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

[Cinnamon]

Oh, that 94 cents.... there is a good Rob Ford story behind that one too...

The Star, Published on Tue Apr 02 2013:

A confidential staff report going to city council Wednesday says Ottawa owes the city about $31 million in payments in lieu of property taxes on the island airport, covering 1999-2012.
The report, according to a source who has read it, states the Toronto Port Authority (TPA) has already paid $2.5 million and proposes to pay another $2.77 million, for a total of $5.27 million. The city would essentially write off the remaining $26 million.

In its proposed settlement, the port authority wants to pay the city 94 cents per air passenger, for an estimated total of $13.77 million between 2013 and 2021. The report notes that the port authority has increased its offer from 80 cents per passenger.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Let's jog our minds a bit:

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...cts_tax_deal_with_toronto_port_authority.html

AoD

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Actually Billy Bishop does from the standpoint that planes arriving or departing never have to fly over homes in Toronto. When taking off or landing from the west the flight path is entirely over water. When taking off or landing from the east aircraft fly very briefly over the mostly vacant tip of the port-lands, i.e. Cherry Beach, Polson Pier.

Planes arriving and departing Pearson must fly over residential parts of the city as well as industrial. Even in some of our most exclusive neighborhoods such as Forest Hill it is a common site to see aircraft at an altitude of less than 3000 feet making their final left hand turn onto final approach to runway 24L at Pearson.

Even living downtown I regularly see aircraft arriving or departing Pearson fly directly over me (doesn't bother me). Not once have I ever seen a Porter Aircraft fly directly over downtown.

Are you aware that sound travels in three dimensions, not just down? Porter planes fly much closer than 3000 feet to Harbourfront. Also, the harbour itself is a popular destination and it's not fun to have a plane buzz overhead when you're in a boat on the water. I wouldn't call Cherry Beach or Polson Pier "vacant" either since the former is a public park and the latter a popular entertainment spot, and the whole area is eventually slated to become a residential neighbourhood.

 

[Cinnamon]

Let's jog our minds a bit:

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...cts_tax_deal_with_toronto_port_authority.html

AoD

That was the Rob Ford story he actually approved the writing of $26 million while some of the Councillors were out for lunch. Thanks to a smart move from Councillor Mary Margaret McMahon, they had to re-vote and it was rejected. What a shame.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

That's a ridiculous comparison - the area around Pearson is almost exclusively industrial/commercial for kilometers in every direction, and flight paths avoid the few residential areas nearby. 10KM North from the island airport will take you to Bathurst & Lawrence and encompass the entire downtown area and then some, so obviously there are people that live that close to Pearson. However, Billy Bishop's flight path is directly along the waterfront instead of on top of the warehouses that surround Pearson.

Obviously airports have to be somewhere, but it makes more sense to locate them in primarily industrial areas instead of right on the city's waterfront.


So, which do you think looks like a better place for an airport?

Flight paths avoid residential areas? Want to explain why there are signs long Derry Rd indicating that this is a flight path area.

Saying Pearson is (even) almost exclusively industrial shows how little you know about the area around it. There are numerous high density areas very close to the airport. They may not be 650 M as in the island but with in 5 km of the airport you will find a lot of residents. Pearson does benefit from having a lot of land surrounding it thus keeping development from getting to close to it while the island is relatively hemmed in.

The point, though, is not who has more houses around it, or which area is wealthier and more influential. The point is the airport exists, it likely existed when you chose to move into your house. The expectation that either a) the airport will simply shut down or b) that some how the airport will stop expanding now that you've moved here is just as absurd as the residents who live next to railway tracks and expect there to be no trains.

 

[TOareaFan]

That was the Rob Ford story he actually approved the writing of $26 million while some of the Councillors were out for lunch. Thanks to a smart move from Councillor Mary Margaret McMahon, they had to re-vote and it was rejected. What a shame.

The article is quite clear though, the $26 million is based on an assessment by MPAC based on the land used as industrial or condo development. Not sure that ever holds up to a challenge (as all MPAC assessments can be challenged) since there is no evidence that the land could ever be used for those purposes.....so "writing off $26 million" is only the case if you really believe that the city could achieve the full $31 million they are asking for.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Are you aware that sound travels in three dimensions, not just down? Porter planes fly much closer than 3000 feet to Harbourfront. Also, the harbour itself is a popular destination and it's not fun to have a plane buzz overhead when you're in a boat on the water. I wouldn't call Cherry Beach or Polson Pier "vacant" either since the former is a public park and the latter a popular entertainment spot, and the whole area is eventually slated to become a residential neighbourhood.

Hey some people pay big money to lay on a beach where arriving aircraft fly overhead less than 200 ft above them in St Martin

 

[Peepers]

The article is quite clear though, the $26 million is based on an assessment by MPAC based on the land used as industrial or condo development. Not sure that ever holds up to a challenge (as all MPAC assessments can be challenged) since there is no evidence that the land could ever be used for those purposes.....so "writing off $26 million" is only the case if you really believe that the city could achieve the full $31 million they are asking for.

This is an important point. The so-called "26 million owed in back taxes" is a completely illusory figure. This is what the city would get if the land was developed with condo's on it. The same Councillors who are bitching that the city is "owed" back-taxes by the TPA would rather this land be a public park. How much taxes does the city receive from public parks? Zilch!

