Billy Bishop Airport Expansion?

[Ward8]

The changes would also not require any new flight-path restrictions that could scupper high-rise housing plans in the city’s Port Lands farther east, he said, as some at city hall have feared.

So no changes to the harbour operations (beyond some minor new restrictions approved years ago to maintain current operations) and no new flight path restrictions on the Portlands.

It appears the no jets NIMBYs have been completely gaslighting us. I'm not really impressed with these groups who use lies and worst-case scenarios to stop something they don't like.

I'm not going to trust the CEO of the Port authority that easily when he has every interest to say that development wont be affectd in the port lands. It might be that he is correct, but there are more independent sources that suggest otherwise. I'll wait to hear from sources that don't directly benefit from the extension getting built.

As far as gaslighting from the "NIMBYS..." this length of extension is enomous, and pretty much in line with some of the more maximalist projections. The only difference is how much this crowds Ontario Place vs the Inner Harbour.

 

[generalcanada]

The province never has to ask the city to do anything, regardless of the political party in government at Queen's Park or the mayor and council at Toronto City Hall. It has always been a political courtesy, not a constitutional requirement.

If Doug Ford actually only wants specific slivers of land from each of the PINs identified in Bill 110, that is something that he could have chosen to explicitly state in his proposed legislation.

No need to victim blame the City of Toronto, Doug Ford knows exactly what he is doing. He wants all of the land, and he is confident that, unlike under Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister Mark Carney has whipped his Toronto Liberal MPs to support him.

holy misinformation batman.

You dont know how expropriation works do you?

 

[T3G]

Because the airport should allow jets, and is a net asset for the city. All the parkland that's become the subject of this would have been safe right now if the city had agreed to play ball long ago.

Hopefully now Chow can still negotiate support for keeping the island parkland in city hands.

Sounds like a whole lot of victim blaming to me. The city didn't do something you wanted them to do, and therefore it's their fault that Ford now wants to push through a drastic change that jeopardizes the waterfront with zero discussion or consultation?

A lot more blame can be assigned to whoever wrote the constitution specifying that cities are creatures of the province. What is the value of a polity existing if their entire existence can be done away at the stroke of a pen?

Since when? Not a decade has passed when we haven't been lake filling, they are only just finishing off two different projects now! And hasn't Parliament slip been filled partially already?

Nowhere near the level of the times when the coast line went up to Front Street, not have those projects been anywhere close to being as disruptive as this airport expansion would be.

You can build a new airport anywhere, from scratch. You can't build a new Toronto Islands. Leave them the hell alone.

 

[cryogen]

Sounds like a whole lot of victim blaming to me. The city didn't do something you wanted them to do, and therefore it's their fault that Ford now wants to push through a drastic change that jeopardizes the waterfront with zero discussion or consultation?

A lot more blame can be assigned to whoever wrote the constitution specifying that cities are creatures of the province. What is the value of a polity existing if their entire existence can be done away at the stroke of a pen?


Nowhere near the level of the times when the coast line went up to Front Street, not have those projects been anywhere close to being as disruptive as this airport expansion would be.

You can build a new airport anywhere, from scratch. You can't build a new Toronto Islands. Leave them the hell alone.

You can also build a new park, or even a new island, anywhere from scratch.

 

[innsertnamehere]

You can build a new airport anywhere, from scratch. You can't build a new Toronto Islands. Leave them the hell alone.

Where do you propose a new airport within 50km of Downtown Toronto?

And given that the Leslie Spit didn't exist 50 years ago.. yes, actually, new waterfront parks can be built..

Again, nobody is proposing to pave over the entire islands either. At most they are probably looking at taking a small portion of Hanlons Beach. Why the hell would the province be interested in taking over the operations of the entire Islands? It's a massive liability especially since there is decades of deferred maintenance on them that the City is only now just starting to think of maybe addressing..

 

[mburrrrr]

Maybe they could add more of those very loud and annoying helicopter tours too.

