Billy Bishop Airport Expansion?

[PL1]

Is it that the PIN's are not granular enough to specify which portions they are actually looking to own?


So in short, NIMBY's


The federal government has no power over Doug Ford expropriating the land.

But they do have power over the airport

 

[T3G]

NIMBYism is such a discourse terminating word. Every opposition to a project needs to be taken on its own merits.

Personally, as someone who is unlikely to ever be of the socioeconomic class that can justify living downtown, or, in fact, anywhere within the city limits of Toronto, I'd be happy to see the whole thing abandoned and Pearson expanded in its stead. Having a fantastic, beautiful waterfront without an airport spreading its tentacles all over the place would be a lot better to the long term health of the city than expanding BB. Those who want to travel can do what the rest of us plebs have to do, and go to Pearson. Life is so sad when it's viewed only in the context of the financial value of a given decision.

 

[nightstreak]

So in short, NIMBY's

Sure, half a million people's backyard.

The federal government has no power over Doug Ford expropriating the land.

The Government is in a Tripartite Agreement with the City of Toronto, not the Province of Ontario. The Federal Govt. does not have to go along with a new party overtaking the city's role in that agreement and the agreement continues to rely on the Government of Canada consent. It does not need to go along with Doug Ford's plans and in fact Ford relies entirely on the Government of Canada agreeing to his plans.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Government is in a Tripartite Agreement with the City of Toronto, not the Province of Ontario. The Federal Govt. does not have to go along with a new party overtaking the city's role in that agreement and the agreement continues to rely on the Government of Canada consent. It does not need to go along with Doug Ford's plans and in fact Ford relies entirely on the Government of Canada agreeing to his plans.

We can not assume that PM Carney will be the saviour of the airport's opponents. I think Torontonians need to start to understand/remember that you won't stop major projects that they disagreed with through voting, passive letter writing and forum chatter. If Torontonians truly do not want the airport expanded, they must be much more aggressive. The Spadina Expressway was stopped when a large organized public movement led by activists like Jane Jacobs created enough sustained political pressure that Premier Bill Davis cancelled the project. That's what's needed. And if Torontonians do not put up this level of fight, then we're getting an airport expansion.

 

[just east of the creek]

A a much as I like BB and use it….

Is BB in the DG’s ideal plan vying to become a ‘node’ airport? If so, why? The node airport is Pearson. Take this money and enhance Pearson - expand the terminal so that AC Express is not the longest trek in airport history, add the RAPID transit links so needed, build the airport into the true node it can be with airlines and rail links to meet our travelling needs going forwards , both internationally, Long Distance Canada and regionally. Add those items that make BB so attractive to its users.

 

[Transit]

Is it that the PIN's are not granular enough to specify which portions they are actually looking to own?


So in short, NIMBY's


The federal government has no power over Doug Ford expropriating the land.

The federal government may not have that power by law. However, if Ottawa decides not to go along with the airport expansion, Doug Ford’s supposed justification for all of this expropriation collapses.

 

[nfitz]

The federal government may not have that power by law. However, if Ottawa decides not to go along with the airport expansion, Doug Ford’s supposed justification for all of this expropriation collapses.

So? The federal government keeps signalling that it won't oppose it. Nor would it have much reason or incentive to meddle. If they want to be subversive, they could push for a full-scale CEA, play nicely with Ontario, and drag it on for years; but there aren't even any indications of this.

 

[afransen]

it is public information what they actually intend to do, which is none of what you are saying. Clearly you want to live in crisis mode so that you can keep bitching against the current government so I won't waste my time engaging with you any further. Bye bye!

What I said is specifically what they plan to do. On what planet does extending the runway by hundreds of meters not involve filling in the lake or the harbour. The runway extending toward the Portlands will reduce the allowable developable height unless we want jets colliding with buildings. They are seizing Little Norway Park because they want to address congestion, which involves it not being a park. They are seizing island lands to make them not parkland.

 

[afransen]

A a much as I like BB and use it….

Is BB in the DG’s ideal plan vying to become a ‘node’ airport? If so, why? The node airport is Pearson. Take this money and enhance Pearson - expand the terminal so that AC Express is not the longest trek in airport history, add the RAPID transit links so needed, build the airport into the true node it can be with airlines and rail links to meet our travelling needs going forwards , both internationally, Long Distance Canada and regionally. Add those items that make BB so attractive to its users.

From what I've heard, they're talking about plowing over a billion dollars into BB. That is not a trivial amount of money.

