• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

The Mayor's Race

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by AdRiaN
Since when did people care so much about rich condominiun owners who complain about some "undesirable" development in their vicinity, and its impact on property values?
Rich? My co-worker who is neither rich or worried about his property value owns one of said condos. He doesn't want the noiseor the pollution. I work just down the street from where the connection would be made, and I can't imagine being exposed to even more fossil fuel fumes from extra transport & cargo trucks scooting down Spadina because it's bad enough as it is.

We are at a point still where we can make decisions to benefit everyone in the city about our waterfront, and not just jump into the policies that mean extra $$ at the expense of health & air quality. Guys like John Tory only consider cost & benifit only in financial terms, while everyone feels the effects in many other ways.
 

kerouacdude

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by FC St. Pauli
I cannot think of any real benefit for someone who lives here


What are the benefits?
Sorry if someone’s mentioned it, haven’t read all the posts….Approx. 3000-4000 flights involve bringing patients or organs to the hospitals from the Island airport, some are life or death situations. A road link is apparently more efficient than a ferry.
And Mingster, the link has already been approved by City Council – that’s why most of the candidates are opposing it. To renege on it would be to court a huge lawsuit, which, if you’re running on a campaign of fiscal responsibility for the city, makes it hard to oppose.
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by mingster
it's not just about the rich condo owners. some of the city's cheapest (and precious) housing is in this vicinity. which brings me to the question 'will an expanded island airport raise or lower the cost of the real estate in the area'? how is this going to affect affordable housing?
A busier airport, more traffic, more noise ... sounds like a downward pressure on property values. Doesn't that mean housing will become more affordable? Shouldn't you support the airport expansion in that case?

this development will benefit people with money first and foremost, so i ask you...how would that in turn benefit the people who's needs are still not being met.
Yawn. It's the same tired old argument -- people I disagree with are greedy and self-interested, while people I agree with are good-hearted and altruistic. The island airport is not a social program and I see no reason why it should be. In fact, the project will increase economic activity and create jobs. Aren't jobs a good thing for the needy?

also, it is likely (in my mind anyways) that an expanded island airport will hamper waterfront development, which is going to hurt everyone, equally and individually.
Ummm ... what do you think the expansion involves, exactly? The proposal is for an increase in the number of flights and possibly another building on the existing land. Nobody is talking about actually making the whole thing bigger. How do additional airplane flights hamper development of the waterfront?
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by AdRiaN

Yawn. It's the same tired old argument -- people I disagree with are greedy and self-interested, while people I agree with are good-hearted and altruistic. The island airport is not a social program and I see no reason why it should be. In fact, the project will increase economic activity and create jobs. Aren't jobs a good thing for the needy?

Sure, jobs are a great thing. Is expanding the airport the way to go about creating jobs when you have a lot of people who are upset about the pollutive effects? And the "old argument" you refer to goes both ways: your argument is more or less: "hey look, this expansion will help small business, create some jobs and boost our economy" wich is "tired" and "old" for many of us as well.

Using your argument, why don't we just build more McDonalds over our downtown parks? I mean, it'll bring in jobs, help small business and boost our economy right?
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by AdRiaN

Yawn. It's the same tired old argument -- people I disagree with are greedy and self-interested, while people I agree with are good-hearted and altruistic. The island airport is not a social program and I see no reason why it should be. In fact, the project will increase economic activity and create jobs. Aren't jobs a good thing for the needy?
Yawn? YAWN..

I can't believe you're using the trickle down economics argument to sell this idea. I expect better of you than this cliche conservative rhetoric AdRian. You and I both know the only think that is going to trickle down to the general public from an airport expansion is jetwash. The expansion of the airport is not meant to be a social program, but I think the question being posed is a valid one. For years the lakeshore has been neglected in respect to recreational development. I think the next development project people are desiring should be for the general public. And not some golden gate bridgeway for executive suits & commercial haulage.
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ~atp~
Using your argument, why don't we just build more McDonalds over our downtown parks? I mean, it'll bring in jobs, help small business and boost our economy right?
No ... a more appropriate example would be an existing McDonald's restaurant that is forced to limit the number of customers it serves, even though it could make more money and hire more employees if the number of customers were increased. Nobody is talking about paving over parks or cutting down trees.

