myBurbank’s Position: ‘YES’ on Measure B

By On November 7, 2016

With some portions of the current terminal at Bob Hope Airport exceeding 85 years in age and the continuing changing scope that is today’s transportation, myBurbank supports a YES vote on Measure B in the coming election on November 8.

After reviewing the information presented by both sides of the argument, there seems to be many different opinions.  Some people we have talked with think it is about expansion, even becoming an international terminal.

A YES vote on Measure B will give the Airport Authority permission to go ahead with its plans of building a new terminal in another area of the airport’s property. The new terminal will only be allowed the same 14 gates that the current terminal has now. While it is a ‘new’ terminal, it is in fact a replacement terminal.

People have said that a new terminal will create more flights. That is not necessarily the case because 14 gates are in place now. It is up to the airlines how many flights a day they use the gates that they lease out, along with FAA approval. All air routes are first approved by the FAA. The amount of flights allowed a day has to take into account how long a plane is at an airport gate to both deplane, reload, take on fuel and have luggage taken off and reloaded.

The voluntary curfew will remain intact. Remember, it is a voluntary curfew, which has been in place for many years. The Authority, along with Burbank officials, will continue to push for a mandatory curfew, although in all honesty will probably happen as fast as peace in the Middle East is achieved.

It is with hope that a new terminal, while larger in size than the old terminal, will maintain the charm and ease of use as the old one.  Passengers always comment how easy it is to get in and out of Burbank, hopefully that will be taken into account. The Authority has also promised boarding in the front and rear of planes still which is a bonus that most airports wish they had.

The largest argument is that Burbank would lose control if Measure B passes. The measure will give Burbank a ‘Super Majority’, which means that it only takes two Burbank Commissioners to vote something down. Opponents will say that the Authority can now vote on anything on its own and take Burbank out of the loop and go against the best interests of the City.  While that is true in fact, a City Council who vets its airport commissioners thoroughly, would still have the control needed. The Burbank City Council appoints three members and it would only take two to stop something. It is like the President appointing a United Nations’ representative. He will do the country’s bidding or he will be replaced. The City Council has that same leverage.

Are there some questions ahead? Yes. Is this a perfect solution? Hopefully.

There is a desire that the new terminal looks to the future as well as the present. We have to look at new forms of transportation in the future. High Speed Rail and MetroLink need to be planned for. The Regional Transportation Center will now be a greater distance from the terminal and a solution will be needed to make the transition for passengers seamless.

While some proponents have stated that the FAA says that the current terminal is unsafe is not true. New guidelines for new terminals have a suggested distance away from runways and while those regulations went into effect long after the Burbank terminal was originally built, they are guidelines for new terminals. The new terminal would follow these guidelines.  If the current terminal was unsafe by FAA standards today, no airline would be permitted to operate from the facility.

The new terminal will also employ the newest security measures that are needed in today’s climate and mandated by the Federal Government.

While the new 14 gate replacement terminal will be larger, there will also be more amenities in place for passengers. New restaurants, lounges and other features will not only accommodate more passengers, but will lead to more tax revenue generated for the City. A passenger friendly airport will also make Burbank more of a destination of choice which will in turn help the local economy through hotel stays (bed tax) and local retail sales.

It is time to look ahead Burbank. There was opposition to removing the ‘Golden Mall’ and replacing it with the Downtown Burbank that exists today. A Downtown Burbank, in fact, that is thriving and putting tax dollars into the Burbank coffers that pay for a top of the line police and fire department among other services.

So with that said, myBurbank, as the only news source located in Burbank and run by Burbank residents who have skin in the game, recommends a YES vote on Measure B on November 8. Be sure to vote on Election Day!

Related Posts:

9 thoughts on “myBurbank’s Position: ‘YES’ on Measure B

  1. Tony Noakes

    CRAIG: “The new terminal will only be allowed the same 14 gates that the current terminal has now. ”
    NOT TRUE. There is NO guarantee that future gates can not be added.

    CRAIG: “People have said that a new terminal will create more flights. That is not necessarily the case because 14 gates are in place now. ”

    Airport after airport is experiencing MORE FLIGHTS , with the same number of gates prior, due to the implementaion of NextGEN tech. which streamlines landing and take-offs. It is being implemented TWO DAYS after the RUSHED vote here in Burbank,…what a coincidence, eh! Add, that to a much bigger “new” terminal and you now have a faster way to process more people. So the potential of many more flights exists in a much higher count.

