Looking for a Leader

The on, off, now maybe on-again initiative to stall construction of a new airport terminal at the Burbank Airport is an example of governing by blunt instrument. It’s not leadership.

Last week a group called ROAR, or Restore Our Airport Rights, turned in a petition that, had it qualified for the ballot, would have barred the Burbank City Council from approving a tentative agreement for a badly needed new terminal.

On Wednesday, the Burbank city clerk, acting on advice from the Burbank city attorney, disqualified the petition, saying that it failed to meet state requirements for ballot initiatives because it did not include the names of two of the measure’s chief proponents.

On Thursday, the Burbank City Council said it would consider a measure to put the initiative, in one form or another, before voters anyway.

What a waste of effort and energy.

One of the main proponents whose name was not on the petition is former Burbank City Councilman Ted McConkey, who has apparently soured on representative government since he lost a reelection bid last year.

The initiative gives McConkey considerable publicity and a convenient platform from which to yell at his enemies remaining on the City Council. But does it offer a solution to the stalemate over a new terminal?

No.

ROAR’s petition calls for a mandatory nighttime curfew and a cap on future flights and passengers. Not surprisingly--this is politics, after all--the petition fails to point out that in 1990, Congress passed the Airport Noise and Capacity Act, which set up rigid criteria for municipalities attempting to pass noise restrictions on airline traffic.

The petition also does not mention a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that local governments could not interfere with airport safety or operations, a field reserved to the Federal Aviation Administration.

So what would happen if the irresistible force of the initiative process met the unmovable object of federal regulations?

“Even if they passed that, it would not be something we would take into consideration,” FAA spokesman Mitch Barker told The Times.

Airport opponents are infuriated by what they see as the FAA’s indifference, but consider what would happen if every community around every airport in the country set up its own rules and hours. That kind of Balkanization was exactly what the federal airport act set out to prevent.

Like most initiative movements, this one is based on legitimate beefs. Airport neighbors are weary of noise and congestion. They raise a reasonable question, which is how busy should an airport be when it’s located in the middle of a developed, urban area?

Burbank is not alone in this concern. At a meeting last year with Times editors, Federal Aviation Administrator Jane Garvey said that balancing national aviation needs with local concerns is the biggest challenge facing the agency. The agency has not met that challenge.

But this initiative doesn’t either. It does not recognize the reality of federal law. It does nothing to find a balance between the needs of air commerce and the needs of neighborhoods. Finding that balance requires more finesse than a blunt instrument can provide. It requires the kind of give and take that was involved in negotiations that led to the framework agreement.

It will take more negotiations, among the city of Burbank, the airport, the FAA, the airlines and nearby residents, to reach a final agreement all parties can live with. And that will take leadership.

The question is, who will provide it?