 

[cryogen]

The hypocrisy of those against the airport expansion just occurred to me. I bet those people are pro public transit expansion, which benefits the greater good, and are okay with occasional demolitions in order to build subway stations. But when it comes to the airport expansion and its associated benefits, no siree Bob!

 

[Ward8]

Where do you propose a new airport within 50km of Downtown Toronto?

It's not necessary to build another one. Phase out BB on a timeline that coincides with the opening of alto, and absorb the remaining flights to Pearson which can easily handle the capacity.

 

[DSCToronto]

The hypocrisy of those against the airport expansion just occurred to me. I bet those people are pro public transit expansion, which benefits the greater good, and are okay with occasional demolitions in order to build subway stations. But when it comes to the airport expansion and its associated benefits, no siree Bob!

That's a very odd argument! I am much in favour of more public transit but if someone suggested demolishing Casa Loma to build a new subway station or paving over part of Trinity Bellwoods for a new bus/subway interchange or ??? one would need to look at the benefits vs the losses. The expansion of Billy Bishop is exactly the same; having a larger downtown airport certainly has benefits, as someone who lives not far from it and the current flight paths I am not sure the additional noise and traffic would be a 'fair exchange' and losing a very popular downtown park and disrupting what is now pretty decent downtown lakefront with many water-based activities does not sound like a good idea to me.

 

[T3G]

Where do you propose a new airport within 50km of Downtown Toronto?

My initial suggestion which I stand by was that Pearson be expanded, since the loss of any land around it is not likely to be noticed by anyone, and is already linked to the public transit network. Other people are so convinced we absolutely must require a second airport for the sake of the economy, so the onus should fall onto them to suggest a new, appropriate location that does not involve the destruction of the Toronto Islands.

And given that the Leslie Spit didn't exist 50 years ago.. yes, actually, new waterfront parks can be built..

1) Where do you imagine a replacement can be built for the Toronto Islands?
2) The Leslie Street spit is the result of 70 years of lakefilling. If we bulldozed everything on the Toronto Islands right now, how many decades would it take for the same level of square kilometre coverage to be reached? In the meantime, all those people who currently enjoy the space can go kick rocks?

Again, nobody is proposing to pave over the entire islands either. At most they are probably looking at taking a small portion of Hanlons Beach. Why the hell would the province be interested in taking over the operations of the entire Islands? It's a massive liability especially since there is decades of deferred maintenance on them that the City is only now just starting to think of maybe addressing..

We hope they wouldn't be interested in taking over the entire islands, but we have no real evidence to suggest otherwise, since they're keeping entirely silent on this extremely contentious issue. All we can hope is to infer their intentions from the proposed legislation*, and from Ford's recents comments referring to people who live on Ward's and Algonquin Islands - at the OPPOSITE end of the archipelago - as squatters who will not block the expansion of the airport. If they don't want the whole islands, why randomly attack people who live on the opposite ends of the islands? Jet noise is going to be a hell of a lot less disruptive than actually being kicked out of your house. When people tell you who they are, believe them.

* Apparently we're pretending that there exists no precedent in the entirety of human history for fine grained division of very large tracts of land, and this before we had anything like satellite views, so they just HAD to include the WHOLE parcel in the legislation.

The hypocrisy of those against the airport expansion just occurred to me. I bet those people are pro public transit expansion, which benefits the greater good, and are okay with occasional demolitions in order to build subway stations. But when it comes to the airport expansion and its associated benefits, no siree Bob!

There is no reasonable basis on which to compare the demolition of a random building, usually with no cultural or heritage value, with the destruction of the entire Toronto Islands, but thanks for playing.

 

[cryogen]

My initial suggestion which I stand by was that Pearson be expanded, since the loss of any land around it is not likely to be noticed by anyone, and is already linked to the public transit network. Other people are so convinced we absolutely must require a second airport for the sake of the economy, so the onus should fall onto them to suggest a new, appropriate location that does not involve the destruction of the Toronto Islands.


