• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Bridge to airport vs. new waterfront?

MoFo

TRIBE Member
I don't really know what the debate is.

One side is saying that if we cancel that bridge and the new island airport expansion, lots of jobs will be lost and people will be suing.

But we have a shitty waterfront.

What do you people say? I haven't really asked anyone what they thought so this is perfect.
I'm conflicted because I think the waterfront refurbishment would be awesome. We definitely could benefit from that. I mean, who uses that airport? What would be the advantage of having it (as in, what good is it to the city as a whole)?
 

Persephone

TRIBE Member
I really don't understand why we need to have another airport so close to downtown. In any major North American city the airports are always on the outskirts. We really don't need the expansion.

I'm all for creating a beautiful waterfront. Now that could be used to our advantage.
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
I don't want the airport. I'd pay higher taxes to deal with the expense of backing out.

I'm sick and tired of politicians who don't act in the interest of the people who elected them.
 

Adam

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Boss Hog
I don't want the airport. I'd pay higher taxes to deal with the expense of backing out.
I think I'm with you on this one, but it seems to me like the city is going to get the shit sued out of it.

I heard yesterday that the airport developer (sorry, dont know his name) had just purchased $400 million in aircraft, knowing full well that Miller's entire campaign platform was to block the bridge.

You only do that if you've got some serious legal recourse, don't you think? I've heard numbers well into the billions..
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by MoFo
I don't really know what the debate is.
If you're really interested, check the politics forum for plenty of good back n forth on the subject.

I think the whole idea about lawsuits is being overblown.. and their attempt at getting the people to rise up in protest with that lame ad campaign just shows that they are just as scared to go to court as anyone else.

I think it's about time that the people make use of a government that's finally in office for them and fuckin fight back for once.
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Adam

I heard yesterday that the airport developer (sorry, dont know his name) had just purchased $400 million in aircraft, knowing full well that Miller's entire campaign platform was to block the bridge.

Yo

if that's true then the fucker should be made to foot the bill himself.

I find it funny that Miller won the majority vote on his platform, and yet so many seem out to say fuck you to him, and inevitably the majority of us who don't want the airport.
 

Littlest Hobo

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: Bridge to airport vs. new waterfront?

Originally posted by OTIS
I think the whole idea about lawsuits is being overblown.. and their attempt at getting the people to rise up in protest with that lame ad campaign just shows that they are just as scared to go to court as anyone else.
Those ads made me want to puke. "Instead of keeping Toronto clean and improving the TTC, taxpayer's dollars will be spent paying lawsuits." Yeah, paying the lawsuits (and radio ad time) for these smug fuckers.

Like these rich pricks give a rat's ass about the TTC or litter.
 

PRIMAL

TRIBE Member
New waterfront all the way. It would be awesome to actually have a nice looking beachfront.

We don't need anymore noise pollution and regular pollution coming from the airport. Plus it woud be an eyesore.

Who gives a shit about a bridge?
 

Littlest Hobo

TRIBE Member
Miller KO's Mel's 98-pound weaklings


By JOHN BARBER
Thursday, December 4, 2003 - Page A13



Epochal achievements are not supposed to be so easy, especially at city council. Usually it takes forever to get even the little things accomplished. Certainly no council has ever reversed itself on a fundamental issue with such alacrity -- in a single day -- as Toronto council did yesterday when it voted to abandon its six-month-old championship of a new bridge to the island airport.

Was it because nobody really cared about the bridge, as its now-sour supporters try to pretend? That hardly makes sense.

Is it because the council is new, with 14 novices desperate for the attention of anti-bridge Mayor David Miller? That's closer to the mark, but there are even more holdover councillors on the other side with equally strong convictions and much more experience. If they were New Democrats, they would have strung out the debate for days with clever filibusters and a barrage of heat-seeking motions that would have caused major damage to the initiative, even if they failed to bring it down.

