Automation Gallery
Superstar
I wouldnt trust this crew at City Hall running the TPA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Port_Authority
|
|
|
- Thread starter khris
- Start date
I wouldnt trust this crew at City Hall running the TPA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Port_Authority
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Actually, this "crew" - the board of directors - isn't from the City Hall.
AoD
AoD
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Sorry let me clarify, Mayor Miller and his city council.
Archivist
Senior Member
Very funny to see freemarket Keithz arguing for a taxpayer funded ferry to the island, from a bunch of cronies, to an airport where only one airline is allowed to fly. Nothing smelly about that. The TPA, which is by law supposed to raise enough revenue to fund itself, never has, even with the recent upswell of traffic at the island thanks to Porter. So, yes, we are paying for the ferry with our tax dollars.
Archivist
Senior Member
Interesting as well, that I can find no mention anywhere in the financial reports of the TPA of paying ground rent to the federal government. Companies using Pearson pay over $100 million in ground rent every year to the feds. Hmm, so one of Toronto's airports essentially receives an illegal taxpayer funded subsidy, while the other is a cash cow for the federal government. But businesses do not have the option of using both, in fact, Air Canada and WestJet are banned from using the TCCA. Nothing odd there at all.
Also, as the TPA has yet to turn a profit, one wonders what will happen in the current economic environment? Glad to see the deepening recession has stalled their extravagant spending plans. And if Porter goes bust (when?) what happens to the revenue from the TCCA? Would it collapse.
Yep, sounds like a second ferry represents prudent financial planning.
Also, as the TPA has yet to turn a profit, one wonders what will happen in the current economic environment? Glad to see the deepening recession has stalled their extravagant spending plans. And if Porter goes bust (when?) what happens to the revenue from the TCCA? Would it collapse.
Yep, sounds like a second ferry represents prudent financial planning.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Don't forget, Archivist - there are THREE Toronto airports.
Word is that the GTAA has, rather quietly, cut the subsidy they've been giving to Buttonville for the past decade or so. Makes one wonder if a push for Pickering is coming...
In the meantime, you're not the only one who noticed TPA isn't raking in the dough...
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/577774
Port authority owes only a fraction of $37 million property-tax arrears spanning a decade, panel rules
Paul Moloney
CITY HALL BUREAU
On the whole, the federal government is pretty good about paying property taxes on its 184 Crown properties in Toronto.
It mostly pays what the city bills even though, as the senior government, Ottawa is exempt from property taxes. Instead, it remits so-called "payments in lieu of taxes."
The glaring exception to the pattern of voluntary compliance is the Toronto Port Authority, a federal agency that has long disputed its tax bill for the island municipal airport, as well as port holdings and the Outer Harbour Marina.
The city puts those arrears at $37 million, a continuing sore point for Mayor David Miller, who blocked the port's plans to build a fixed link to the airport.
The mayor seems to mention the missing cash whenever the subject of the port authority comes up.
The city took the unusual step in 2006 of taking its case to a federally appointed Dispute Advisory Panel. Now the panel has ruled and the city lost big.
The agency has been told to pay a mere $5 million in taxes for 1999 through 2008.
The finding "is very positive," said the port authority's acting head Alan Paul.
But the city is considering whether to go to court on the issue, and councillors are to be briefed on the merits of that idea next month.
To Councillor Howard Moscoe, it's "outrageous" that the dispute panel would largely reject the city's tax claims, which are based on property values set by the Municipal Property Assessment Corp.
Moscoe favours seeking a legal remedy.
"The federal government is not paying their fair share," he said. "All we want them to do is pay their taxes. Even the Queen pays taxes."
Nothing shows how far apart the two sides are better than the island airport, a 122-hectare property reachable by a brief ferry ride from the foot of Bathurst St.
The port authority argued the airport site has a nominal value, while MPAC values it at $90.4 million.
Instead of focusing on land value, the dispute panel noted that Pearson International Airport and three other Ontario airports pay property taxes based on passenger numbers.
Pearson, with 30 million annually, pays 94 cents per passenger. A fair rate for the island airport would be 80 cents, the panel said. That equates to a $432,000 tax bill, based on 540,000 passengers a year.
That approach seems fair as far as the port authority is concerned.
"Our position was the airport should have a nominal value but a per-passenger amount makes sense, given we're really in competition with Pearson," Paul said.
Not surprisingly, a community group that would like the airport closed doesn't see it that way.
"This is not about fairness, or the airport carrying its fair share of the costs of running our city," said Brian Iler, chair of Community Air. "This is about giving the island airport yet another subsidy."
Iler called the airport site "the best piece of land on the waterfront. For them to get away with paying $432,000 a year, it's nothing."
Downtown councillor Adam Vaughan agreed the value put on the airport by the panel isn't accurate. "If it is, I've got a lot of developers who would buy it right now."
Property taxes on federal and provincial sites brought the city a combined $78 million last year.
