christiesplits
Senior Member
Northern, you said you're an acquaintance with Bradford. Why do you think his campaign is struggling? He has the resources and a who's who of strategists. I provided some theories a few weeks back.
|
|
|
- Thread starter SJD_Toronto
- Start date
Northern, you said you're an acquaintance with Bradford. Why do you think his campaign is struggling? He has the resources and a who's who of strategists. I provided some theories a few weeks back.
Northern Light
Superstar
We know each other, we're not personal friends; but he's my councillor, I've probably met him 7 or 8 times.
***
I haven't spoken with him since February.
***
I really have no idea what the campaign plan was from day one, because the moves here from the first have just made no sense to me.
The first time I thought he really stuck his foot in it was the budget debate at Council where his slag of Cllr. Bravo was grossly misleading, unreasonable and I don't think was received well even by those on the right.
He just kept going with really suspect choices from there.
The video showing him out eating 'ethnic' cuisine in Scarborough just came off completely wrong, as the worst form of pandering; then he moved on not only pegging to the right, but doing so without really bringing anything to the table.
This is a guy capable of innovative policy, he has been a City planner, has a spouse in the development industry, and has lived in the U.S. (Boston) as well, so he has a decent range of knowledge, irrespective of his natural tack to the centre-right.
But there really isn't any innovative policy irrespective of one's politics.
Additionally, he's alienated his core constituents; alot of them.
Not just w/the NDP bashing or the hard-right tack; but by blocking people on social media left, right and centre and not being responsive to routine, non-partisan constituency issues. Its really very peculiar. I don't see the upside for him.
A Facebook friend was railing about Olivia Chow this morning, because they heard Chow say she would work to close the Island airport. This shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone as that has always been her stance, but voters have short memories. Could this be an Achilles’ heel in her campaign? Or a boost?
Northern Light
Superstar
Have to have another look at where she's polling strongest; but I would generally imagine it would poll slightly favourable in downtown areas vs suburban ones; but I would also say, I think the majority of people in Toronto have never flown out of the airport and its probably more of a shrug to them.
But that's entirely conjecture on my part.
I haven’t lived at the waterfront for a few years, but it was definitely a hot button issue. It hasn’t had much press lately so I don’t know if people have just come to accept it, or it’s because it was used so little the past three years thanks to the pandemic. It does seem to be more of a local issue than a city wide issue (friend mentioned above lives on the waterfront). Mostly I am curious as to whether it will be picked up by other candidates or the media or just be a non-starter.
Towered
Senior Member
Everything about his campaign paints him as an insincere opportunist to my eyes, and worse, a smarmy one at that. Very unappealing. Only Saunders is worse, and that's saying something.
Don’t forget Furey.
picard102
Senior Member
Gil seemed to take a hit when he floated the idea.
87% of Toronto residents surveyed hold a favourable opinion of Billy Bishop.
Nieuport Aviation - Toronto City Airport News
www.nieuport.com
Northern Light
Superstar
Gil seemed to take a hit when he floated the idea.
87% of Toronto residents surveyed hold a favourable opinion of Billy Bishop.
Nieuport Aviation - Toronto City Airport News
LOL
There's a problem in that survey..........
Source: https://www.portstoronto.com/Media/PortsToronto/PortsToronto/Environics-BBTCA-Quant-Report-Deck.pdf
So, only 2/3 of residents are even 'familiar' with Billy Bishop; but a greater percentage have a favourable opinion? LOL
Only 40% of residents surveyed have used the airport, ever.
A number, I think, that still skews high to me, but I digress.
Last edited:
concrete_and_light
Active Member
Maybe it's heresy as a progressive and I'm not 100% solid on this opinion, open to other thoughts, but I like the Island airport and think we should maybe maintain it as an important piece of infrastructure as well.
I've only flown out of it once long ago (don't fly often in general) and it sounds like Porter has made the experience much worse since then, but even with that and with the UP, the experience of going to BB seems much more of a controlled comfortable better one that I would be much less anxious and stressed about vs. going to the large scale stressful environment and chaos of Pearson. And more convenient, faster for many depending on where you are. (Even with the UP, many downtown or even in other parts of the city would then have to travel to the UP, which could be replaced by just travelling to BB.)
Yes planes burn a lot of fuel and we shouldn't necessarily be encouraging lots of flying, but planes and flying are going to keep existing and I'm not convinced getting rid of this airport would have a meaningful impact on that front. People would just fly from Pearson. Perhaps local pollution is a significant issue I can't say it isn't. But how does it compare to say, the Gardiner and other car traffic?
Redundancy of having a second airport also seems like it might be a good thing going forward and I'm not convinced ripping it up is advisable from that perspective. From a security and safety perspective even. But also economic.
Maybe I'd be mad about the noise it if I lived close to it, but as someone who doesn't live close to the flightpath tbh I think seeing the planes flying in next to the city on the waterfront is really cool. And the experience of flying into the city to the Island airport and seeing the city on approach/takeoff is also incredible. I live close to trains and a loud bus goes by right outside my window all night. Cities come with noises and machines. But yeah I imagine the noise can bother people. But does it outweigh all the rest?
Could the space be used better as a public space, extension of the island parks connecting it to the city? Maybe, yeah I'm sure there could be some great stuff done there. But also the airport does have its positives and I'm not sure it's an obvious case that we should definitely get rid of the airport. I certainly wouldn't want Olivia Chow to blow up her shot at Mayor and lead to a conservative getting in office out of a promise or idea that she would fight against the Island airport.
Another thing I maybe think but could be convinced otherwise is that the Islands being only ferry-accessible might be a good thing for the Islands and making it accessible directly from the land has its trade-offs and potential issues — but we should have wayyy more ferries/ferry service.
