Judge Rules Against Changes in Burbank Ballot Arguments

Supporters of a development-control measure in Burbank’s municipal election next month were dealt a blow Tuesday by a Glendale Superior Court judge who refused to order changes in ballot arguments written by opponents.

The hearing marked the first significant battle in what is expected to be a bitter fight between opposing sides of two growth-control measures--Measure A and Measure B--that will appear on the Feb. 26 ballot.

Homeowner leader Carolyn Berlin and other advocates of Measure B had filed a lawsuit against Burbank City Clerk Merle L. Woodburn, contending that she had accepted improper and misleading ballot arguments written by the measure’s opponents, who include Burbank Mayor Tom Flavin.

Measure B would place strict limits on high-rise development throughout Burbank, but does not call for annual caps on residential or commercial building.

Measure A calls for “reasonable annual limits” on development of major commercial and residential projects.

Supporters of Measure B said their measure is much more moderate than Measure A.

Measure B supporters had sought to delete the cross-reference to Measure A and Measure B in counter-arguments.

They said the ballot arguments against the measures should deal only with that measure.

The counter-argument against Measure A, co-written by Flavin, read: “Both Measures A and B will damage Burbank’s economy, hurt media industry jobs and income, increase the tax burden on Burbank residents and force cutbacks in city services. . . . Both Measures A and B are radical no growth propositions that fail to consider the needs or the desires of the entire community.”

The argument against Measure B, also co-written by Flavin, read: “Measure B--like Measure A--is too expensive, tries to do too much, is too inflexible and will shift the tax burden away from business and onto the backs of Burbank residents.”

Judge Charles W. Stoll ruled that the arguments against the measures did not violate state election codes and would be printed as submitted. He said they both related to “a similar subject.”

Stoll also ruled against the supporters’ claims that the opponents had exceeded the word limit on their argument and rebuttal against the measures.

Stoll, however, backed the proponents’ contention that only those opponents who had their names listed on the arguments could have their names listed on the rebuttal, which will also be printed in the voter pamphlet.

Council members Michael R. Hastings and Robert R. Bowne were listed in the rebuttal arguments, but not the original arguments, thus their names will be deleted.

The opponents for the two measures hailed the judge’s decision as a victory.

They said the lawsuit was a ploy by supporters to confuse voters.

“These folks were just trying to keep the voters from getting the real, true information,” said Tillie J. Baptie, incoming president for the Burbank Chamber of Commerce. “We’re quite pleased.”

But Berlin and other Measure B advocates said they would appeal the judge’s decision.

They added that they did not regard the ruling as a major setback.

“The people fighting against this will not succeed in intimidating the voters of Burbank,” Berlin said. “The voters are intelligent, and they will see right through these scare tactics.”