[ShonTron]

I like Porter, but I am not going to vote against my councillor because he's against the expansion of Porter. It's decisions like this that can be beneficial to a politician because they're taking a stance, and not bending over to the wishes of one business.

It's exactly why I do not like Rob and Doug Ford because they blindly agree to the wishes of a business without thinking of the costs/benefits, re: Casino.

And please stop acting like Porter is essential to Toronto's economy. It's not.

Me neither. I suspect that many of Layton and Vaughan's constituents (like me) like the convienence of having a short-haul airport so very close by. For me, it's two short blocks and a streetcar ride away, versus two short blocks, two long blocks, a subway and a bus to YYZ or two short blocks, two long blocks, a subway and another subway to Union Station. While I'm not opposed to small regional jets at YTZ in principle, I am greatly concerned about increased demands on such a small facility and runway expansion that goes with it and still suspicious of Deluce.

Mike Layton is a great local councillor and he's not losing the vote of this occasional Porter customer.

 

[ShonTron]

Please don't show this to Rob Ford or TPA.

I'm serious, recently TPA was trying to establish its own private armed forces (so they can easily shoot down striking Porter workers and whining residents probably), sharks seem more innocent next to it.

http://read.thestar.com/#!/article/...s-use-of-private-constables-at-island-airport

The TPA wanted police at the Island Airport as a first step towards US preclearance, but do it on the cheap. I don't read a "Sons of Mitch's" type conspiracy.

The proper thing to do of course is to enter a contract with Toronto Police Service to provide this directly, just as Peel Regional Police does at Pearson, not create a needless private force, especially as special constables aren't usually armed anyway. (edit - indeed only Niagara Parks Police are armed special constables in this province, GO, U of T, etc are not.) The TPS might be overstating their proposal for 16 constables and 6 sergeants over and above the current area policing though.

 

[Cinnamon]

The TPA wanted police at the Island Airport as a first step towards US preclearance, but do it on the cheap. I don't read a "Sons of Mitch's" type conspiracy. The proper thing to do of course is to enter a contract with Toronto Police Service to provide this directly, just as Peel Regional Police does at Pearson

Exactly. This is the proper way to do it.

There were other things Toronto Port Authority and its unelected officials could have done in a more proper fashion:

1. Use anchored buoys and chains to secure Marine Exclusion Zone instead of undertaking much more expensive and environmentally questionable lakefill project. We don't have supertankers in the lake, a simple chain easily could do the job. (But wait, less than a year later we have learned Porter's plan to extend the runway, and luckily the proposed extension zone is already lakefilled!)

2. Execute the tripartite agreement and do not allow use of Q400s as their noise levels are higher than what is allowed;

3. Do not sign a binding contract with a construction company to build a bridge just ten days before the mayoral election while being fully aware that there was a serious risk that the bridge would be cancelled;

4. Do not sign a binding contract against tripartite agreement with a businessman and his private company that allows him to sue the taxpayers of Canada in the event of close down of the airport;

5. Do not let a private company to build a monopoly over the island airport, be fair and promote competition;

6. Do not involve and take sides in a dispute between Porter and its employees;

7. Pay tax debts;

8. Respect the residents living in the neighborhood and ensure their rights are protected;

9. Respect the other users of the city airport and ensure their rights are protected (flight schools, etc).

And many more

 

[picard102]

Why, because they didn't drop their trousers and bend over to a private company quick enough?

It's one thing to oppose something when you have all the facts, but to deny yourself the chance to look at facts and base a decision on that is myopic at best.

Taxpayers are spending $500m to Union Station - Pearson Airport Express and we better use it. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Taxpayers are paying for the provinces Pan-Am ambitions. It's neither convenient nor for our benefit

I'm serious, recently TPA was trying to establish its own private armed forces (so they can easily shoot down striking Porter workers and whining residents probably), sharks seem more innocent next to it.

You love hyperbole.

 

[Cinnamon]

It's one thing to oppose something when you have all the facts, but to deny yourself the chance to look at facts and base a decision on that is myopic at best.

You are absolutely right. However I haven't seen any valuable argument or presented fact why Porter should be allowed to use City Airport instead of Pearson Airport for its jets. This is the main question and rest is just noise.

We can spent millions of dollars on environmental impact studies, noise studies, traffic studies, argue if we should extent the runway into the lake or change the noise contours. They won't answer the first question, why the heck should we do that? To the benefit of what or who?

I would do the same thing and refuse any trade-off study before seeing where it will take me and why should I want that.

 

[nfitz]

You are absolutely right. However I haven't seen any valuable argument or presented fact why Porter should be allowed to use City Airport instead of Pearson Airport for its jets. This is the main question and rest is just noise.

If the issue is just noise, surely we should be basing the decision on the noise. If these "jets" make less noise than some of the existing planes, I don't see what all the fuss is about. And it seems to come to some bizarre anti-airport bias, rather than simply the issue being just noise.