Again, I ask, where is the environmental assessment showing that an island airport expansion will produce an excessive amount of pollution and noise?
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by AdRiaN
Again, I ask, where is the environmental assessment showing that an island airport expansion will produce an excessive amount of pollution and noise?
Where is the independant one showing it wont?
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by OTIS
For years the lakeshore has been neglected in respect to recreational development. I think the next development project people are desiring should be for the general public. And not some golden gate bridgeway for executive suits & commercial haulage.
Just to be clear, are you arguing against the airport expansion or against the whole idea of having an island airport in the first place? I don't see why expanding the number of flights at the airport would have any effect on the willingness or ability of the City and its partners to further develop recreational areas along the waterfront.
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by AdRiaN
Just to be clear, are you arguing against the airport expansion or against the whole idea of having an island airport in the first place? I don't see why expanding the number of flights at the airport would have any effect on the willingness or ability of the City and its partners to further develop recreational areas along the waterfront.
I'm against expansion.. the island airport can serve recreational flying too as it's tailor made for prop planes while still providing the ability for suits to get too and from downtown Toronto in their private aircraft. They just have to wait till the mainland to get into their limo.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by AdRiaN
No ... a more appropriate example would be an existing McDonald's restaurant that is forced to limit the number of customers it serves, even though it could make more money and hire more employees if the number of customers were increased.
Perhaps, but the negative connotations of adding more planes in the sky is far more dramatic than the additional customer traffic at the McDonalds.


Again, I ask, where is the environmental assessment showing that an island airport expansion will produce an excessive amount of pollution and noise?
Uh, the increase in air traffic?

That's the concern here. Let me repeat it: the increase in air traffic.





Wait, one more time: the increase in air traffic.


And what's more important is that there is a significant number of people who appear to be concerned about the issue...whether there will be an increase in pollution (noise, environmental, etc) is not so much the point, as is the fact that there is opposition; so then the question becomes: how much opposition, and how much do the benefits outweigh the opposition?
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
Drive around downtown between 8am and 7pm and see how far you get with the traffic, and that's without a major airport being down there.
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by OTIS
Where is the independant one showing it wont?
Say what you will about the environmental assessment, but every EA needs to be posted for public hearings and scrutiny before being approved. This is an opportunity for people to present evidence to the contrary and poke holes in the methodology of the study. Simply pointing out that something must be wrong because the company performing the assessment is also building the bridge is not exactly evidence.

If you believe a conflict of interest in this situation is hampering the EA process, then take it up with the federal government and tell them to change the rules.

In addition, the island airport expansion still requires approvals from the Coast Guard and Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans.
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ~atp~
And what's more important is that there is a significant number of people who appear to be concerned about the issue...whether there will be an increase in pollution (noise, environmental, etc) is not so much the point, as is the fact that there is opposition; so then the question becomes: how much opposition, and how much do the benefits outweigh the opposition?
How would anything ever get done in this world if we stopped developments just because the local residents say "not in my backyard"? Nobody should be surprised that condo owners in the area don't want an expansion. That's exactly what you should expect and they are obviously entitled to protect their neighbourhood.

But again .... I'm sure people living around Pearson were pissed off about the numerous expansions of the airport over the years. I'm sure they were also concerned about noise, traffic, and pollution. I'm sure they were arguing that Toronto didn't need a bigger airport and the economic benefits were not worth the trouble. So was expanding Pearson a mistake?
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
  • An increase in noise pollution has been correllated with hypertension and cardiovascular disease as well as mood disorders and sleep difficulties (obviously).
  • Studies have also shown that the value of your property drops 0.75% for every increase in dB of noise.
  • This study shows that a poll suggests that 58% of people are primarily concerned with noise increase over other pollution factors. (Water quality came in second at 24%).
  • The release of NOx into the atmosphere can be damaging to the ozone.