1) Where do you imagine a replacement can be built for the Toronto Islands?
2) The Leslie Street spit is the result of 70 years of lakefilling. If we bulldozed everything on the Toronto Islands right now, how many decades would it take for the same level of square kilometre coverage to be reached? In the meantime, all those people who currently enjoy the space can go kick rocks?


We hope they wouldn't be interested in taking over the entire islands, but we have no real evidence to suggest otherwise, since they're keeping entirely silent on this extremely contentious issue. All we can hope is to infer their intentions from the proposed legislation*, and from Ford's recents comments referring to people who live on Ward's and Algonquin Islands - at the OPPOSITE end of the archipelago - as squatters who will not block the expansion of the airport. If they don't want the whole islands, why randomly attack people who live on the opposite ends of the islands? Jet noise is going to be a hell of a lot less disruptive than actually being kicked out of your house. When people tell you who they are, believe them.

* Apparently we're pretending that there exists no precedent in the entirety of human history for fine grained division of very large tracts of land, and this before we had anything like satellite views, so they just HAD to include the WHOLE parcel in the legislation.


There is no reasonable basis on which to compare the demolition of a random building, usually with no cultural or heritage value, with the destruction of the entire Toronto Islands, but thanks for playing.

Nobody is suggesting to destruct the entire Toronto islands, can you stop with the fear mongering?

 

[innsertnamehere]

My initial suggestion which I stand by was that Pearson be expanded, since the loss of any land around it is not likely to be noticed by anyone, and is already linked to the public transit network. Other people are so convinced we absolutely must require a second airport for the sake of the economy, so the onus should fall onto them to suggest a new, appropriate location that does not involve the destruction of the Toronto Islands.


1) Where do you imagine a replacement can be built for the Toronto Islands?
2) The Leslie Street spit is the result of 70 years of lakefilling. If we bulldozed everything on the Toronto Islands right now, how many decades would it take for the same level of square kilometre coverage to be reached? In the meantime, all those people who currently enjoy the space can go kick rocks?


We hope they wouldn't be interested in taking over the entire islands, but we have no real evidence to suggest otherwise, since they're keeping entirely silent on this extremely contentious issue. All we can hope is to infer their intentions from the proposed legislation*, and from Ford's recents comments referring to people who live on Ward's and Algonquin Islands - at the OPPOSITE end of the archipelago - as squatters who will not block the expansion of the airport. If they don't want the whole islands, why randomly attack people who live on the opposite ends of the islands? Jet noise is going to be a hell of a lot less disruptive than actually being kicked out of your house. When people tell you who they are, believe them.

* Apparently we're pretending that there exists no precedent in the entirety of human history for fine grained division of very large tracts of land, and this before we had anything like satellite views, so they just HAD to include the WHOLE parcel in the legislation.


There is no reasonable basis on which to compare the demolition of a random building, usually with no cultural or heritage value, with the destruction of the entire Toronto Islands, but thanks for playing.

may I remind you:

Again, nobody is proposing to pave over the entire islands either. At most they are probably looking at taking a small portion of Hanlons Beach. Why the hell would the province be interested in taking over the operations of the entire Islands? It's a massive liability especially since there is decades of deferred maintenance on them that the City is only now just starting to think of maybe addressing..

People are taking a technical bit of legislation and blowing it wayyyy out of proportion (again, because they have given us nothing else to compare to).

I can promise you that they have no intent on demolishing the entire islands lol. It's so absurd of a thought it's just obviously not true.

 

[T3G]

Nobody is suggesting to destruct the entire Toronto islands, can you stop with the fear mongering?

If only there existed a large event, whereby notable individuals or organizations invite journalists to hear them speak and ask questions, that could easily disabuse me of this notion...

 

[picard102]

that jeopardizes the waterfront

Good thing that's not what's happening.

 

[mcbg1]

The hypocrisy of those against the airport expansion just occurred to me. I bet those people are pro public transit expansion, which benefits the greater good, and are okay with occasional demolitions in order to build subway stations. But when it comes to the airport expansion and its associated benefits, no siree Bob!

People just love to complain, especially against the current prime minister and they will find ANYTHING to demonize his government.