junctionist said:
If Porter folds, any airline could take over operations and fly any jet that can be landed at the airport. Other airlines might not use the quiet jets Porter is touting to get expansion approval.
Click to expand...

That's why it makes sense to regulate noise levels rather than technology. There are prop planes that make more noise than the Q400s so you could have the exact senario now....Porter could fold and someone could come in with noisier planes and take the slots...but as long as they are props then that is ok.

If you set noise levels and say any plane below that level of noise (that can safely land on the runways) can come in then you have dealt with that issue.
 
Admiral Beez said:
And forget about the courts if you want. The city reports to the province. All it takes is for the province to order the city to change the sound and pollution regulations to whatever the TPS and Feds want.
Click to expand...

And what if the City says no? Then what? Dissolve Toronto? The City is a creature of the province but that has to do with defining the former's structure rather than operational control.
 
Wrenkin said:
And what if the City says no?
Click to expand...

One quick edit of the City of Toronto Act to revoke that authority and it's done. Any staff who say no (break provincial law) will be handled in an appropriate manner (fired at very least, up to charges/jail time).

This is pretty trivial compared to the restructuring Harris did 16 years ago; you'll recall the city and it's residents very strongly said no to that too.
 
Last edited:
rbt said:
One quick edit of the City of Toronto Act to revoke that authority and it's done. Any staff who say no (break provincial law) will be handled in an appropriate manner (fired at very least, up to charges/jail time).

This is pretty trivial compared to the restructuring Harris did 16 years ago; you'll recall the city and it's residents very strongly said no to that too.
Click to expand...
And that's my point. Opponents to jets at the airport should not be appeased by promises of pollution and noise restrictions, because those restrictions can be rescinded with the stroke of a pen by future governments.

From the other perspective, supporters of jets at the airport must not base their support on noise and pollution controls, because those control are at the whim on governments and can change overnight.
 
Admiral Beez said:
And that's my point. Opponents to jets at the airport should not be appeased by promises of pollution and noise restrictions, because those restrictions can be rescinded with the stroke of a pen by future governments.

From the other perspective, supporters of jets at the airport must not base their support on noise and pollution controls, because those control are at the whim on governments and can change overnight.
Click to expand...
We shouldn't rely on any rules/regulations then? All are subject to change at strokes of pens....no?
 
TOareaFan said:
We shouldn't rely on any rules/regulations then? All are subject to change at strokes of pens....no?
Click to expand...
Yes (we shouldn't), and yes.

Look at the G20. At the stroke of a pen, the citizenry's right to assemble wherever they please was removed, and then enforced by an army of anonymous police. Look at Pickering - those folks thought they'd slain the airport threat decades ago, only to see the Feds without warning bring it back to life. Not to encourage any paranoia-induced tinfoil beanies, but I think many are ignorant of just how powerful the government is.

The only way to keep jets from the island airport is to keep the runway at a length that will not safely allow jets. Everything else is both arbitrary and likely temporary.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Yes (we shouldn't), and yes.

Look at the G20. At the stroke of a pen, the citizenry's right to assemble wherever they please was removed, and then enforced by an army of anonymous police. Look at Pickering - those folks thought they'd slain the airport threat decades ago, only to see the Feds without warning bring it back to life. Not to encourage any paranoia-induced tinfoil beanies, but I think many are ignorant of just how powerful the government is.

The only way to keep jets from the island airport is to keep the runway at a length that will not safely allow jets. Everything else is both arbitrary and likely temporary.
Click to expand...

That assumes that keeping jets (of any kind, ilk, profile) from the island is a good thing ;)
 
I'm curious, how many of you no-jets guys live by there?

I used to live at Bathurst and Front, and was all for opening the airport to passenger travel and I'm all for jets now.
My sister lives in the Tip Top building right next to the airport now, and she's all for jets too.

I think the use of noise restrictions is reasonable. Limiting it to props only makes no sense logically.

To only real downside I can see in the near future is road traffic congestion.
 
rbt said:
One quick edit of the City of Toronto Act to revoke that authority and it's done. Any staff who say no (break provincial law) will be handled in an appropriate manner (fired at very least, up to charges/jail time).

This is pretty trivial compared to the restructuring Harris did 16 years ago; you'll recall the city and it's residents very strongly said no to that too.
Click to expand...

Right, I'm just not getting how this would be effected. Again, I'm distinguishing between the province having the power to structure the city, what powers are delegated etc, versus actual operational control. You first said the province could order the city (council?) to exercise its delegated power in a certain way. Now you're saying its "authority" is going to be revoked? What do you mean exactly?

I actually don't think this is pretty trivial compared to the amalgamation. There you had the province amalgamating several extant bodies it had created. Here you're talking about jailing staff for not exercising authority delegated to them by council (under a statutory "delegation" of jurisdiction by the province)--while renegotiating a tripartite contract--in line with provincial (i.e. NOT their actual boss') demands. This is complicated stuff!
 
TOareaFan said:
That assumes that keeping jets (of any kind, ilk, profile) from the island is a good thing ;)
Click to expand...
I made no such assumption, or stated a preference for or against jets. I have merely stated the means by which jets can be kept out of the island airport.

Regardless, I may have spoken too soon. Once technology can deliver economical STOL jets in the size of the B737 with the Bombardier jet's supposed "quiet" operation, even the runway length will not prevent jets.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top