Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup

Downtown Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam has released a statement today and in it she is leaning towards shutting down the airport altogether!

http://ward27news.ca/statement-on-the-proposed-expansion-of-the-billy-bishop-toronto-city-airport

I am taking the recommendation from the Chief Medical Officer very seriously. It is a recommendation which states that the BBTCA should not be expanded and that the existing airport should be closed for detrimental health and environmental reasons.
Click to expand...

I think it would be fair to say that based on recent polling a majority - around 60% - of residents in her ward (which is where I live) are in favor of the introduction of "jets". Furthermore an even higher percentage - upwards of 80% - are happy with the airport as it now exists. For many of us who live downtown Billy Bishop is our FIRST CHOICE when it comes to flying out of Toronto. Also many people who work at Billy Bishop live in Wong-Tam's ward and she is leaning towards shutting it down? How stupid can a politician be?

Wong-Tam cites the garbage report by the Medical Officer Dr. David McKeown. In his report McKeown recommended returning the Airport to "healthy uses" such as a park. He completely ignored the fact that Billy Bishop actually reduces over all air pollution in the city by eliminating the need for 2 million passengers trips between downtown and Pearson Airport using cars (and soon diesel powered trains) that pollute far more than any aircraft serving Billy Bishop. McKeown completely ignored the fact that if you shut down Billy Bishop the traffic will just shift to Pearson and ALL aircraft serving Pearson either takeoff or land over Toronto.
 
Last edited:
Even if all councilors agree, it is close to impossible to shut down the airport as TPA added a poison pill in its agreement with Porter Airlines in 2006, without consent of City of Toronto:

The Globe and Mail, November 06, 2006:

... In order to attract the backers needed to get Porter Airlines off the ground, he reported, businessman Robert Deluce negotiated special dispensation to sue the taxpayers of Canada in the event that the technically bankrupt island airport closed down.

Mr. Tassé quotes Mr. Deluce as saying that his investors insisted on obtaining the right to sue the port authority as a condition of their agreement to finance the new airline. He also notes that the 1983 tripartite agreement governing the island airport demands that the port authority resist such demands, that it use its "best efforts" to write leases with new tenants that terminate automatically in the event the airport closes. The city insisted on the clause to prevent exactly what has happened: the insertion of a poison pill to prevent the airport's timely demise.
 
I guess we will have to wait for porter to go bankrupt, which according to many of the anti-expansion backers, is imminent.
 
picard102 said:
The skys the limit with Wong-Tam.
Click to expand...

I don't find it to be "stupid", she is elected to represent her ward, and the airport faces serious opposition in her ward. it is better for the city as a whole, but she isn't "stupid" for representing her constituents. councillors tend not to fare too well when dealing with city-wide issues such as the airport, as the system is set up for them to only think of their wards concerns. Wong-Tam is an extremely intelligent person believe me, but she has to represent her ward, which has voiced very vocal opposition to this project.
 
Similarly, as per secret agreements between TPA & Porter, if expansion of the airport is approved, City of Toronto may be on the hook to cover the costs of providing required safe access infrastructure to the airport, which may cost $300m. As TPA refuses to release its Master Plan, even City of Toronto staff is not sure about what will be the liabilities of the City pertaining to the cost of expansion. Only lakefill cost is estimated at $100m without any infrastructure or superstructure involved and TPA asks the lease of the airport to be extended until 2083 so they can finance the "lakefill". Once this expansion is approved, Mr.Deluce will be ready to sue taxpayers of Canada or use their money to finance his private business, exactly like he did in 2003. You can keep talking about how "quiet" the new "whisper" jets are.
 
sounds a little bit too much like a conspiracy there.. what does "safe access" mean? how would it cost $300 million? what would that entail? and as always, approval could always come with conditions to ensure stuff like that would not occur.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I don't find it to be "stupid", she is elected to represent her ward, and the airport faces serious opposition in her ward. it is better for the city as a whole, but she isn't "stupid" for representing her constituents. councillors tend not to fare too well when dealing with city-wide issues such as the airport, as the system is set up for them to only think of their wards concerns. Wong-Tam is an extremely intelligent person believe me, but she has to represent her ward, which has voiced very vocal opposition to this project.
Click to expand...

Even in her own announcement though she points out that not all of her constituents are opposed.

