ShonTron
Moderator
ok....but why would they not say "defer until the information comes in" as opposed to "defer until March 2015"?
So it can be scheduled for debate at a council meeting?
ok....but why would they not say "defer until the information comes in" as opposed to "defer until March 2015"?
ok....but why would they not say "defer until the information comes in" as opposed to "defer until March 2015"?
Peepers:
Did you miss the bit about how TC wasn't able to certify the performance characteristics of the plane? Porter is playing politics by requesting the extension before they have hard data with an untested plane in the first place. Are you suggesting that the city should vote on the plan without certified data (beyond what's provided by the Pratt-Whitney, in a non-standard test setting) just because Porter wanted to?
And funny you should be raising what Olivia Chow *might* do when the deputy mayor has already stated that they want to rush because precisely because of that fear. Why, we need to schedule votes before we get final data because we fear the stance of the next mayor? The data isn't good enough to stand on its' own?
AoD
ShonTron:
And even assuming that staff would somehow play politics - why would they suggest a route that more or less conflicts with the current stance of their boss in the first place? One'd think that appeasing the current boss is more of a sure bet than playing for one that might not materialize down the road.
AoD
Peepers is borderline trolling.
Anyone who knows anything about how politics are supposed to work is that bureaucrats are responsible for day-to-day operations and policy development, but taking their direction from the elected government (at any level). The staffers are directed to report on this issue. They recommend waiting for more facts to come in. That's not "playing politics" - and I'm sure Peepers knows this. Council of course is free to "receive" this advice while in effect ignoring it and vote to go ahead.
Council votes opposite to staff recommendations quite often, especially about little things like development applications and putting in traffic control signs/signals.
Staffers do not push their own political agenda, and if you have ever attended a meeting you would understand this. They very specifically follow council guidelines. council specified to determine noise levels, and they were unable to do so. This means that they recommended to delay the vote to get that information as council had stated they wanted it. Other examples include Massey tower, where there was large support in almost every circle, including planning circles. but due to guidelines set out by council, they were forced to recommend refusal. You also see this with Mirvish-Gehry, where there are large amounts of planners supporting the project (though not nearly as much as Massey) but they recommended refusal as that is what should be done according to council set guidelines. The only time planners are even allowed to express personal opinions on issues is if a councillor specifically asks them during a council meeting.
They don't have to wait until transport Canada certifies the aircraft in order to obtain this data and even if they did certification is expected long before March 2015 so how did they come up with this date?
How did they come up with a date that is after the next election?
Remember that the noise issue is the ONLY issue to be considered. All the other issues from traffic congestion, lengthening the runways, impact on the waterfront school etc. are just red-herrings intended to cloud the issue.
Whether or not the CSeries gets approved traffic to and from Billy Bishop will only increase which means that the city has to do something on the land-side to alleviate the congestion (logically the school needs to be relocated and replaced with the land-side terminal and parking structure).
Same issue with lengthening of the runway's. With or without the CSeries the runways will need to be lengthened for safety reason's and this is not an issue for the city to decide.
Canada is notoriously bad at supporting it's own companies. If Toronto can't allow Bombardier and Porter to succeed here, then that's just sad (yes, I own some Bombardier shares, and I think Canadian businesses should be allowed to thrive when they're being innovative!)
Canada is notoriously bad at supporting it's own companies. If Toronto can't allow Bombardier and Porter to succeed here, then that's just sad (yes, I own some Bombardier shares, and I think Canadian businesses should be allowed to thrive when they're being innovative!)
If Toronto City council cant get its act together I would hope that the federal government would step in and make the decision for Toronto for the sake of this country and the residents of Toronto!
TPA doesn't pay property taxes as it is a city of Toronto agency. that would be like paying themselves.
Porter doesn't own the airport, and it pays airport fees to operate out of it just like Air Canada.
how are we wasting hundreds of millions again? the expansion is to be paid for through airport fees.
The school is 650 meters away, but still close.
202 movements a day. Thats not that much, and it absolutely does not max out the amount that the airport can be used for.
I can tell you right now that much more pollution comes from the Gardiner than the airport. there are 150,000 cars daily that pass by, but you are complaining about 200 planes.
city isn't doing a poor job, it is creating residential neighborhoods out of old industrial areas while still accommodating for the remaining uses such as the airport. The same thing is occuring with Redpaths. and Lafarge in the portlands.
Canada is notoriously bad at supporting it's own companies. If Toronto can't allow Bombardier and Porter to succeed here, then that's just sad (yes, I own some Bombardier shares, and I think Canadian businesses should be allowed to thrive when they're being innovative!)