The 94 cents per passenger payment is what the city will receive in lieu of taxes if and when they come to their senses and agree to this figure. Until then the city gets nothing and furthermore there is not a damn thing that they can do because the TPA is a Federal agency and Federal agencies don't pay taxes.

 

[Cinnamon]

The article is quite clear though, the $26 million is based on an assessment by MPAC based on the land used as industrial or condo development. Not sure that ever holds up to a challenge (as all MPAC assessments can be challenged) since there is no evidence that the land could ever be used for those purposes.....so "writing off $26 million" is only the case if you really believe that the city could achieve the full $31 million they are asking for.

You can challenge MPAC's assessment but there is no such calculation as "per passenger". TPA simply takes what Pearson paid and divide by number of passengers. If you do the same calculation today for 2012, ($27,575,000)/ (34,900,000 passengers) = 0.79 cents/passenger. So it is not a fixed rate.

Land is valuable in downtown and if you are running a business there you should bear the consequences as much as enjoying the benefits.

Don't forget how much Pearson paid for land lease: $130,502,000

TPA: $1

 

[Peepers]

Since this is such a hot topic I think it would be a good idea to set up a poll so forum members can vote for or against the Porter proposal.

I would break the poll down into three questions:

1) Do you support the introduction of turbofan powered aircraft ("jets") to Billy Bishop airport along with lengthening the runway ? YES / NO

2) Do you support maintaining the airport as it currently operates with no new types of aircraft allowed and no new destinations added? YES / NO

3) Do you support shutting down the airport and converting the lands to parkland ? YES / NO

What do other people think? Is a poll a good idea? What should the questions be?

 

[Cinnamon]

This is what the city would get if the land was developed with condo's on it.

A single condo building in the area can raise as much as $2m per year in taxes. And this is what TPA offering, $2m per year.

The same Councillors who are bitching that the city is "owed" back-taxes by the TPA would rather this land be a public park. How much taxes does the city receive from public parks? Zilch!

Well, we are getting "zilch" anyway, so better to be a park so we can reduce the carbon emissions in downtown and at least reduce the health bill.

there is not a damn thing that they can do because the TPA is a Federal agency and Federal agencies don't pay taxes.

Didn't know that.

 

[TOareaFan]

Since this is such a hot topic I think it would be a good idea to set up a poll so forum members can vote for or against the Porter proposal.

I would break the poll down into three questions:

1) Do you support the introduction of turbofan powered aircraft ("jets") to Billy Bishop airport along with lengthening the runway ? YES / NO

2) Do you support maintaining the airport as it currently operates with no new types of aircraft allowed and no new destinations added? YES / NO

3) Do you support shutting down the airport and converting the lands to parkland ? YES / NO

What do other people think? Is a poll a good idea? What should the questions be?

Not sure how valuable a poll would be but there is a problem with question #2 (IMO).....even without expansion/jets, there are possible new destinations that Porter could add with their current fleet (as anyone who has flown with them and skimmed the inflight magazine knows ) Their route map always had as many "proposed" routes than current ones.

 

[TOareaFan]

A single condo building in the area can raise as much as $2m per year in taxes. And this is what TPA offering, $2m per year.

But the city's ask for back PILTs is based on a valuation of building condos on the airport lands...not near them. I don't know a single airport opponent who is saying "close the airport and lets build it out as a condo area".

Well, we are getting "zilch" anyway, so better to be a park so we can reduce the carbon emissions in downtown and at least reduce the health bill.

The city is only getting zilch now because they have not come to an agreement. TPA has offered to pay over $5 mil to end the arrears discussion and to pay $.94 per passenger going forward....that is what you should compare to the park revenue.

 

[Cinnamon]

But the city's ask for back PILTs is based on a valuation of building condos on the airport lands...not near them. I don't know a single airport opponent who is saying "close the airport and lets build it out as a condo area".

Unpaid $31m covers 14 years (1999-2012), which makes approximately $2m/year. I think it is a fair amount giving the land they are occupying in the middle of downtown.

As I said, only one condo building can raise as much as $2m/year, so in my opinion their claim and cry is not valid.

The city is only getting zilch now because they have not come to an agreement. TPA has offered to pay over $5 mil to end the arrears discussion and to pay $.94 per passenger going forward....that is what you should compare to the park revenue.

I don't think it is fair to write-off $26m. This money belongs to City and all Torontonians. If you or me don't pay our property taxes for 14 years what would happen?

 

[TOareaFan]

Unpaid $31m covers 14 years (1999-2012), which makes approximately $2m/year. I think it is a fair amount giving the land they are occupying in the middle of downtown.

As I said, only one condo building can raise as much as $2m/year, so in my opinion their claim and cry is not valid.



I don't think it is fair to write-off $26m. This money belongs to City and all Torontonians. If you or me don't pay our property taxes for 14 years what would happen?

But it is not property taxes and it is a made up number based on a made up alternative land use. The city can keep trying all it wants to get this amount of money but there is no basis in law for it and refusing the offered settlement (or refusing to negotiate a different figure) is exactly what has them collecting nothing....and simultaneously blocking them from getting the regular future payments based on the $.94 per passenger on offer (which i understand is what Pearson pays).

I have my own little theory on one of the roadblocks here and it may be that those opposed to the airport have a particular fear of accepting a payment per rider plan. Inherently, then, the city would have a vested financial interest in seeing more passengers as their revenue would increase....just a theory.