 

[Cinnamon]

If the issue is just noise, surely we should be basing the decision on the noise. If these "jets" make less noise than some of the existing planes, I don't see what all the fuss is about. And it seems to come to some bizarre anti-airport bias, rather than simply the issue being just noise.

I used word "noise" in the meaning of irrelevant data.

 

[Cinnamon]

If the issue is just noise, surely we should be basing the decision on the noise. If these "jets" make less noise than some of the existing planes, I don't see what all the fuss is about. And it seems to come to some bizarre anti-airport bias, rather than simply the issue being just noise.

Issue is not only noise. Smaller planes and helicopters are making 10 times more noise than Porter's planes but yet I support their co-existence at the city airport and respect their rights secured by the tripartite agreement.

I am against sweetheart deals given to private companies, waste of my tax dollars and expansion of city airport beyond what was defined in the tripartite agreement.

And a final note: even Q400 doesn't fit into noise limitations set by the tripartite agreement, I'm sick of TPA working as an agent of Porter and bending every possible rule to their benefit.

 

[picard102]

I haven't seen any valuable argument or presented fact why Porter should be allowed to use City Airport instead of Pearson Airport for its jets.

And I've yet to see one why it shouldn't other than false narratives and anti-airport rhetoric.

 

[Cinnamon]

And I've yet to see one why it shouldn't other than false narratives and anti-airport rhetoric.

Most importantly because it is against the tripartite agreement which protects rights and interests of all parties. We have to live together and there is a contract says how.

What you think Mr. Deluce would do if residents of waterfront make a request to amend the tripartite agreement? Let's change the curfew and make it between 8pm to 10am? How does it sound? Funny eh? So Mr. Deluce's request to extend the runway.

 

[TOareaFan]

Most importantly because it is against the tripartite agreement which protects rights and interests of all parties. We have to live together and there is a contract says how.

What you think Mr. Deluce would do if residents of waterfront make a request to amend the tripartite agreement? Let's change the curfew and make it between 8pm to 10am? How does it sound? Funny eh? So Mr. Deluce's request to extend the runway.

I would imagine Porter would resist that change and urge the TPA to oppose it.....then the three parties to the agreement would study the negative impact of the change on the airport's operations/finances and weigh those against the positive gains the proposed change would bring to the people requesting the change and decide whether, in balance, they could each (cause it 3 to amend a tri-party agreement ) support the requested change. They may even need to get independent reports to validate the claims of the various interested parties.

So, in short, kinda what is going on now.

 

[nfitz]

Issue is not only noise. Smaller planes and helicopters are making 10 times more noise than Porter's planes but yet I support their co-existence at the city airport and respect their rights secured by the tripartite agreement.

Who gives a rat's ass about the tripartite agreement in itself. What's the real issue here?

Noise?

A bunch of whining Nimbys concerned that's there's too much traffic on a major artery like Bathurst?

It's so bizarre ... if people don't want traffic in a city, they are living in the wrong place.

Let's just build a bridge to get the vehicles onto the island and away from the land north of the channel, thus improving the environment for everyone.

However these whiny Nimbys are just concerned about themselves, and would sooner destroy the environment. They whinge and whine about a bit of lakefill ... and yet not one has complained about the ongoing large-scale lakefill still ongoing on Cherry Spit. They don't really care about the lake. Just themselves. They are an embarrassment to the city.[/QUOTE]

 

[Cinnamon]

I would imagine Porter would resist that change and urge the TPA to oppose it.....then the three parties to the agreement would study the negative impact of the change on the airport's operations/finances and weigh those against the positive gains the proposed change would bring to the people requesting the change and decide whether, in balance, they could each (cause it 3 to amend a tri-party agreement ) support the requested change. They may even need to get independent reports to validate the claims of the various interested parties. So, in short, kinda what is going on now.

You are more optimistic than me. I think they will kill it immediately without any need for further investigation, and the reason will be clear: "it is against tripartite agreement".

But for a moment let's assume we get support from City, TPA and Federal Government and amend the tripartite agreement to change the curfew. I guess it will give all rights to Mr. Deluce to make a claim for the damages as he made his investment based on this contract. Isn't it fair?

 

[Cinnamon]

Who gives a rat's ass about the tripartite agreement in itself. What's the real issue here?

Noise?

A bunch of whining Nimbys concerned that's there's too much traffic on a major artery like Bathurst?

It's so bizarre ... if people don't want traffic in a city, they are living in the wrong place.

Let's just build a bridge to get the vehicles onto the island and away from the land north of the channel, thus improving the environment for everyone.

However these whiny Nimbys are just concerned about themselves, and would sooner destroy the environment. They whinge and whine about a bit of lakefill ... and yet not one has complained about the ongoing large-scale lakefill still ongoing on Cherry Spit. They don't really care about the lake. Just themselves. They are an embarrassment to the city.

You are not bringing any intelligent argument to the table, just repeating the same song: nimbys, nimbys, nimbys, jets, jets, jets...

By any change do you have any relationship with Rob Ford?

 

[GenerationW]

By any change do you have any relationship with Rob Ford?

Based on his posting history, the answer to that is a definite no.