Radmila has some things to say about the Porter airport expansion. ⇒
28 April 2009, late afternoon
The people living on the Island need to get over themselves.
This is a post from my link log: If you click the title of this post you will be taken the web page I am discussing.
really?
Am i the only one who thinks that these residents were there first? and that the airport is there only because the city has no jurisdiction to block it? I don’t doubt that the airport makes it easier for Toronto to carry out businesses. And it probably makes good planning sense to put an airport downtown. Why don’t we do this the fairest way — which is to expropriate their leases (which I assume would cost A LOT)…
Why are people supportive of other community opposition like the one against airport link? Because the Parkdale people outnumber the beneficiaries of the link?
On that note, check out the Islanders community website. http://torontoisland.org/CommunityAssociation/tabid/186/Default.aspx
by tiff on April 28 2009, 5:46 pm #
Here’s the thing about the islanders. They live off the shore of Toronto… a city with millions of people, and they need to get with that program, not the other way around…whatever their leases say.
Their leases cover the land, not the air and sky.
From the bitching about the dance clubs and boat cruises in the summer, to the island airport.
If they want to live country-like, they need to move their asses out to the country.
Meanwhile, they’re still located a short way offshore from a big city. They can’t expect the progress of the city to hinge on the whims of a tiny community.
Yeah, opposition wins in numbers. Majority rules.
Why should a couple of hundred residents dictate how the whole downtown core is configured?
Because that’s the way it’s always been?
Puleeez.
by radmila on April 28 2009, 5:59 pm #
The Mississaugas were there first. Hah. Anyway, the city can tear down Regent park and redistribute people all over the city, yet it can’t build an airport that doesn’t actually displace anyone currently living on the Island. I don’t live on the Island, so I don’t know how noisy it actually is, but the globe had this to say:
And yeah, they live on an Island next to downtown Toronto. WTF?
by ramanan on April 28 2009, 6:04 pm #
Majority rules, and that’s why we have planning processes to protect minority’s interest. That’s also why we have the Expropriation Act.
Regent Park demolition and redevelopment went through the planning process. The airport did not — because airport is within the federal government’s jurisdiction, which is beyond the municipal government’s authority. The city has no authority to approve nor object to the building of a landing strip or an airport because that’s within the realm of aviation (BNA Act). If you have the space, you can have a landing strip on your property in the middle of a residential area. the city can’t do anything.
If federalism didn’t get in the way, then zoning probably would not have allowed such close proximity of residential development to the airport for various safety and noise concerns. Whether there are such concerns in real life — I don’t know. But taking the words of Porter is not the most objective way of doing it.
Isn’t the whole point of planning to avoid conflicts so that our court system wouldn’t get bogged down by petty neighbours fighting about noise and incompatible land uses? Your argument is that because there’s a greater good for the rest of the city, these 200 people should put up with the airport? But in all other development approvals, you have the committee of adjustment allowing you to petition even the smallest issue like your neighbour moving his house 2 ft closer than zoning allows. Why don’t these residents get to speak up when they’re getting commercial flights in and out of their community?
by tiff on April 28 2009, 6:59 pm #
The fact of the matter was that a deal was made, how was that deal made? …and if it was not legal, then why did Deluce get such a payout?
Is this use of the Expropriation Act 100 years old?
What sticks in my craw is the support of “green” councilors who are against this when it’s actually more green to keep the airport downtown for business travel rather than having businessmen coming to and fro from the airport from downtown and back again…all for what?
A few people who live on the island? When people in Malton put up with it all the time?
Anyone will tell you that after a while, you don’t even notice the noise. I grew up right on Queen Street with the streetcars going all day and night. People would come over and ask how I could stand it…stand what? I got used to it.
I don’t think that the progress of the city should hinge on a tiny community’s petty grievances about noise.
Sell your house on the island and move to Muskoka if you want nature.
Oh…but, you don’t want to give up the view? Put up with it then.
Especially in these times when it’s essential to employ people and make some progress for this city.
Ditto for those nimbys on the bluffs who don’t want the wind turbines.
Everyone is for progress unless it inconveniences them personally.
by radmila on April 28 2009, 10:17 pm #
“…and if it was not legal, then why did Deluce get such a payout?”
because he has some very smart lawyers working for him.
and no, the expropriation act is in use everyday, all the time.
by tiff on April 29 2009, 12:09 am #
Let them fight what comes, using the expropriation act.
A lease until 2092?
It’s still a bargain at $36,000 and $46,000, considering what it costs to buy property or live in the downtown core with all the other hassles that mainland property owners deal with…and they deal with the noise too.
I don’t have the sympathy for their plight that you do.
My family owns property on Queen Street West…during Caribana the noise and parking situation is ridiculous. Does my family member bitch? No. He sucks it up, because other people have rights too.
He pays over-inflated taxes, and puts up with city enforced bullshit.
Live and let live.
Something islanders don’t seem to comprehend.
by radmila on April 29 2009, 12:40 am #