I've only flown out of it once long ago (don't fly often in general) and it sounds like Porter has made the experience much worse since then, but even with that and with the UP, the experience of going to BB seems much more of a controlled comfortable better one that I would be much less anxious and stressed about vs. going to the large scale stressful environment and chaos of Pearson. And more convenient, faster for many depending on where you are. (Even with the UP, many downtown or even in other parts of the city would then have to travel to the UP, which could be replaced by just travelling to BB.)
Yes planes burn a lot of fuel and we shouldn't necessarily be encouraging lots of flying, but planes and flying are going to keep existing and I'm not convinced getting rid of this airport would have a meaningful impact on that front. People would just fly from Pearson. Perhaps local pollution is a significant issue I can't say it isn't. But how does it compare to say, the Gardiner and other car traffic?
Redundancy of having a second airport also seems like it might be a good thing going forward and I'm not convinced ripping it up is advisable from that perspective. From a security and safety perspective even. But also economic.
Maybe I'd be mad about the noise it if I lived close to it, but as someone who doesn't live close to the flightpath tbh I think seeing the planes flying in next to the city on the waterfront is really cool. And the experience of flying into the city to the Island airport and seeing the city on approach/takeoff is also incredible. I live close to trains and a loud bus goes by right outside my window all night. Cities come with noises and machines. But yeah I imagine the noise can bother people. But does it outweigh all the rest?
Could the space be used better as a public space, extension of the island parks connecting it to the city? Maybe, yeah I'm sure there could be some great stuff done there. But also the airport does have its positives and I'm not sure it's an obvious case that we should definitely get rid of the airport. I certainly wouldn't want Olivia Chow to blow up her shot at Mayor and lead to a conservative getting in office out of a promise or idea that she would fight against the Island airport.
Another thing I maybe think but could be convinced otherwise is that the Islands being only ferry-accessible might be a good thing for the Islands and making it accessible directly from the land has its trade-offs and potential issues — but we should have wayyy more ferries/ferry service.
Last edited:
afransen
Senior Member
Maybe in the coming decades BB will become moot as short range aviation evolves with autonomy and electrification. Battery advances are just starting to make larger battery powered aircraft feasible. eVTOL has the potential to make the need for a very large downtown airport much reduced.
picard102
Senior Member
We have a pretty small downtown airport though.
christiesplits
Senior Member
I think it's of interest to look at the polls from 2014 (via Wikipedia), the last real dog-fight mayoral election, to see where candidates were polling a month before the election. At this point in 2014, it was Tory's election lose. Tory ended up winning with 40% of the vote.
Alternatively, could we see something like 2022 Ottawa mayoral election, where the polling greatly under-reported eventual winner Mark Sutcliffe's support.
Alternatively, could we see something like 2022 Ottawa mayoral election, where the polling greatly under-reported eventual winner Mark Sutcliffe's support.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Is that so surprising though? I've never flew from or to the Hamilton airport and am not familiar with that airport, but I have a favorable opinion of the same. Just because more options means more convenience, and often lower prices thanks to competition.
My opinion might be right or wrong, but it would be counted if any pollsters called me about the Hamilton airport.
EBT
New Member
I believe it could be an Achilles' heel in her campaign *provided* any of her opponents were to raise it as an issue. Commercial flights have been operating out of Billy Bishop for decades now (going back 50 years) and I would bet that a large percentage of Toronto resident's will have at one time or another used the airport and will have had a good experience from the convenience of a downtown airport.
I live downtown and have always preferred flying out of the Island if possible. You have the convenience of a short TTC ride to the terminal (or a short walk if you live near the waterfront!) and a more relaxed experience inside the terminal. I also love the exhilarating views of the Toronto skyline on take-off and landing at Billy Bishop. You don't get that flying out of Pearson! The ONLY problem with Billy Bishop is the lack of destinations!
If I was running against Chow, not only would I make her pledge to shut down Billy Bishop a major plank in my platform, I would also run on extending the length of the runway to allow larger "jets" to operate from the airport. Porter Airlines has a growing fleet of Embraer E-2 airliners that could open up destinations across North America and beyond. For that matter Air Canada could operate it's growing fleet of (Canadian made) Airbus A220's from an extended runway. Past proposals to extend the runway were loudly opposed by the private yacht clubs around the harbor but how many residents of Toronto are fortunate enough to have a yacht moored in the Toronto harbor? I don't have one! Why was this wealthy elite allowed to dictate such an important decision for the rest of us?
The idea of shutting down Billy Bishop is an outmoded idea much like the idea of tearing down the Gardiner Expressway. Perhaps fifty years ago these seemed like good ideas. Fifty years ago few people had experienced the convenience of taking a commercial flight from the Island. Fifty years ago the Gardiner was not boxed in by condo's on both sides rendering it invisible, i.e. out of sight out of mind!
Olivia Chow is a politician whose political positions are rooted-in and stuck-in the 1980's (basically the identical positions of her husband Jack who has been dead for almost 12 years). I can't understand how her platform would resonate with the voters of today. Someone needs to ask Chow how shutting down Billy Bishop airport will solve the problems that Toronto residents are facing NOW! Will it make life better for the thousands of residents whose employment depends on Billy Bishop? Will it make life better for the thousands of downtown residents who currently enjoy the convenience of a downtown airport? Who will benefit and how?
Of course Chow's pledge to close Billy Bishop will only be an Achilles' heel for her campaign if one of her opponents makes it an issue. I would think this would be a perfect issue for Anthony Furey to raise but he strikes me as one of these timid "conservatives" who is afraid to take on any issue that may have a tinge of "controversy" to it. They think it is much safer to just sit on the fence. Who else will make this an issue?
If anyone has a good argument for shutting down Billy Bishop I would love to hear it.