[ear2ear]

I would suspect the argument is the area has 'evolved'. Maybe the government should start bulldozing downtown single family homes to speed up density.

I mean, we're already doing that for the Ontario Line. Precedent!

But significant land use in high demand areas should always be constantly reexamined, weighing what exists currently, what came before and what demand trends are for the future. Today's business folk shouldn't inherently have more say than kids growing up downtown. Island residents shouldn't have more say than people who will still be alive in 2050.

While I (downtown resident and frequent flyer) believe the island airport is redundant post UP Express and unnecessary in the long term, the deal is done for the most immediate future. But we should advocate and plan for it to close if/when high speed rail options to Ottawa and Montreal emerge.

 

[robmausser]

Im going to die on this hill here, but yes they should. If you operate a business that actively harms people around you, you cant expect to 1. be able to block nearby development and 2. be able to continue to keep your business open. It just shouldnt be allowed

View attachment 608513

please explain how Billy Bishop actively harms people around them.

 

[rdaner]

No opinion on status of airport but I wanted to address one fact: the airport operation is heavily subsidized and it is still more expensive per passenger for airlines to operate here.

 

[generalcanada]

please explain how Billy Bishop actively harms people around them.

here we go again lmao.
It hurts peoples access to the island, its a waste of space, the noise pollution has a small harm. They block developments nearby.

Pick one

 

[picard102]

here we go again lmao.
It hurts peoples access to the island, its a waste of space, the noise pollution has a small harm. They block developments nearby.

Pick one

So it doesn't actively harm anyone.

 

[cplchanb]

here we go again lmao.
It hurts peoples access to the island, its a waste of space, the noise pollution has a small harm. They block developments nearby.

Pick one

like we dont have enough development already... your arguments are unfortunately based on ideology with no empirical justification.

 

[generalcanada]

like we dont have enough development already... your arguments are unfortunately based on ideology with no empirical justification.

Yes its pure idealism.

 

[Civdis]

I mean, we're already doing that for the Ontario Line. Precedent!

But significant land use in high demand areas should always be constantly reexamined, weighing what exists currently, what came before and what demand trends are for the future. Today's business folk shouldn't inherently have more say than kids growing up downtown. Island residents shouldn't have more say than people who will still be alive in 2050.

While I (downtown resident and frequent flyer) believe the island airport is redundant post UP Express and unnecessary in the long term, the deal is done for the most immediate future. But we should advocate and plan for it to close if/when high speed rail options to Ottawa and Montreal emerge.

The airport serves way more than just Montreal and Ottawa. I fly to the US and Canadian East Coast all of the time and much prefer the experience of Billy Bishop over Pearson, UP or not. This airport is not going anywhere, nor should it, it predates most of its neighbours. I hope they are able to expand it for quieter jets.

 

[chrisw]

The airport also goes to Thunder Bay. 3x daily round trip flights.

Many flights to Atlantic cities too.

 

[lenaitch]

I mean, we're already doing that for the Ontario Line. Precedent!

But significant land use in high demand areas should always be constantly reexamined, weighing what exists currently, what came before and what demand trends are for the future. Today's business folk shouldn't inherently have more say than kids growing up downtown. Island residents shouldn't have more say than people who will still be alive in 2050.

While I (downtown resident and frequent flyer) believe the island airport is redundant post UP Express and unnecessary in the long term, the deal is done for the most immediate future. But we should advocate and plan for it to close if/when high speed rail options to Ottawa and Montreal emerge.

Things do evolve, but in a liberal democratic/capitalist economy, governments can't simply steamroll private ownership. Zoning can change but existing, legal land use remains 'grandfathered' (that's probably an unacceptable term now). Reexamine all you want, but a private landowner can't be forced out to make way for another private landowner, simply on the basis that the new owner offers more density or some other 'higher and best use'. Levels of government have the legal authority to expropriate land - at fair market value - but only for public works, like transit, not some aspirational 'greater good'.

The way I understand it, the airport land is owned by various levels of government, and the Island residential properties by the city. They are collectively free to try and tear it all down tomorrow, but I suggest the taxpayers would not be happy with the litigation costs.