Word is that the GTAA has, rather quietly, cut the subsidy they've been giving to Buttonville for the past decade or so. Makes one wonder if a push for Pickering is coming...
In the meantime, you're not the only one who noticed TPA isn't raking in the dough...
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/577774
Port authority owes only a fraction of $37 million property-tax arrears spanning a decade, panel rules
Paul Moloney
CITY HALL BUREAU
On the whole, the federal government is pretty good about paying property taxes on its 184 Crown properties in Toronto.
It mostly pays what the city bills even though, as the senior government, Ottawa is exempt from property taxes. Instead, it remits so-called "payments in lieu of taxes."
The glaring exception to the pattern of voluntary compliance is the Toronto Port Authority, a federal agency that has long disputed its tax bill for the island municipal airport, as well as port holdings and the Outer Harbour Marina.
The city puts those arrears at $37 million, a continuing sore point for Mayor David Miller, who blocked the port's plans to build a fixed link to the airport.
The mayor seems to mention the missing cash whenever the subject of the port authority comes up.
The city took the unusual step in 2006 of taking its case to a federally appointed Dispute Advisory Panel. Now the panel has ruled and the city lost big.
The agency has been told to pay a mere $5 million in taxes for 1999 through 2008.
The finding "is very positive," said the port authority's acting head Alan Paul.
But the city is considering whether to go to court on the issue, and councillors are to be briefed on the merits of that idea next month.
To Councillor Howard Moscoe, it's "outrageous" that the dispute panel would largely reject the city's tax claims, which are based on property values set by the Municipal Property Assessment Corp.
Moscoe favours seeking a legal remedy.
"The federal government is not paying their fair share," he said. "All we want them to do is pay their taxes. Even the Queen pays taxes."
Nothing shows how far apart the two sides are better than the island airport, a 122-hectare property reachable by a brief ferry ride from the foot of Bathurst St.
The port authority argued the airport site has a nominal value, while MPAC values it at $90.4 million.
Instead of focusing on land value, the dispute panel noted that Pearson International Airport and three other Ontario airports pay property taxes based on passenger numbers.
Pearson, with 30 million annually, pays 94 cents per passenger. A fair rate for the island airport would be 80 cents, the panel said. That equates to a $432,000 tax bill, based on 540,000 passengers a year.
That approach seems fair as far as the port authority is concerned.
"Our position was the airport should have a nominal value but a per-passenger amount makes sense, given we're really in competition with Pearson," Paul said.
Not surprisingly, a community group that would like the airport closed doesn't see it that way.
"This is not about fairness, or the airport carrying its fair share of the costs of running our city," said Brian Iler, chair of Community Air. "This is about giving the island airport yet another subsidy."
Iler called the airport site "the best piece of land on the waterfront. For them to get away with paying $432,000 a year, it's nothing."
Downtown councillor Adam Vaughan agreed the value put on the airport by the panel isn't accurate. "If it is, I've got a lot of developers who would buy it right now."
Property taxes on federal and provincial sites brought the city a combined $78 million last year.
TOareaFan
Superstar
Are they actually banned?
Even if they were not, WestJet's one plane strategy (with that plane being 737s) would prevent them from using the airport anyway.
Air Canada abandoned service from the airport prior to Porter's existance so those seem like pretty big crocodile tears they might be shedding about wanting to serve the airport....now!
rbt
Senior Member
Abandoned is the wrong word to use.
Porters parent company bought the terminal building Air Canada was using, then opted not to renew the lease for Air Canada.
jn_12
Senior Member
A couple points that perhaps I can shed some light on...
From my understanding, the new ferry will be paid for using the $15 Airport Improvement Fee that is added to the cost of the ticket. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that the ferry could be paid off quite easily just using these fees over the course of a year. Mind you, there is an extensive terminal expansion currently being prepped, so the money probably isn't going just towards this ferry.
Also, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks Porter is going to be non-existent within the next 5 years. Considering Porter has 8 planes and probably 12 or 14 by the end of 2009, you're looking at a period of time when they were expecting to be spending considerable amounts of money anyways. Even if routes are slow to develop, the business model suggests they're prepared to take hits at the beginning (multiple $27million plane purchases in 3 years adds up). In 5 years from now, the US should be out of its recession and business would flourish based on the business model. Not to mention, Porter doesn't even codeshare with another airline. That could be another option down the line. Also, people don't realize that Porter has been profitable for well over a year. I know for certain this is the case because I received my first profit sharing cheque at x-mas time. So not only are they profitable, they're able to actually significantly share that profit with employees, which says something to me at least.
As for a bridge, I think Porter is over that. Considering the amount of traffic that traverses the channel in the summer months, you'd need to raise a bridge every ten minutes for 5 minutes. I don't think Porter wants that considering the ferry schedule that has been consistent since it first launched. A 200 person ferry is necessary, and it's here to stay.
I'm going to stop there and not discuss the TPA board. I think there are obvious issues there, but I won't put my foot in my mouth right now.