    CRAIG: ” We have to look at new forms of transportation in the future. High Speed Rail and MetroLink need to be planned for. The Regional Transportation Center will now be a greater distance from the terminal and a solution will be needed to make the transition for passengers seamless.”

    Huh? The High Speed Rail is on hold with no guarantee that it would be linked to Burbank anyway. And, do the citizens of Burbank want to become a multifaceted regional transportation corridor ? More people equals more traffic, noise, pollution…how much is enough, that is what is at stake here. There are other options.

    CRAIG: “The Authority has also promised boarding in the front and rear of planes still which is a bonus that most airports wish they had.” FAA probably will no allow it.

    CRAIG: (concering the appointment of commissioner) “It is like the President appointing a United Nations’ representative. He will do the country’s bidding or he will be replaced. The City Council has that same leverage.”

    Yeah, how’s that working our for us or any other nation! Voter’s ultimate control is to have the right to vote on expansion, which we currently have. We lose that if measure b passes.

    CRAIG: “The new terminal will also employ the newest security measures that are needed in today’s climate and mandated by the Federal Government.”

    That applies to any airport old or new.

    CRAIG: “. A passenger friendly airport will also make Burbank more of a destination of choice which will in turn help the local economy through hotel stays (bed tax) and local retail sales.”

    ZERO evidence of your allegation of a new terminal making Burbank more of a destination choice…that’s just silly. Burbank is growing rapidly already…too fast for many.

    CRAIG: “It is time to look ahead Burbank. There was opposition to removing the ‘Golden Mall’ and replacing it with the Downtown Burbank that exists today. A Downtown Burbank, in fact, that is thriving and putting tax dollars into the Burbank coffers that pay for a top of the line police and fire department among other services.”

    DEAD WRONG! Who’s feeding you this info. The mall is dying (as many malls in America), have been in decline for years. Hence, the current vendor line-up and the constant attempts to revamp. Geesh!

    Here’s some accurate info as to the repercussions of a Measure B:
    http://www.saveburbankneighborhoods.com/single-post/2015/11/16/Neighborhood-Cell-Towers-Need-to-know

    Reply
  2. Roy

    Watching people who have been elected to our Burbank City Council, on a platform of saying yes, we will represent you, the citizens of Burbank , and now seeing how one (or more) flip flop and are now representing big business does not give me confidence in the super majority (who would be appointed by our city council). I think voting on airport issues that would have a huge impact on the majority of Burbank residents should be left in the hands of the citizens of Burbank voters, if this measure passes we lose our voting rights and governance regarding airport affairs for the future. The easements are handed over, the airport will own the land and we will have no say in any future expansion. Measure B is so confusing, it was rushed on to the ballot and there has not been time for voters to be thoroughly informed).
    Vote No on Measure B.

    Reply
  3. Marco

    Burbank will lose controls and not be able to stop detrimental addition of flights, terminal expansion and flight path processes. They say we will, but we know how it goes once we give up control.

    Reply
  4. Teresa

    I believe your article left out an important component for residents evaluating Measure B: How this proposed new/replacement terminal will be paid for. The airlines are going to be paying for the new terminal — so we can expect ticket prices going up-up-up for flights in and out of BUR. I’m still a NO on Measure B.

    Reply
    1. Tony Noakes

      Teresa, the sad reality of your topic is there isn’t any money in place. It’s all smoke and mirrors. To get money from the FAA they have to submit a R.O.D (Record of Decision), the AA has NOT! But, they still have one on record with the FAA from 1996 for the 27 gate terminal. Hmmmmmm. That one became dormant after 3 years but never got rescinded. So, a lot of people believe the reason there are not plans, no written specifics on locations, money, etc. is because that would entail having to submit a new ROD, WHICH THEY HAVE NOT!. You catching what I’m pitching here. So, if measure b were to pass, they use the old ROD, (reactivate) and be one step closer getting what they wanted all along a 27 gate terminal or the right to it with no restrictions. And, of course apply of the money THEN, accordingly. And side note. The 450 mil in federal tax money they say can be used. No proof it’s there, not to mention that is in TODAYS dollars. The propose terminal they suggest is at least 7 years away! INDEED, THIS IS JUST ONE BAD DEAL. WE CAN DO BETTER.

      Reply
  5. CornFused

    Here’s another link that explains/supports the “No on B” conversation. This new terminal is not a good thing. Remember, we can update the current airport without losing all of the resident’s rights. The backers involved in trying to get a new terminal built have been playing a deceiving game. Just look at the date this new tech starts at the current airport…right after the election date THAT WAS MOVED UP. Coincidence?

    https://youtu.be/hGMXJXMRGYw

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *