The proposed development is on airport property. If it passes environmental muster, then move on. What's dangerous is having a terminal building 250-feet from the centerline of a runway. People on this forum who are aviation buffs and fans don't even understand this. Such a decision should never be in the hands of a local voter, its absurd. Its like asking voters to decide how many fire exits a building needs or how tall a building in an approach path can be.
As I said, they aren't proposing additional capacity. There is nothing to vote on. Its an existing airport with 14 gates and they are proposing 14 gates. The dangerous precedent is asking voters to approve actions on existing facilities when the current facility compromises safety.
I am not disputing the risks of current terminal facility. As I said on the previous page, we shouldn't wait until people are dead to correct an obvious risk.
However, you cannot claim "SAFETY!" to ignore the law. The law says voters get to approve or reject a new terminal facility. So, there absolutely is something to vote on. It is not absurd that the government can only act within the powers delegated to it by the people. That's the founding principle of our government.
If the voters are not willing to approve the new terminal, then the airport will need to find another way to operate safely. Maybe that means ending commercial services and demolishing the current terminal with no replacement. It's not what I want, but democracy does not entitle us to the outcomes we prefer.
The airport is operated by a special district, not the City of Burbank. Local communities don't get to effectively close an airport because they don't like it. Deregulation ended that nonsense. An airport can build as many gates as they want within the confines of their footprint and runway capacity provided it meets the environmental requirements. The "voting" public has zero jurisdiction. There isn't even a grandfathered mandatory curfew. If they did half the airports in the country would be voted closed.
Your contempt of the public is noted. But really, what planet are you living on? The public doesn't have "jurisdiction" in a matters of public policy? Totally backwards.
At issue here is the land (parcel B-6) for the proposed terminal. The land is owned by the City of Burbank, not the airport authority. The public voted in 2000 that using the City-owned land for a replacement terminal would require voter approval. Simple as that. Burbank residents do not have the power to close the airport, impose curfews or whatever. But, they absolutely have the power to vote on the use of city land.
It's worth noting that there is an alternate site for the replacement terminal at the southwest corner of the field that doesn't require voter approval. I have to assume the B-6 site is preferred for some cost or access reasons or else they probably wouldn't mess with the vote. So there you have it. If you want to use land owned by Burbank residents, you don't get to say "they're stupid, safety is important, screw'em."
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.