Bring the chicken in, already! My husband...

Bring the chicken in, already!

My husband and I propose that the City Council allow California

Chicken Cafe into Burbank (“Restaurant vote reviewed,” Sept. 17).

We will allow parking at our house if need be -- as long as that

proposition does not require yet another vote of the City Council.

It’s chicken, not brain surgery. You can actually count on one hand

the number of restaurants on Magnolia Boulevard in the Magnolia Park

area. Give us chicken. Just don’t give us another Hooters.

TRACY L. NOH

Burbank

Some gaps in talk of measure

This letter is in response to the letter by Dana Ragle on Oct. 1,

“Teachers have choice, and can be fired”

In my opinion, Ragle’s letter left out some important facts about

Proposition 75.

First. the union is not prevented from spending any amount of

money on political activity, if this Proposition passes; they just

have to ask permission of their members first. With electronic

(Internet) connectivity, this is not as big a problem as it seems.

Second. If the unions have to ask permission, then the response

from their members will be based on how good a job any union is doing

representing all of its members. If the members, for example, are

satisfied with the small raises they got this year, and the 13% raise

that the incumbent politicians got, whom the unions supported, then

they will give permission for the same political spending, and if

not, not.

Third. Some people argue that the unions are already accountable

because their members have the right to vote out the union leadership

if they don’t like how they are being represented.

This may be very true in any individual union, but as you saw in

the supermarket strike in 2003, or in some of the national unions,

leadership under any conditions does not change very rapidly.

I have my ideas about this proposition, and I encourage every

Burbank voter, to carefully read about all of the propositions on the

ballot from many sources, before they vote.

GLEN FORSCH

Burbank

Concerned about dwelling law

Regarding “Council gives conversion thumbs down,” Oct. 1-2, almost

10 years ago I moved from the Fairfax area of Los Angeles to

beautiful Burbank.

Many things about Burbank appealed to me, but my initial positive

reaction to the move was that I no longer had that crowded and

congested feeling that was always present in Los Angeles.

I, for one, completely support the law that protects certain

properties by keeping second-dwelling units at least 300 feet from

one another. After reading the Leader article on this topic, I am

very concerned that this law might be challenged to the point of

being overturned. The result, I fear, would be overcrowded streets,

increased noise levels and more crime. I speak from experience. This

is just what happened over the years to my once pleasant Los Angeles

neighborhood.

If a change is made to this law, I would think seriously and

quickly about making a move to a new community that respects the

personal space of it’s citizens. I hope that is a decision I will

never have to face.

PAMELA PILE

Burbank

Keep conversion law as it is

Regarding “Council gives conversion thumbs down,” Oct. 1-2, I live

on Ontario Street, where the latest dispute occurred and I am

absolutely in favor of keeping the rule as it is.

This issue boils down to quality of life and the nature of the

city we live in. I moved to Burbank for the small-town feel and lack

of congestion. Too many second-dwelling units brings overcrowding and

the logistical and services problems that follow.

ERIC HANNAH

Burbank