From my understanding, the new ferry will be paid for using the $15 Airport Improvement Fee that is added to the cost of the ticket. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that the ferry could be paid off quite easily just using these fees over the course of a year. Mind you, there is an extensive terminal expansion currently being prepped, so the money probably isn't going just towards this ferry.
Also, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks Porter is going to be non-existent within the next 5 years. Considering Porter has 8 planes and probably 12 or 14 by the end of 2009, you're looking at a period of time when they were expecting to be spending considerable amounts of money anyways. Even if routes are slow to develop, the business model suggests they're prepared to take hits at the beginning (multiple $27million plane purchases in 3 years adds up). In 5 years from now, the US should be out of its recession and business would flourish based on the business model. Not to mention, Porter doesn't even codeshare with another airline. That could be another option down the line. Also, people don't realize that Porter has been profitable for well over a year. I know for certain this is the case because I received my first profit sharing cheque at x-mas time. So not only are they profitable, they're able to actually significantly share that profit with employees, which says something to me at least.
As for a bridge, I think Porter is over that. Considering the amount of traffic that traverses the channel in the summer months, you'd need to raise a bridge every ten minutes for 5 minutes. I don't think Porter wants that considering the ferry schedule that has been consistent since it first launched. A 200 person ferry is necessary, and it's here to stay.
I'm going to stop there and not discuss the TPA board. I think there are obvious issues there, but I won't put my foot in my mouth right now.
TOareaFan
Superstar
sjc
Active Member
For the last couple of years before Porter arrived, Air Canada Jazz was down to a single Dash-8 going back and forth to Ottawa. The first flight out in the morning to Ottawa was 8:30 and the last one back was 4:30 with no weekend service at all.
Personally, I usually needed to go earlier than 8:30 and come back later than 4:30, so I had pretty much given up on using the Island Airport.
Personally, I usually needed to go earlier than 8:30 and come back later than 4:30, so I had pretty much given up on using the Island Airport.
sjc
Active Member
>>>Iler called the airport site "the best piece of land on the waterfront. For them to get away with paying $432,000 a year, it's nothing."
Downtown councillor Adam Vaughan agreed the value put on the airport by the panel isn't accurate. "If it is, I've got a lot of developers who would buy it right now."<<<
I like how Community Air and Councillor Vaughan are now supporting development of the island.
I'd like to see a casino there with some hotels, behind the airport where you can give easy access to New York and Chicago gamblers.
Downtown councillor Adam Vaughan agreed the value put on the airport by the panel isn't accurate. "If it is, I've got a lot of developers who would buy it right now."<<<
I like how Community Air and Councillor Vaughan are now supporting development of the island.
I'd like to see a casino there with some hotels, behind the airport where you can give easy access to New York and Chicago gamblers.
taal
Senior Member
Yes I really do love that ... I'm sure it would be worth more then we can ever imagine but development is not allowed so what's the point!
It should stay that way less a cultural institution possibly.
It would be great to have a large attraction on the island - amazing actually.
Casino might work - but it would stir up a whole lot of controversy, a lot of people are against these sort of things for good cause. Then again I'm sure a lot of people are against the strip clubs on Yonge street
Anyway I really don't see the issue with Porter - it's a great service for anyone who's been on it.
Moreover, anyone who complains about noise has no idea what they're talking about. They're very very quiet. I think we need to keep their growth in check though, other then that it's fine. By that I mean there's no way I'd allow an expansion of the airport to take up more land (probably not even possible).
Anyway, until someone has a better use for that part of the island they should be left alone.
Regarding a bridge - seeing how it's such a small stretch there's probably no way to built one that was high enough and as someone mentioned there's a lot of boat traffic along that stretch in the summer in particular.
It should stay that way less a cultural institution possibly.
It would be great to have a large attraction on the island - amazing actually.
Casino might work - but it would stir up a whole lot of controversy, a lot of people are against these sort of things for good cause. Then again I'm sure a lot of people are against the strip clubs on Yonge street
Anyway I really don't see the issue with Porter - it's a great service for anyone who's been on it.
Moreover, anyone who complains about noise has no idea what they're talking about. They're very very quiet. I think we need to keep their growth in check though, other then that it's fine. By that I mean there's no way I'd allow an expansion of the airport to take up more land (probably not even possible).
Anyway, until someone has a better use for that part of the island they should be left alone.
Regarding a bridge - seeing how it's such a small stretch there's probably no way to built one that was high enough and as someone mentioned there's a lot of boat traffic along that stretch in the summer in particular.
Ziggy
Active Member
Yeah, I've never been a fan of the bridge, mainly because I'm a sailor, and I think a bridge would be annoying for boat traffic. How about a tunnel though? It wouldn't interfere with boat traffic, and would allow easy access to the airport, maybe even for streetcars. Would it be much more expensive than a bridge?
Whoaccio
Senior Member
Somehow I have trouble believing a non-lift bridge can't be designed that would meet water clearance requirements. What are the requirements, anyways? 30m?