 

[picard102]

But they do have power over the airport

Which unless they are going to try and close the airport, means nothing for the expropriation.

Sure, half a million people's backyard.

Who moved there when an airport existed.

The Federal Govt. does not have to go along with a new party overtaking the city's role in that agreement and the agreement continues to rely on the Government of Canada consent.

The federal government doesn't get a say as to what the province legislates the city to do, or what land it expropriates from the city.

The best course of action now is for the Mayor to sign off on limited expropriation and airport development in exchange for the rest of the islands staying in city hands.

 

[mcbg1]

From what I've heard, they're talking about plowing over a billion dollars into BB. That is not a trivial amount of money.

yes airports are expensive. That doesn't mean they need to destroy anything important. Once again, trying to start drama and having fake outrage over nothing.

 

[TRONto]

What I said is specifically what they plan to do. On what planet does extending the runway by hundreds of meters not involve filling in the lake or the harbour. The runway extending toward the Portlands will reduce the allowable developable height unless we want jets colliding with buildings. They are seizing Little Norway Park because they want to address congestion, which involves it not being a park. They are seizing island lands to make them not parkland.

Reducing the 'allowable developable heights' brings the Portlands back to the original plan which I think is a great thing. We've had the real estate bubble burst which may result in smaller buildings without the BB expansion anyway.

 

[TRONto]

Having a fantastic, beautiful waterfront without an airport spreading its tentacles all over the place would be a lot better to the long term health of the city than expanding BB.

I'd flip that around and say that an expanded BB is better for the long term health of the city. Redundancy, competition, and access are all good things for Toronto.

 

[T3G]

I'd flip that around and say that an expanded BB is better for the long term health of the city. Redundancy, competition, and access are all good things for Toronto.

And what good are any of those if the city, one by one, loses everything that makes it a place worth living in the first place? This is the problem with the whole post-WWII, neoliberal brand of "progress". Just because it's desirable for us to move forward as a society doesn't mean we need to steamroll everything pleasant that we come across in our travels. We aren't talking about building on some random meadow here; the Toronto Islands are fairly unique geographical location, they are a beloved getaway spot right in the city, they are a significant recreational and tourist area, and an important part of the overall fabric of the city. How is it desirable for this to be at least jeopardized, if not entirely eliminated, so that we can expand an airport?

Is it a problem for Paris to have the Notre Dame instead of an airport in their core? Does Vienna struggle by having the Stephansdom instead of an airport in the city centre? What about Budapest with their Országház, or the Prague Castle? Should Central Park also be paved over and an airport be built there, too?

The very notion of having an airport right next to downtown could only have come about because the city planners of yesteryear had no sense for the aesthetic, and allowed industrial development along the entirety of our coastline. Now that the coastline has been converted into a vibrant mixed use district, it is beyond inappropriate, and the idea of expanding it at the expense of more green space is sick. If it makes me a NIMBY to not blindly promote progress at the expense of all other things that bring flavour and pleasure to life, so be it. I'll even get a NIMBY tattoo. Let's not degrade a fantastic place to exist so that we can make a bunch of businessmen happy.

 

[Rainforest]

NIMBYism is such a discourse terminating word. Every opposition to a project needs to be taken on its own merits.

Personally, as someone who is unlikely to ever be of the socioeconomic class that can justify living downtown, or, in fact, anywhere within the city limits of Toronto, I'd be happy to see the whole thing abandoned and Pearson expanded in its stead. Having a fantastic, beautiful waterfront without an airport spreading its tentacles all over the place would be a lot better to the long term health of the city than expanding BB. Those who want to travel can do what the rest of us plebs have to do, and go to Pearson. Life is so sad when it's viewed only in the context of the financial value of a given decision.

I don't agree with the notion that BB is only useful for someone of high socioeconomic class, or that it produces no benefits for the city other than financial profits. I live near Steeles, my travel time to BB is comparable to the travel time to Pearson, and yet I boarded flights off BB a few times. They were cheaper than flights off Pearson to the same destinations. Plus, visiting a small neat airport was a pleasant element of the whole trip.

Even when I am not flying, the ability to stand on the waterfront and watch small planes taking off and landing kind of sets the city apart.

I don't know if preserving the airport close to its current size and its current operation volume is a viable option. If yes, then that's definitely my preference.

I accept the concerns about the BB expansion, that could result in the airport dominating the waterfront; that's not desirable.