The world over areas surrounding airports are commonly used for developing recreational areas, because their proximity to an airport land values are lower and they are therefore less suitable for commercial or residential development.
Can you give me an example of three or four recreational areas that were developed in the flight path of an airport? You admit the waterfront which is developed with residential and commercial development is less suitable for such because of the airport... thats a start.
That is a fantasy, the plant was already falling down when it was closed.
It is still standing now. With a bit more funding the Metronome project would be more than fantasy. Many older buildings in worse shape have been incorporated into new developments.
What happened at Meigs Field was criminal - and still no basis on which to believe that Toronto would be capable of a suitable re-development of the airport. Given how successful Toronto has been at redeveloping the rest of the waterfront there is no reason to believe the airport would be anything but wasteland for decades to come.
Yes, what happened in Chicago is criminal, just like purposely making the lives of people who live on the islands miserable would be. The lease the cottagers have is legal. Bob Rae's NDP government was democratically elected as are the few NDP who hold currently hold seats. If you feel under-represented then perhaps you aren't voting for the right people.
Toronto has redeveloped a large section of the waterfront from the Rouge River to East Point Park. It has redeveloped Cherry Beach and opened new sports fields, has redeveloped Marilyn Bell park, opened HtO, redone the boardwalk at Harbourfront, has West Don Lands under full construction, and opened new waterfront to the public from Norris Crescent to Superior Ave. The eastern bayfront can't be developed until the West Don Lands berm is complete because it is in the regulatory flood plain. I think the city can handle turning an airport into grass and trees to match the rest of the island.
The political relationship between the squatters and the rest of Toronto is unique in that you would be hard pressed to find any group of 700 people anywhere with the political clout the squatters have accumulated due to their close relationship with the NDP.
You seem to think so at least. I disagree though. Why would the NDP treat them any different? I don't think the island is populated with union leaders. Each resident on the island still only represents one vote. The residents of Rondeau Provincial Park were also given long leases and it wasn't by the NDP. The Weston community seems to have a lot of clout.
Show me another community anywhere in Ontario that has had the level of "protection" the squatters have. A community that owes its entire existance to political graft isn't deserving of much.
Most communities in Canada owes its existence to political graft. The British and French showed up and claimed the land. Most of the west was practically given away. Pearson Airport pays a fortune in rent to the federal government, the island airport is subsidized.
The airport is public infrastructure, the residents are squatters who were supposed to be evicted almost thirty years ago, they only got their sweetheart leases because of their ties to the NDP.
A large swath of residences from Allen Road to Spadina and Bloor were supposed to be evicted to develop freeway. A community group stopped it in its tracks. Front Street was going to be extended to Dufferin, a community group stopped it in its tracks. When like minded people get together and form a community group and make a loud argument it gets heard regardless of who is in government.
It isn't a residential area, it is a public park!
Anywhere there are houses and people living is a residential area. If I say "it isn't an airport, it is a public park!" it doesn't make it so.
The squatters have a veto through their incredible political clout, my parents neighbourhood has been complaining about a couple of rowdy clubs for years, where people periodically get stabbed and the mayor hasn't taken up their cause. The difference between the squatters and the other communities complaining is that the squatters have a direct line to City Hall and beyond and their presense on the island was only enabled by their close ties to the NDP.
Your community isn't organized or hasn't chosen a very good political representative. A good councillor, MPP, and MPP is one that you could call and deal with these issues. The mayor and Adam Vaughan are making moves to close down the club district so why is your community unable to deal with rowdy clubs? Obviously the mayor isn't pro-clubs.
kEiThZ said:
Why should the transportation needs of 2.5 million residents be held hostage by a few downtown residents.
Porter is a "transportation need" or is it a choice? I think most people would put a residence as a higher need than the ability to fly to Montreal without driving to Pearson.
So when residents of Rexdale and Mississauga complain about noise and pollution from larger jets that's not as important as when a few downtown residents complain about the same issues. And Pearson's approach paths have a much larger noise and emissions footprints and are directly over residential areas.
The ends of the runways are over light industrial properties. Due to those residents you mention Canada's largest international airport has night operation restrictions. Just recently those same residents successfully petitioned against regional jets taking off and banking below a certain altitude. Those same residents are the reason north-south arrivals and take-offs are the non-primary path to only be used when weather forces it. There are noise monitoring stations all over the Pearson flight paths to monitor things. The residents in Rexdale and Mississauga are equally important.
So you see the irony here.....
It is the same with every persons right which is protected. A person cannot have a right without taking away someone else's right. There can't be private property without taking property out of the public domain and vice-versa. The greater needs of the public will be determined by the democratically elected city government, the democratically elected province, and the law.
You should see Washington Reagan, London City, New York La Guardia.... They have housing, green space, tourist attractions, hotels, all nearby and they seem to manage fine.
Toronto manages fine too but the same arguments exist in those places that exist in Toronto. Restrictions are in place at all those airports to limit growth such as flight path restrictions, maximum trip length, and noise restrictions.
Parties are optional....air transport is vital for our economic well being.
We already have an airport. An airport much further away from development is being proposed in Durham which would do much more to increase capacity but for some reason there is a lot of objection to it.
Let's encourage more and better use of High Park and Downsview instead and save the hassle of the ferries and all the transit to service them.
People
choose to take the ferries to the islands in much larger numbers than choose to use Downsview and High Park. Even with the hassle of the ferries people choose to go there. The Toronto Islands can provide a waterfront that nowhere else in the city can. The atmosphere of the Toronto Islands can't be duplicated elsewhere.
And that is the crux of the problem and why we should not be so hasty to rip up the runway at YTZ. For you the island airport is not part of the waterfront vision. For me, I see a city that has no waterfront vision (except to build condos). Let them fix up the rest of the waterfront first and then i'll support them. Till then, let Porter do the excellent job its doing now. To me, it puts forward a great impression of this city. What could be better than an airline that uses green locally made aircraft, run by a Canadian, using Torontonian staff bringing visitors directly into downtown Toronto.
Who is being hasty to rip up the runway? As I stated I use Porter and the airport and believe it has a right to be there. The vision of the Toronto Islands was set a long time ago when the city started removing buildings and focusing the island as a car free park retreat. Eventually the airport should go. I believe that the city should focus on petitioning for high-speed rail to the airport (in a form other than Blue 22) and to Ottawa and Montreal and I believe the government should stop subsidizing the airport and port authority because it is a waste of taxpayer dollars and is completely unjustified considering the rent being charged to the GTAA.