No grounds to file school grievance
As a writer, producer, director and parent of a former Burroughs High School student, I think teacher Scott Bailey has no grounds to file a grievance against Principal Emilio Urioste (“Teacher files grievance,” June 25).
I am certain that Bailey will find that the more he “stirs the pot” on this incident, the more opposition he will find to his “interpretations.”
A couple of my plays have been produced in small theaters, and it has always given me great pleasure when the director honors my work by asking my permission to change a word or two.
I can’t imagine what William Shakespeare would have said about Bailey’s liberal interpretation of his work.
My guess is that if Shakespeare wanted his play to be about the love between two women, he would have written it that way and might have called it “Rosemary and Juliet,” but he didn’t.
Perhaps Bailey should write his own play to promote his agenda, and not distort a classic like “Romeo and Juliet.”
My question about “The Laramie Project” is whether this piece is appropriate for a high school production.
What happened to “Oklahoma”?
The only thing I blame Urioste for is not stopping both productions. Even though a principal should be able to trust his teachers to do the right thing, when it comes to our children, Urioste must be more vigilant and trust no one. This apparently includes his teachers.
Burroughs has been a source of pride for my family, and under Urioste’s leadership, will continue to be a gem of our community.
As for Bailey’s grievance, I would like to ask if we, the parents and taxpayers of Burbank, have “grounds to file a grievance” against Bailey?
If so, please let me know where the line starts!
Motorist should get some exercise in lot
A few weeks ago, the Burbank Leader printed a letter from a woman who was upset in a grocery store parking lot because she was waiting for someone to pull out, and the guy behind her blew his horn, and told her to move on (“Negativity doesn’t get best of driver,” Mailbag, June 18).
I am 500% in agreement with the guy who told her to move.
This happens all the time because someone is too lazy to walk an extra 200 feet or so and because they want to be closer to the front door of the store.
Handicap parking is another story, and they should park close.
Most people who are done shopping take five minutes to move out of their parking spot. They unload their groceries, search for their keys, and women put their makeup on.
Meanwhile, traffic is backing up because this lady, and others, sit there and wait.
Get some exercise, ma’am, and park a few feet more away.
I’m sure it will do you good.
Rebate needed for artificial grass
Every other month I receive my bill from Burbank Water and Power, which includes pleas and hints for saving water (“Water supplier issues alert,” Mailbag, June 14).
Burbank is asking us all to cut our water consumption significantly, yet the incentives they offer for our efforts are narrow in scope.
I recently contacted them to ask about any type of rebate for installing artificial grass in my backyard and was told that they offered nothing for this.
It doesn’t make much sense to me that they would be offering a rebate for a relatively inexpensive change to water-saving sprinkler heads and yet offer nothing for a more expensive project that eliminates the use of water for a lawn.
If Burbank is serious about having us all cut our water usage, it needs to broaden the scope of its incentives, as other cities have done, and start supporting the efforts that its citizens are making.
Overdevelopment is killing this city
Recycling of completely built-out land in Burbank is giving everyone headaches because expansion automatically introduces more traffic, which is an environmental problem.
It has been the practice of city development staff to ignore consideration of environmental impacts related to new projects unless they were absolutely forced to do so.
On those rare occasions, when some vague reference is made to impacts, invariably staff finds them to be negligible.
At a recent City Council meeting, we were introduced to an individual with the title of senior assistant city attorney, who was presented as someone known throughout the state as an expert on environmental law.
It is apparently this individual’s duty not to be sure that all new projects comply with the California Environmental Quality Act law.
Instead this person is being used to deflect any mention of project environmental deficiencies. We don’t need more development or another city pawn.
We have reached an intolerable limit that will not be placated by experts ignoring our problems.