That's what happened to the Adams Mine deal, which was so badly shot up during its ordeal in council that even Mel Lastman abandoned it at the end of the days-long debate.

The real reason Mr. Miller waltzed to victory in the first test of his mayoralty -- probably one of the toughest he will ever face -- is that his opposition is so weak. That's the biggest surprise that emerged from yesterday's brisk business: In their first test in opposition, Mel's heavyweights went down like 98-pound weaklings.

Even more than the debate's decisive result, that pathetic performance must be what's warming Mr. Miller's heart on the day after.

Let's face it: He was highly vulnerable all day long -- and he still is. Although city solicitor Anna Kinastowski staunchly backed his position that there will be no legal repercussions from a request that the federal government "unamend" the agreement the last council had just asked it to amend, she made it equally clear that there will be costs involved in doing so.

If the Toronto Port Authority is sued as a result of city's policy change, Ottawa will clearly look to the city to help make its agency whole. Ms. Kinastowski warned that there will be costs to undo the deal even if there are no lawsuits. Certainly the toonie Mr. Miller brandished during the election campaign, in an effort to illustrate how picayune he expected those costs to be, won't come close to covering them.

But the Lastman rump did nothing with that deadly information. Instead they wailed fruitlessly about phantom lawsuits and wasted their time with ridiculous cheap shots about the mayor's mandate, pretending that his attempt to fulfill a straightforward election promise violated some sacred principle of democracy. But their campaign to win hearts and minds went haywire when former deputy mayor Case Ootes argued for an indefinite delay in the vote to help council's 14 newcomers to familiarize themselves with the issue.

First Councillor Kyle Rae sank an arrow into the middle of the former deputy's forehead by asking him why, six months earlier, he voted against exactly the same motion -- to delay the bridge approval in deference to a new council. Then, one after another, the new councillors rose to denounce the ploy for what it was: a cheap trick designed to allow the bridge to go ahead while they sat on their hands.

At the end of the day, 12 of the 14 new councillors came over to Mr. Miller's side. The opposition's failure to win converts -- or even the slightest sympathy for their cause -- was a setback that will resonate for years.

But the greatest coup came when new deputy mayor Joe Pantalone bound up all the opposition's anti-bridge motions into a neat bundle and, with the consent offered by another decisive vote, booted it into oblivion. Nothing stuck at all; the mayor's motion came to a vote as clean and direct as it began the day, unencumbered by any of the conditions, amendments or other assorted time-bombs any semi-competent opposition would have attached. I can't remember anything like that ever happening at city council.

Mr. Miller not only fulfilled his major election promise; in the process he won support that will likely stick with him for years. Nothing will get in his way now.

It could turn out to be a problem.


link
 

mingster

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by MoFo
I don't really know what the debate is.

One side is saying that if we cancel that bridge and the new island airport expansion, lots of jobs will be lost and people will be suing.

this message brought to you by the friends of the island airport

those bastards are just tugging at your heart strings.


as far as the city being sued, david miller thinks the city won't be held liable for their loss. i hope he's right. this whoe thing just makes me so flaming mad. the people who want to go ahead with this new airport are doing so with little to no regard for the health of the citizens of toronto. i've even heard that there has been no independent environmental studies conducted. (not sure if this is true). those assholes dont' give a shit about anything but making money for themselves and creating some easier transportation alleys to get in and out of the city. or something. i'm sure it's more complicated than that. but meh.
 
Last edited:

KillaLadY

TRIBE Member
No fucking way. I am not about to hear planes every friggin 2 minutes... it's bad enough that the fucking Gardiner is planned to be taken down, now they are going to build a fucking airport?

It would be nice to fix the beach, you know... not bring more polution from the planes...
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: Re: Bridge to airport vs. new waterfront?

Originally posted by Littlest Hobo
Those ads made me want to puke. "Instead of keeping Toronto clean and improving the TTC, taxpayer's dollars will be spent paying lawsuits." Yeah, paying the lawsuits (and radio ad time) for these smug fuckers.

Like these rich pricks give a rat's ass about the TTC or litter.
I think the Ads were paid for by the port authority or the private entities that have interests in the bridge.. I'm not sure if they are primarily tax funded or not, but regardless, the ads were offensive.

It's obvious they don't give a shit about TTC or whatnot, and what I found particularly offensive about them was that they were basically saying "You citizens should only be concerned with things we approve of. This is out of your league so got off this airport thing already or else we're gonna sue the shit out of your city."
 

mingster

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bridge to airport vs. new waterfront?

Originally posted by OTIS
I think the Ads were paid for by the port authority or the private entities that have interests in the bridge.. I'm not sure if they are primarily tax funded or not, but regardless, the ads were offensive.

the print ad i saw made me want to puke. all those people standing there looking so sad cause they lost their jobs. as if. thousands of jobs will be created in our waterfront development. THOUSANDS.
 

Vote Quimby

TRIBE Member
Those ads were bad.

I love how they talk of lost jobs and loss in $800million for the economy.

Last time I checked, you can't lose what isn't there.

No jobs to be lost, just not created via this development. They can be found elsewhere.

And the economic rewards will come from elsewhere. Like the fixed rail link? And maybe increased tourism dollars from a revitalised waterfront.

Get rid of the airport in it's entirety. Get rid of the Island residents when possible.

It should just be one big park for us to use. All of it.
 

Adam

TRIBE Member
Anyone know the legality behind this contract?

I mean, it's not fear-mongering if the city is actually going to get sued to oblivion. It seems pretty reasonable that the developers would all have legal recourse for this deal being cancelled.
 

atomic

TRIBE Member
makes you wonder if it would have gone through if Lastman was still at the helm.

Or, he could have spun it into some nice public approval:

"Who wants the airport link?"

"Nooooooboooooody!"
 

Vote Quimby

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Adam
Anyone know the legality behind this contract?

I mean, it's not fear-mongering if the city is actually going to get sued to oblivion. It seems pretty reasonable that the developers would all have legal recourse for this deal being cancelled.
Not if it comes from Ottawa.

Realistically, once the bridge was built, how much traffic did this proposed new regional airline think it was going to get? If people wanted to fly, they could still take the ferry. So technically, this airline could still proceed. It's not as if the city killed the only link to the Island.
 

Adam

TRIBE Member
True enough..I wondered that myself.

Perhaps I'm being cynical, but I'm just convinced that these guys have clause after clause signed into these contracts.

Plus, that's not counting the lawsuits that could come from the construction crews and whatnot, which are obviously guaranteed to lose business here.
 

janiecakes

TRIBE Member
I believe that there is some group opposed to the bridge & airport expansion that was threatening to slap the city and the developers with a class action suit if the whole thing went ahead.

So there would have been the possibility of financial repercussions either way.
 

Vote Quimby

TRIBE Member
It would be intereting to see who has signed contracts with whom.

I would figure that there is a contract between the City and the TPA to build the bridge.

Where this new airline comes in, I'm not sure. I believe the airport is run by the TPA. So one would think that the airline has no grounds to sue the city. But then again, not much makes sense when it comes to lawsuits.
 

Vote Quimby

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by janiecakes
I believe that there is some group opposed to the bridge & airport expansion that was threatening to slap the city and the developers with a class action suit if the whole thing went ahead.

So there would have been the possibility of financial repercussions either way.
I believe it was a group of home and business owners along the waterfront.
 

mingster

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by atomic
makes you wonder if it would have gone through if Lastman was still at the helm.

Or, he could have spun it into some nice public approval:

"Who wants the airport link?"

"Nooooooboooooody!"
lastman was mayor when the deal was approved! why would you think he would have stopped it? he's basically been mayor in absentia for the last year he was around. let the whole city go to piss. we were leaderless.


edit: please ignore if you were just trying to make a joke. ;)
 
Last edited:
Top