporter Anthony Clark Carpio chose to include in his article "Donations to City Council candidates from real estate developer draw criticism," unsubstantiated concerns from Sharon Springer and Will Rogers regarding donations to other candidates. Neither of them did due diligence in actually asking about the donations, which were returned to the donor. Hopefully, during the General Election period, the Leader will refrain from printing false or inaccurate information that amount to mud-slinging and innuendos.
Glenn and Gail Nicol
Cusumano's $400 is a distraction
In response to the "Contribution commotion" letter to the editor by Will Rogers (March 4), I agree with Rogers that actions speak louder than words. David Gordon is our only current City Council member who asks questions and votes against the current wave of overdevelopment on the horizon for Burbank. The motivation behind Michael Cusumano's $400 donation to Gordon's campaign may have been to cause a distraction from this fact.
If you truly care about maintaining some semblance of Burbank's quality of life, vote for Gordon and Juan Guillen in order to have true discussions on the consequence of proposed plans. Otherwise, our other esteemed council members will continue approving every proposed overdevelopment deal that crosses their dais.
We can't scratch our way out of the pension hole we have dug ourselves into by relying on the developers to add tax dollars to our coffers. Those same tax dollars will be needed to supply all of the new residents with city services too.
Suddenly Gordon seems familiar
No doubt David Gordon winning Stacey
Thankfully the usual occurred and his vote was noted by an asterisk that indicated he was the lone no vote and got no concessions or votes from other council members. That flyover, however, caught the attention and praise of the anti-climate change fringe here in Burbank. Seeing this opportunity, Gordon quickly followed up by tugging on irrational fears about a nonexistent threat from UN Order 21. This was followed by the usual right-wing suspicions of the undocumented, environmentalists, the always scary mass transit and so on. It is true that this is a nonpartisan race, but local candidates draw from larger political pools and it is obvious who Gordon appeals to politically.
We as citizens of Burbank can do so much better, and my hope is that after seeing the results of the 2016 presidential race, we will.