Will Rogers A common criticism of the...

Will Rogers

A common criticism of the “Framework for Settlement,” the negotiated

proposal to let the airport build a new terminal with certain conditions,

is that future councils can change the conditions. The council’s

unsatisfying response is that one council can’t bind the hands of future

councils. Any rule a council creates today can be overturned whenever a

future council’s majority wishes.

That makes people nervous, and rightfully so. For example, the

framework proposes allowing a 14-gate terminal. If the airport wants to

add two more gates, it first has to win federal approval for a mandatory

curfew barring all night flights. But years from now, another council

could drop the demand for a curfew.

I have an idea. There is a way to bind future councils. An example is

seen in a ballot initiative promoted by a group vehemently opposed to the

framework. I believe the initiative is poorly written, misstates facts,

makes demands that are unconstitutional and could never be enforced, and

in other ways far exceeds the bounds of common sense and the law. But the

initiative also declares no council can change the rules it proposes

unless changes are approved by a vote of the people.

That IS a way to bind future councils. If the council comes to a

development agreement for a new terminal that it can support, officials

should assure that no council ever dilutes its restrictions without voter

approval. Last week I checked with City Atty. Dennis Barlow. He confirmed

the council is empowered to put its own measure on the ballot, and can

draft a measure prohibiting changes in a terminal agreement unless voters

first approve the changes. If voters approved the measure, the hands of

future councils would be tied.

So, will the council members consider doing this? Ask them.

*

The facet of the framework attracting the most heat is the proposal

for a ban on flights departing to the east. While I find the idea absurd

and arguments for it specious, I could not care less about it. I doubt

the federal government will approve the ban. No other facet of the

terminal plan is contingent on an approval. Rejecting the ban won’t kill

the plan, add gates or change other rules, so I ignore the quarrels.

But I’ve been astonished at the slashing rhetoric of politicians

representing Los Angelenos, the folks with good cause to hate the ban

idea. In attacking the odious proposal, pols have called for Burbank to

abolish virtually the entire framework, a document jam-packed with

benefits for L.A. constituents, too. It’s counterproductive and

destructive. From councilmen to congressmen, each seems afraid they’ll

lose votes if anyone can accuse them of using anything less than

scatter-gun tactics.

It’s also obvious the pols want to jump in at the end of the process,

enjoying the fruits of Burbank’s years of effort and millions in cash.

They want us to use the power won, without help from Los Angeles, to

benefit Los Angeles. That alone isn’t a problem. Burbank has urged

Glendale and Pasadena officials to act on a moral duty to consider their

Burbank neighbors. Burbank has the same obligations.

But L.A. obviously wants Burbank to lever the airport into a “share

the noise” plan. To over simplify, L.A. wants to see one plane leave to

the south, then the next to the east, and the next to the north, and so

on.

Never mind L.A. has lost every lawsuit it filed trying to accomplish

that, and several joint efforts over a period of decades have ended with

declarations such a plan would be irresponsible and illegal.

I’m amazed that, to combat the grossly unfair proposal for a ban on

eastern departures, and to promote a shared noise plan as likely to

succeed as I am likely to be elected to Congress, L.A. politicians are

smearing everything in the framework. From limits on noise, to

restrictions on how the airport can use space in a new terminal, L.A.

pols are willing to toss it all -- in the process hurting their own

constituents and Burbank.

*

Last week, the city released a video and brochure “explaining” the

framework. Contrary to charges leveled by familiar critics, the materials

are not illegal campaign literature. There were also accusations that,

since the expense couldn’t have been undertaken without council approval,

and since no such discussion appeared on a meeting agenda, council

discussion to approve the materials was obviously held in an illegal

meeting.

That attack collapses at the premise. No council vote was required to

spend money on the material, and no meeting was held to approve it. I’m

sure the accusers will hastily offer apologies for their ugly accusations

of illegal acts.

But advance drafts of the materials were given to council members, as

confidential documents “related to litigation.” That does stink. I’ve

been around long enough to know the argument can be made. But the current

council has pledged to avoid such dodges. Just because a matter can be

rendered secret doesn’t mean it must be, and the literature shouldn’t

have been.

Moreover, the framework is the product of two council members

negotiating with airport officials. City Hall putting out the materials

without even a public discussion creates an appearance all five council

members are firmly devoted to a plan that hasn’t yet been publicly

deliberated. I don’t think that appearance reflects reality. But I

believe the council must begin paying closer attention to such

appearances, and start showing a lot more respect for people who are

concerned about them.

*

Speaking of respect, the council held a hearing last week, approving

the airport’s request to buy land. But most public speakers addressed the

airport’s terminal plans, and that had some council members sighing,

eye-rolling and whispering. It was clear they were frustrated by the

public being so tedious as to talk about one airport issue, when a

different airport issue was on the agenda.

Council members politely absorb many personal attacks I probably

couldn’t take without leaping the desk and taking a poke at someone. But

when some get so obviously huffy, or look down their noses and lecture

that citizens addressed the “wrong” issue, they alienate people --

especially newcomers lured in by airport issues, and already nervous

about scandalous charges of council arrogance and abuse.

I’ll bet officials would win applause for occasionally turning a hose

on the defamatory boobs we all know, but the same officials have to be

less condescending and patronizing toward others motivated only by

concern and interest.