You raised the sugar refinery. Private land. Does LaFarge still have property in the Portlands? Private land. If some developer wants it that badly, they are free to try and buy them. Creating an environment that is actively unfriendly to industry is not a good look for any city.

Yes, "business folk" do have more say than downtown kids; the kids don't own anything and don't get to vote. That's the fun part of parenting. Downtown parents get to advocate for their downtown kids. You want you government to start kicking businesses and residents to the curb because their presence doesn't fit your vision for the future - go nuts and get active; but there are costs and unintended consequences. Maybe some day, somebody will argue the presence of yourself or your employer doesn't fit.

 

[turbanplanner]

Things do evolve, but in a liberal democratic/capitalist economy, governments can't simply steamroll private ownership. Zoning can change but existing, legal land use remains 'grandfathered' (that's probably an unacceptable term now). Reexamine all you want, but a private landowner can't be forced out to make way for another private landowner, simply on the basis that the new owner offers more density or some other 'higher and best use'. Levels of government have the legal authority to expropriate land - at fair market value - but only for public works, like transit, not some aspirational 'greater good'.

The way I understand it, the airport land is owned by various levels of government, and the Island residential properties by the city. They are collectively free to try and tear it all down tomorrow, but I suggest the taxpayers would not be happy with the litigation costs.

You raised the sugar refinery. Private land. Does LaFarge still have property in the Portlands? Private land. If some developer wants it that badly, they are free to try and buy them. Creating an environment that is actively unfriendly to industry is not a good look for any city.

Yes, "business folk" do have more say than downtown kids; the kids don't own anything and don't get to vote. That's the fun part of parenting. Downtown parents get to advocate for their downtown kids. You want you government to start kicking businesses and residents to the curb because their presence doesn't fit your vision for the future - go nuts and get active; but there are costs and unintended consequences. Maybe some day, somebody will argue the presence of yourself or your employer doesn't fit.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Ok, you're getting carried away.

No one is advocating closing Pearson, which currently has additional capacity and will have, for at least another decade and change even if BBTCA were to close.

So no one has to take steamships to Europe.

****

To everyone, I don't think people are well served by re-litigating time and again the general value of airports or the general value of BBTCA.

Clearly some folks skew one direction and some the other on this specific airport. No one is arguing against all airports, and the fact that some airports are quite valuable or necessary does not mean that any and all airports are of equal consequence; just as closing one airport does not mean we should close all airports.

How about we try to limit discussion here to actual news or information and discussion of what has newly come to light, what that may mean, and whether it has changed any given person's mind on the airport's future.

General exchanges of preferences, long held, and mostly unchanging really doesn't add much value.

Maybe a bit hyperbolic. However the point I'm trying to make is that the island airport exists and provides a relative benefit to the region, it's customers and it's owners otherwise it would have been closed down a long time ago.

I accept that everyone has different cost-benefit analysis vis a vis an existing airport in, for some, a less than ideal location vs alternative options for filling the demand that airport currently serves (expansion/further intensification of traffic at Pearson, or building a new airport elsewhere, ie. Pickering). Both alternatives face significant local resistance making their costs significant.

 

[evandyk]

Governments can actually steamroll private ownership. It may or may not be a good idea to do it in any specific case, but your private interests can be steamrolled by government at any time if it follows the appropriate process (which at its most basic, is passing a law through the elected legislature).

The government could absolutely shut down the sugar plant or Lafarge if it wanted to. It could even do it without paying the owners anything, if it wanted to. Expropriation only requires compensation at fair market value because a law says it does. That law can be rewritten overnight. Might be a really bad idea if you're trying to have people invest in your economy, but they absolutely can do it.

 

[generalcanada]

Expropriation only requires compensation at fair market value because a law says it does. That law can be rewritten overnight. Might be a really bad idea if you're trying to have people invest in your economy, but they absolutely can do it.

Im no lawyer but im pretty sure seizure is a constitutional law and cant be easily changed

 

[evandyk]

There were actually many discussions when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was drafted about whether property rights should be included, and they specifically were not.