There are many significant concerns associated with an increase in air traffic activity at an airport. Not just for those who live "right there" but for everyone. Airport expansions are inevitable, but why is this particular airport being targetted over Pearson?
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by AdRiaN
But again .... I'm sure people living around Pearson were pissed off about the numerous expansions of the airport over the years. I'm sure they were also concerned about noise, traffic, and pollution. I'm sure they were arguing that Toronto didn't need a bigger airport and the economic benefits were not worth the trouble. So was expanding Pearson a mistake?
Don't take what I'm suggesting out of context. You can't stop the process of "expansion", it's purely a function of our technological progress as a society and the number of inhabitants on this planet. Read my above comments. Also, is it necessary that we expand the island airport? Is there a large demand for it?
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Oh, and what if the "local residents" happen to be a majority? Or is democracy regarded as an inconvenient distraction for cheap-labor conservatives? :p
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by AdRiaN
How would anything ever get done in this world if we stopped developments just because the local residents say "not in my backyard"? Nobody should be surprised that condo owners in the area don't want an expansion. That's exactly what you should expect and they are obviously entitled to protect their neighbourhood.

But again .... I'm sure people living around Pearson were pissed off about the numerous expansions of the airport over the years. I'm sure they were also concerned about noise, traffic, and pollution. I'm sure they were arguing that Toronto didn't need a bigger airport and the economic benefits were not worth the trouble. So was expanding Pearson a mistake?
I grew up living around Pearson, you kinda knew being there that it was the biggest airport in Canada. And could hear it day and night. You got used to it tho. However, it wasn't located in a part of Toronto that already suffers heavily from noise & dirt pollution, and also it was located in an area that had fairly minimal traffic congestion and easy access to highways.
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ~atp~
Also, is it necessary that we expand the island airport? Is there a large demand for it?
If someone is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a new airline and telling you to increase the cap because they want to make dozens of additional flights in and out of the airport ... I would assume that a demand exists for the expansion.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by AdRiaN
If someone is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a new airline and telling you to increase the cap because they want to make dozens of additional flights in and out of the airport ... I would assume that a demand exists for the expansion.
Great, so the demand is coming from the business side, right? Where does that leave us? We're still left with the fact that increases in air traffic will cause an increase in pollution (how dramatic an increase is difficult to say) and with very valid concerns from citizens nearby and in the city in general.

Or shall we appease the financial interests of the corporate guy just because he's able to throw around a bunch of money?
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

KickIT

TRIBE Member
Demand? How about supply? Pearson can easily handle another new airline. We're only spending billions of dollars in renovations and runway expansion. Terminal 1 is practically empty. Why create even more supply? Money better spent elsewhere and the fact that this one bozo (Deluci) is hijacking this election when there plenty more critical issues is infuriating.

*c*
 

Mike Richards

TRIBE Member
It's funny that in Mississauga Hazel Mccallion doesn't even have any campaign signs. I don't knowwhy anybody would even bother running against her!
 

mingster

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by AdRiaN
If someone is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a new airline and telling you to increase the cap because they want to make dozens of additional flights in and out of the airport ... I would assume that a demand exists for the expansion.

oh, that's nice...someone is prepared to invest lots of money in a presumably private enterprise. how lovely. where is the regard for the other 90% of toronto's population that doesn't have any money and will not benefit (rather suffer) from the airport expansion? aside from the jobs it's going to create? :rolleyes:

how are the interests of these people being represented? answer is, they aren't. what happens next is a disgusting vision of this city and an that is key in the revitalization of our city.

i think once they get going with the island airport, who's to say when it's going to stop? caps on flights? yeah, sure. like those can't be modified. no longer runways...um..okay.
 
Last edited:

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by mingster
did anyone watch the debate last night? it was pretty good.
having 1000 people in the audiance is a joke and its annoying. I don't need to here the praise and geers it only plagues the flow of the debate.

Cheerleaders are for sports not for debates.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories
Top