Wong-Tam said:
As they did in the spring, your messages vary, with some of you supporting the request to expand the airport, and some of you opposing the request. Overall, residents throughout Ward 27 are showing interest in bringing Toronto into the future with world class infrastructure, as well as quality employment, cultural and recreational opportunities.
Click to expand...
 
I think the airport plan should be approved but NOT the tripartite agreement extension.

Yes, it means higher airport fees by about $15 per trip. Total per-seat charges at BB would still be below total per-seat charges at Pearson.


The way the Port Authority manages it feels slimy. I would be far more comfortable with GTAA taking it over and integrating it into their long-term plans. Shared financing and common fees for both properties.
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
I don't find it to be "stupid", she is elected to represent her ward, and the airport faces serious opposition in her ward. it is better for the city as a whole, but she isn't "stupid" for representing her constituents. councillors tend not to fare too well when dealing with city-wide issues such as the airport, as the system is set up for them to only think of their wards concerns. Wong-Tam is an extremely intelligent person believe me, but she has to represent her ward, which has voiced very vocal opposition to this project.
Click to expand...

Hey, if you're looking to troll, and fresh out of apostrophes, it's a very reasonable post.
 
Can a mod explain why my above post was deleted?

I pointed out that the facts do not support the contention that Wong-Tam is just standing up for the concerns of her constituents when she is leaning towards closing down Billy Bishop airport - and yes I called her stupid. Is it not allowed to call an elected politician stupid on this forum? (a lot worse things are being said about Ford in the forum devoted to him).

I would appreciate an explanation.
 
It doesn't seem pragmatic to ignore the recommendations of City Staff AND Waterfront Toronto when it comes to a decision on Toronto's waterfront, does it?
 
Roy G Biv:

I think WT said it best - this is a decision with generational impact and one need a more complete evaluation and understanding of how the TIA fits into the city.

AoD
 
I'm intrigued by that statement on page 14 of the document :

Airport executives want to enhance access to transit to reduce current congestion –
no other info
Click to expand...

In what way could they contribute to transit access to the airport?

-Make them pay for a streetcar loop?
-they finance a future DRL station between Exhibition and a Rogers Centre station
-other?
 
Peepers said:
Downtown Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam has released a statement today and in it she is leaning towards shutting down the airport altogether!

http://ward27news.ca/statement-on-the-proposed-expansion-of-the-billy-bishop-toronto-city-airport



I think it would be fair to say that based on recent polling a majority - around 60% - of residents in her ward (which is where I live) are in favor of the introduction of "jets". Furthermore an even higher percentage - upwards of 80% - are happy with the airport as it now exists. For many of us who live downtown Billy Bishop is our FIRST CHOICE when it comes to flying out of Toronto. Also many people who work at Billy Bishop live in Wong-Tam's ward and she is leaning towards shutting it down? How stupid can a politician be?

Wong-Tam cites the garbage report by the Medical Officer Dr. David McKeown. In his report McKeown recommended returning the Airport to "healthy uses" such as a park. He completely ignored the fact that Billy Bishop actually reduces over all air pollution in the city by eliminating the need for 2 million passengers trips between downtown and Pearson Airport using cars (and soon diesel powered trains) that pollute far more than any aircraft serving Billy Bishop. McKeown completely ignored the fact that if you shut down Billy Bishop the traffic will just shift to Pearson and ALL aircraft serving Pearson either takeoff or land over Toronto.
Click to expand...

We might have a buffoon as a mayor but council has it's share of nut jobs and she's one of them. Economics growth and development is certainly not part of her vocabulary.

It's funny or frustrating how politicians and city staff somewhat seem to forget and not care about what the majority of citizens (who are their boss) wants...

The way I think about is like this:

"I'm not a child but I'm an adult. Don't tell me I don't get it or I need to be educated. I get it, there's a health hazard, the potential impact on the environment, the noise might be an issue and I get that developers in the Portlands are concerned. I'm just telling you as a citizens whose part of the majority, that I like the service, it's convenient and I'm fully aware of the positive impacts of having our downtown linked to more cities, which boost, tourism, the economy which creates more jobs opportunity. So again, if I tell you (majority of citizens) that we want the jets, make it happen. You're paid with my tax to use your expertise to reduce as much as possible the cons of that proposition, not to impose upon me you personal preferences"

Get that Won-Tam???
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top