LETTER: Burbank Association of Realtors Endorse Candidates

2
643

Letter received from Burbank Association of Realtors

Dear Editor,

As part of our strong advocacy program, the Burbank Association of REALTORS® undertook a rigorous process of asking candidates for Burbank City Council and School Board to submit written answers to a series of questions and to meet with our Legislative Committee and  Board of Directors for an interview.  After intensive discussion, the Association enthusiastically announces the following:

For Burbank City Council, the Association endorses Emily Gabel-Luddy and Christopher Rizzotti.  We believe both these candidates would serve the city of Burbank with distinction and with honor.  Emily has already proven herself to be a thoughtful member of the Council and Chris has, during his tenure on the Planning Board, shown he can listen to all sides of an issue and make well-reasoned decisions with the goal of improving the quality of life of all residents.  We are very pleased that both the Burbank Firefighters and Burbank Police have endorsed both candidates as well.

For School Board, the Association supports Steve Ferguson, Vahe Hovanessian, and Roberta Grande-Reynolds.  These candidates have the backgrounds and experience to lead our school board.  They understand students come first and will work to ensure that limited school dollars are spent wisely.

We urge you to return your ballots today and consider joining us in voting for Gabel-Luddy and Rizzotti; and Ferguson, Hovanessian, and Grande-Reynolds.

Sincerely,
Alisa Cunningham – President

    BurCal Apartments8715

    2 COMMENTS

    1. Something is not completely accurate about the endorsement process stated above. Seems details were left out. Read the comment posted over a week about those details.

      “RIZZOTTI endorsement by Burbank Assoc. of Realtors
      Letter: Realtors aren’t the same as developers
      February 10, 2015 | 2:30 p.m.
      Will Rogers · Burbank, California

      Mr. Benz fails to mention that it wasn’t in fact the membership of the
      Burbank Association of Realtors that voted to endorse a candidate for
      city council, nor even the association’s board of directors. Rather,
      last year the endorsement decision was made by a committee, and that
      handful did so without interviewing any other candidates. The “endorsement”
      was first announced on the candidate’s web site, and was relayed on the
      following day to the Association’s Board of Directors, and subsequently
      to the Association’s membership.

      This committee is the same
      one that reportedly asked for campaign support from the Chicago-based
      National Association of Realtors, again – before other candidates were
      met or interviewed – and the NAR has to date has spend nearly $30,000 to
      advertise that one candidate.

      It wasn’t until weeks after the
      initial endorsement that all of the candidates were finally interviewed
      by the association, ostensibly for the remaining slot. The list of
      questions all the other candidates were asked is available via the web
      sites of some candidates, including my own, as well as the answers given
      by the respective candidates. What discussions took place, what
      questions were asked – if any, and what responses were given for that
      first endorsement all remain unknown to this day.

      But as that
      candidate himself has said publicly, being a council member is “all
      about relationships.” So, if the backroom deals and out of town money
      succeed, everybody had better get to work establishing relationships
      with him very quickly, because the alternative seems to be learning
      after the fact what’s going on in Burbank, and playing no role in the
      process to get there.

      If you’re willing to believe the Chicago
      group is spending $28,000 because its priority is seeing someone elected
      who will defend Burbank’s schools, streets and public safety services,
      then you probably also believe that a small, misshapen parcel of
      taxpayer-owned land somehow becomes LESS valuable because a developer
      cannot complete his project without it.”

    Comments are closed.