This is an archive of a past election.
See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/la/ for current information.
LWV League of Women Voters of California
Smart Voter
Los Angeles County, CA October 9, 2001 Election
Measure A
Airport Development Measure
City of Burbank

Initiative

11,096 / 58.3% Yes votes ...... 7,949 / 41.7% No votes

See Also: Index of all Measures

Information shown below: Impartial Analysis | Arguments | Full Text

Shall the voter-circulated initiative restricting the ability of City Council to approve new, rebuilt, relocated or expanded airport facilities be approved?

Impartial Analysis from Dennis A. Barlow, City Attorney
Current Law: At the November 7, 2000 election, Burbank voters approved Measure B, which was placed on the ballot by the Burbank City Council. That measure now prohibits the City from granting any approvals related to a relocated or expanded Airport terminal without first obtaining voter approval.

Proposed Measure: The Proposed Ballot Measure was placed on the ballot by citizen initiative after the passage of Measure B. The Proposed Measure would prohibit the City from consenting to the acquisition or rezoning of land for Airport use or the financing or construction of a rebuilt or expanded Airport unless numerous conditions are met by the Airport. City consent for financing or construction of an Airport terminal would also require approval by 2/3 of Burbank voters. There is a significant chance that the Airport will not be able to meet all 12 of the conditions in the Proposed Measure because some of the conditions may violate state or federal law. The effect of the Proposed Measure may be that the Airport could never receive City consent for a rebuilt or expanded Airport facility.

Current law already requires a majority vote of the people prior to City approval of the financing or construction of a rebuilt or expanded Airport. If the Proposed Measure is passed, the current requirement for a majority vote would be overridden by the Proposed Measure's requirement for a 2/3 vote for those matters contained therein.

The Proposed Measure may be vulnerable to legal challenge on several grounds including: (a) it may unconstitutionally interfere with power delegated to the City Council by Public Utilities Code 21661.6 and (b) the 2/3 vote requirement to amend or repeal any of its provisions may be invalid. If the Proposed Measure is challenged, the City may incur legal costs necessary to defend the measure.

The conditions imposed by the Proposed Measure that must be met prior to City consent for the acquisition or rezoning of land for Airport use, or the financing or construction of a rebuilt or expanded Airport, include the following: the Airport must establish a mandatory 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew on aircraft operations; the Airport must cap the number of aircraft operations and passengers at no more than 10% above year 2000 levels and ban operations by aircraft not originally manufactured as stage 3 jets (the current technology); the Airport must have a sound insulation program and must prepare an Environmental Impact Report and Master Plan; the Airport cannot change or add runways to accommodate larger aircraft; and, the Airport shall pay fines if it violates the initiative and must reimburse the City for lost property tax revenues and the Airport's fair share of infrastructure improvements.

The Proposed Measure would also require the City to perform noise monitoring of all aircraft activity in the City, at City expense.

 
Suggest a link related to Measure A
Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.

Arguments For Measure A Arguments Against Measure A
Vote YES on ROAR.

A council majority want to expand the Burbank Airport without mandatory curfews or any limits on future flights and passengers. So do Glendale and Pasadena. For Burbank residents that means devastating noise impacts, increased pollution-related health risks, and lower property values. It means an incredible decline in your quality of life.

Stop this rush toward expansion by voting YES on the ROAR Initiative.

ROAR won't allow expansion until we have mandatory curfews and caps to protect our city, a new EIR, heavy fines for curfew violations, and the Airport required to reimburse Burbank for lost tax revenues and infrastructure improvements.

Golonski/Murphy/Laurell want a mini-LAX in Burbank with no protections for our residents. Their own "sweetheart" Framework Agreement was rejected by the FAA, the airlines, and most Burbank residents. Still, they continue their secret dealings with Glendale and Pasadena.

Don't believe them when they tell you ROAR is legally flawed. Only the courts can make that decision.

Vote YES on ROAR and make your voice heard.

We've fought too hard in court to stop airport expansion to let our council majority double or triple flights and noise with back-room secret deals.

Vote YES on ROAR and take back control of our airport.

Thousands of your friends and neighbors signed the ROAR petition to stop airport expansion madness. Join them now in saying YES to strict airport controls through ROAR.

Do it for yourself, for your neighbors, for Burbank and for freedom from hundreds more noisy flights per week and up to five million additional passengers each year.

Demand our council majority represent Burbank instead of Glendale and Pasadena residents who get no airport noise, no pollution, no traffic gridlock.

Vote no airport expansion without mandatory curfews and caps on future flights!

Vote YES on ROAR.

Howard Rothenbach, Chairman, ROAR

Ted McConkey, Treasurer, ROAR

Rebuttal to Arguments For
Rebuttal to ROAR Argument

If the ROAR Initiative passes, you lose.

Vote NO on ROAR

The ROAR extremists never mention that _you now have local control_ over the Airport terminal project. The successful passage of Measure B in November 2000, gave Burbank voters the power to approve or veto any City Council decision regarding a new Airport terminal.

If ROAR passes, your power will be given to the Federal courts.

The _ROAR Initiative offers nothing to Burbank but the prospect of costly taxpayer funded litigation_. Worse, its passage could threaten Burbank's future efforts in controlling the Airport terminal project.

ROAR promoters also fail to mention that the Airport Authority and the City of Burbank already have agreed that no new airport terminal will be built unless a curfew is in place. City negotiators have won these gains because they are committed to protecting Burbank residents from an inappropriate airport project. Through their integrity and tenacity they have earned the respect of the Airport Authority. We can and should continue to count on them to represent our best interests and to protect our quality of life.

Don't be misled by the wild accusations of the few extremists behind ROAR. ROAR has no credibility and nothing to offer except wasting your tax dollars on litigation.

Vote NO on ROAR.

Bill Wiggins, Former Mayor, City of Burbank

Rev. Larry Stamper, Former Mayor, City of Burbank

Lew Stone, President, Burbank Firefighters Association

Hazel Walker

Argument Against the ROAR Initiative

The ROAR Initiative jeopardizes significant gains Burbank has made in containing airport expansion and noise.

Vote NO on ROAR.

The basic principle - that the voters should decide whether a new terminal agreement deal is in the City's interest - is already protected. Voters overwhelmingly approved Measure B in November 2000 to guarantee that voters have a say over any City Council decision regarding a new airport terminal.

ROAR will waste taxpayer dollars. ROAR is so vague and ambiguous its meaning and legality will have to be sorted out in court - at taxpayer expense! For example, ROAR violates the California Constitution because it requires a 2/3 majority vote to approve Airport financing and construction. But while the ROAR initiative will likely be invalidated, the City will not be spared the waste of time or public expense to defend it.

Because of its uncompromising restrictions, ROAR diminishes Burbank's clout at the negotiating table. City negotiators representing the people of Burbank have tenaciously and responsibly defended the City's rights:

  • The terminal was reduced from 27 gates to 14 gates;

  • The terminal size was reduced from 675,000 square feet to 250,000 square feet;

  • And, Burbank and the Airport Authority have agreed that no new terminal can be built without a curfew.

ROAR would handcuff Burbank from obtaining additional concessions.

Like the word it spells, ROAR adds nothing but noise to the airport expansion debate.

ROAR is vague, costly and jeopardizes gains Burbank has already made.

Vote NO on ROAR.

Bill Wiggins, Former Mayor, City of Burbank

Rev. Larry Stamper, Former Mayor, City of Burbank

Lew Stone, President, Burbank Firefighters Association

Hazel Walker

Rebuttal to Arguments Against
ROAR opponents say "tough" council negotiations reduced the proposed new terminal from 27 to 14 gates, and size from 675,000 to 250,000 square feet. They say the city and airport have agreed there must be mandatory curfews before a new terminal is built.

Not true! No such binding agreements exist.

Measure B does not offer any more protection that did the failed Framework Agreement. Under "B" any agreement approved by public vote can be changed at will by council.

In contrast, the ROAR Initiative protects residents from near-doubling - or worse - of passengers and flights by mandating curfews and a ten-percent cap before expansion approval.

Certain councilpersons have - repeatedly - proven their word and promises unreliable. These same persons want us to think the airport authority is now willing to compromise. Look at the airport's record. Among other grievous offenses, they sued to overturn state law; kept financial and other public records secret - even from Burbank commissioners; and violated the stand-still agreement. Can we trust our council and their "friends" to look out for our interests?

Opponents say ROAR contains uncompromising restrictions. You bet it does. It has been amply proven we don't dare entrust our quality of life and property values to those who don't seem to care if Burbank becomes a mini-LAX.

