Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

Gordon’s lack of promotion is sensible

There has been much “underreporting” recently on how uninterested most Burbankers are in who actually sits on the City Council (“Talamantes takes mayoral seat,” May 4).

Over the last four elections for council, only about 20% of folks who took the time to register bothered to vote for local leaders whose actions may have the greatest direct effect on their lives. It seems clear that most Burbank citizens don’t give diddly squat who governs our local community or in what way they govern.

Not surprisingly, criticisms anew arise about Councilman David Gordon again being passed over for the vice mayorship and repeat the mantra about the conspiracy of the other four council people, whomever they may be at the time.

But in his reelection in 2009, he garnered just 44% and finished behind both Talamantes and the dreaded leader of the “Golonski-ites.” Each of the other sitting council members have received more votes than Gordon ever did — three of them were first elected after Gordon was on the council and seem to discover something when starting to work with him. And Dave Golonski keeps getting easily reelected whenever he wants.


Sounds like the council critics represent a real minority of the minority.

Mel Wolf


Petty jealously reigns in council chambers


The blatant passing-over once again of Councilman David Gordon for vice mayor should be despised by all Burbank citizens (“Talamantes takes mayoral seat,” May 4). Petty jealousy should not be allowed on the panel.

What recourse do we constituents have to correct this atrocious injustice? It must stop!

Many of us in Burbank are throwing our hands up in the air; as long as Councilman Dave Golonski is on the council, nothing will be done to make right prevail.

Gordon, you have amazing courage to fight the deck that is stacked against you. My heart goes out to you!

Steve Urbanovich


Smoking scofflaws will come around


Burbank’s new law prohibiting smoking in certain outdoor areas of multi-unit housing (“Smoking restrictions set to expand,” April 30) has taken effect. And now, as always, begins the typical short-lived period of defiance.

In his May 7 letter, “Smoking restrictions are plain nonsense,” Tony Bruno says no city is going to tell him what he cannot do on his own balcony. (I’ll assume from his ire that he’s a smoker.) Well, he’s wrong. The city has told him: He may not smoke on his balcony or patio.

Granted, there is a difference between “may” and “can,” and since Bruno has declared himself a scofflaw, I will suggest what he might now experience, by describing what has always happened with every new smoking restriction in the past, starting in 1994 when smoking was prohibited inside businesses.

First, a few smokers become irate and flout the law. Then someone reports them, and they are cited by the police and forced to pay a fine. This makes them even more angry, and they continue the cycle until, finally, they get tired of throwing away money on fines and living in constant anger.

At that point, they comply with the law — begrudgingly at first — and then ultimately with a peace that comes from maturity. And they then discover that they have not been prevented from indulging in their addiction, but merely from forcing other people unwillingly to join them.

And then everybody’s happy.

Robert Phipps