Representative's attitude is outrageous
The reaction and comments of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California representative Glenn Brown during a recent City Council meeting were jaw-dropping (â€œWater official rips Gordon,â€ May 10). How dare he suggest to Councilman David Gordon, or any other council member, that he's just really much too busy to respond to questions or concerns? Busy with what?
After all, this guy is just a minor-league council appointee with some ideas about his own importance.
I would suggest that Brown is in need of an attitude adjustment. He should feel humble and privileged to have been selected by the City Council to represent the citizens of Burbank, and should be available to answer any questions from anyone at any time, even if it's 3 a.m. and he has to appear in his pajamas.
The attitude and demeanor of this â€œrepresentativeâ€ is yet another vivid demonstration of the â€œbusiness as usual/don't bother meâ€ politics that has become a tragic hallmark of Burbank city government.
Offering councilman a lesson about ethanol
Burbank Mayor Dave Golonski thinks ethanol is a good idea (â€œBurbank City Council Meeting Wrap-up,â€ May 30). Here are some facts about ethanol.
I would suggest Golonski absorb them, ponder the issue and then stop advocating â€” unless of course he is simply interested in riding the political train to economic destruction set in motion by the Bush administration.
?Ethanol production from corn places a premium on the crop. As a significant source of food for livestock, prices of meats and any corn-related products have risen at record pace, burdening everyone but the wealthy.
?It costs more to produce than oil.
?To travel the distance possible on a gallon of gas takes close to 1.5 gallons of ethanol. Today's ethanol-laced gasoline reduces gas mileage and increases fuel cost.
?1.5 gallons of ethanol produces pollution near equal to one gallon of gas resulting in no environmental benefit whatsoever.
?Producing ethanol generates more pollution than the gasoline it is to replace.
?The government is paying a subsidy to farmers growing ethanol sources (our tax dollars). We are paying money to produce a less efficient and ultimately more polluting fuel, increasing prices across a wide spectrum of products to gain independence from what?
?We could never grow enough corn to noticeably reduce our need for oil. To achieve even the slightest measurable benefit would come at the expense of national and worldwide economic devastation.
?Ethanol releases more nitrogen oxides and evaporates more easily than gasoline, adding other pollutants.
?Studies indicate engine deterioration due to ethanol use. (It creates sludge and corrodes the engine seals).
Ethanol is a political ruse, employed to facilitate an appearance of attending to a solution to oil dependency and environmental concerns. Neither can be accomplished with it, our dependency increases, and the environment pays a greater price.
MICHAEL E. WHITE
Realtor should avoid online squatting
Recently, I noticed something peculiar in an issue of Realtor Brad Korb's Burbank Bulletin. Korb details a list of separate Web domain names that he says automatically â€œforwardâ€ to his main realty website.
In Internet lingo, such an ownership of unused website names is actually known as squatting.
That's when someone either buys up a series or often a whole run of individual Web domains for commercial purposes, with the clear intent that no one else can use them.
Among the domain names that Korb now owns include â€œBurbankMagnoliaPark.comâ€ and â€œBurbankMedia District.com,â€ along with many others.
The problem here is simple. These are not just arbitrary, imaginative names that Korb has made up and registered. They are specific, designated city districts whose domain names Korb has appropriated as his own.
This means that he and nobody else, not even local merchants in the area, or the city itself, can use these distinctive Web monikers. What Korb is doing is infringing upon the public use of these names for the clear purpose of diverting people to his own commercial website. Even if they aren't registered trademarks, they have a distinctive unregistered trademark character that bears no resemblance to Korb. In fact, he isn't even located in the Media District, for starters.
And do local Burbank ministers know that Korb has also bought the rights to â€œBurbankChurch.com?â€ Is he a man of the cloth as well?
In case anyone thinks there is nothing wrong with this, I strongly suggest that they try to register and use a domain name like â€œDowntownBeverlyHills.comâ€ or, perhaps say, â€œUCLAheights.com.â€ Even better, try using them for commercial purposes.
Before you knew it, you would be hauled into court, because each relevant agency would seek immediate injunctive relief to prevent you, or anyone, from appropriating those singularly identifying names without either permission or a license.
Even if they are not registered trademarks, relief can still be granted.
So my obvious question is, why is Burbank allowing outside commercial use of its name?
And here's an even better one. What if a left-wing, anti-growth organization suddenly decided to register a domain name like, say, â€œBurbankcityboosters.com?â€
I know what would happen. So why is this happening here?