Over twenty years ago we were promised no airport expansion. A YES vote on ROAR will help today's council keep their word by assuring us a curfew and mandatory cap on flights and passengers.

Howard Rothenbach, Chairman, ROAR

Margie A. Gee, Former Airport Commissioner (Twice)

Ted McConkey, Former Burbank Councilmember

Text for Measure A
THE INITIATIVE TO RESTORE OUR AIRPORT RIGHTS

An Initiative Measure To Be Submitted Directly To The Voters

1. For the purposes of this initiative "City" shall be defined as the City of Burbank, and " Airport" shall be defined as any airport located in whole or in part within the City. An "aircraft operation" is the takeoff or landing of an aircraft. The definition of other words in this initiative are those found in the Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1995 edition.

2. The terms and conditions of this initiative shall not apply to police, fire, military or emergency flights. Curfew violations need not apply to delays caused by inclement weather or mechanical emergencies incurred while in flight.

3. The City shall obtain the consent of the electorate, with a 2/3 affirmative vote, prior to the City's final approval of the financing and/or construction of an airport terminal.

4. The City shall not consent to the acquisition or rezoning of any land for Airport use, nor consent to the financing or construction of any new, rebuilt, relocated or expanded Airport facility, under any conditions or due to any circumstances, unless and until the Airport has complied with all the following conditions:

a. The Airport has implemented a legally obtained, irrevocable,
enforceable, and binding mandatory curfew on all aircraft operations and engine run-ups, either indoors or outdoors, between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.

b. The Airport has legally established the maximum annual number of
aircraft operations, at the Airport, to be capped at no more than 10% above the number of aircraft operations at the Airport during the calendar year 2000.

c. The Airport has legally established the maximum annual number of
aircraft passengers, at the Airport, to be capped at no more than 10% above the number of aircraft passengers at the Airport during the calendar year 2000.

d. The Airport has implemented rules to enforce the curfew and caps.
Fines and other sanctions, including, but not limited to, prohibiting Airport use, shall be imposed on violators of the curfew and caps.

e. The Airport has implemented a legally obtained ban on operations by
all aircraft not originally manufactured and certified as meeting FAR Part 36 Stage 3 noise limits.

f. The Airport shall have a program for sound insulation that includes
providing the matching funds required for completion of the work.

g. The Airport shall not impose an Avigation Easement on property as a
condition for sound insulation.

h. The Airport shall prepare and certify a new Environmental Impact
Report for property it owns, leases or uses for Airport or Airport related purposes.

i. The Airport shall prepare a Master Plan for all Airport property,
and obtain the City's approval of the Master Plan.

j. The Airport agrees to not lengthen existing runways, add additional
runways, or modify runways to accommodate heavier or larger aircraft.

k. The Airport has established a legal means to acquire the money and
pay the City a fine of $5,000.00, adjusted annually for inflation, for each day of each violation of this initiative. The fine shall be paid within 30 days of the violation. The Airport shall pay all costs of enforcement and collection related to this provision.

l. The Airport agrees, to the maximum extent the law allows, to
reimburse the City for lost property tax revenues, and for the Airport's fair share of all costs related to infrastructure improvements and maintenance.

5. The City shall vigorously enforce all provisions of this initiative, as well as its rights under any Joint Powers Agreement. The City Council shall designate a City Department, whose duty it shall be, upon receiving written notice alleging a violation, to promptly investigate the complaint, and file reports with all appropriate authorities, so as to insure the Airport's compliance with this initiative.

6. The City shall provide independent noise monitoring of aircraft activity in the City. If necessary, the City shall hire a consultant, competent in noise measurement, and whose expertise will provide the basis for enforcement of this initiative in Court.

7. This initiative shall not be modified, except by a 2/3 affirmative vote of the electorate at a regular Municipal election.

8. The City shall conform all applicable laws to this initiative. Until the City has done so, any laws that would be affected by this initiative shall be deemed to have been conformed so as not to be in conflict with this initiative or the 2/3 vote requirements of this initiative.

9. If any of the provisions of this initiative or the applicability of any provision of this initiative to any person or circumstances shall be found to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such finding shall not affect the remaining provisions or applications of this initiative to other persons or circumstances, and to that extent the provisions of this initiative are deemed to be severable.


Los Angeles Home Page || Statewide Links || About Smart Voter || Feedback
Created: October 12, 2001 20:07
Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund   http://ca.lwv.org
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.