David Miller and David Crombie hate the Island Airport, and so does the Board of Health

6 thoughts on “David Miller and David Crombie hate the Island Airport, and so does the Board of Health”

1. Once again, Toronto Life comes across as “Privileged Life”, with a great bias towards the executive class. It doesn’t matter that jet fuel tankers will run through neighbourhoods and beside schools, or that the area around the Island Airport is a hot spot for 15% more air pollution, or that preschool children have asthma from idling taxis and the nearby airport.

   Also, the flight paths of the jets will actually force the future height of the buildings in their vicinity to be much lower, and alter the the inner harbour by extending the runway to negatively affect the sailing school.

   The Medical Officer of Health, Dr. David McKeown, made the right decision for the waterfront, which will grow the job market in Toronto far more than Porter has, or will. Your bias is showing, and your reporters have not crunched the numbers on the waterfront development and investment in comparison to the jet expansion. Almost $1 billion will be needed to change the configuration for jets- our taxes which will go to a private company.

   As Waterfrontoronto says, “This is a generational decision that will affect the balance on the waterfront to live, work and play.” Some of the greatest city builders of Toronto spoke last night against this airport expansion, and I see no coverage in Toronto Life of this panel.

2. Steve Kuperman, why be so vague in your article? The airport’s “possible negative impact” you say. Read the Report. Even in it’s current form, the airport contributes to significant health risks. The TBoH’s unanimous recommendation is not mere “criticism” it’s a Report is based on FACTS.

3. What’s with the sophomoric headline? Why are you trying so hard to perpetuate Robert Deluce’s misleading PR claim that those who oppose expanding the Island Airport actually want to bulldoze it? Toronto Life’s coverage of this issue has been very disappointing.

4. No one is promoting that we “…just knock it down…” thats, your interpolation. The problem is expanding BBTCA into a jetport. Why re-industrialize a waterfront with an international airport when we are in the process of spending billions building a mixed use waterfront for tens of thousands of residents with schools, parks, community centres, retail facilities etc? The airport is incompatible. As an example, 3 tanker truck loads containing 60,000 litres of aviation fuel, daily, trundle past apartment blocks, a school, parks and onto the airport ferry. Annually, two million passengers and thousands of taxis pour in and out of the airport and the plan is to double that traffic. Airports are dirty facilities. They don’t belong adjacent to where families raise kids, and people enjoy the outdoors on a waterfront And airports sure don’t belong in a place where tens of thousands of Torontonians gather during hot summer months for music festivals,sailing and other recreational activities.

   Deluce does buy plenty of ads in Toronto Life; instead of just shilling for Porter, why not broaden your editorial position and take a look at why people around the city are responding to No Jets TO ?

5. Maybe if all the whiners had supported development at Buttonville or Downsview for aviation purposes this wouldn’t be a story.

   Apparently you know nothing about aviation fuel – JetA1 is less flammable than your car fuel – which is delivered through out the city without any adverse affect.

   The boating area your whining about has been out of bounds for boaters for decades – you can’t now or in the past use the area that is destined to be a runway extension.

   Finally – CS100 is coming, don’t like it – move while your condo values are still high!! See yah

6. What a puerile headline and article.

   What is true is the airport is a polluting industrial use that is located in the middle of a waterfront that is residential and increasingly being transformed into a desirable location for relaxation and recreation for citizens of Toronto and tourists.

   When that land ceases to be used as an airport or when the tripartite agreement expires in 2033 it should revert to the use that it is zoned for ­– parkland. In the meantime it can continue as the popular boutique airport for the briefcase crowd but the problems of pollution, traffic snarling and other issues need to be addressed now.

   The airport cannot be allowed to dominate the waterfront. This is the position that the city staff report recommended, Waterfront Toronto has taken and is the position of NoJetsTO.

Comments are closed.