Certain assertions in recent comments on “balance” re: island airport (alternatively referred to euphemistically as “environmental equity” or “compromise to serve the transport needs for the city as a whole”, and so forth) deserve to be challenged.

First off, achieving “balance” is simply a non-starter. It conjures up the notion of a waterfront area as a valuable but limited resource that CAN be “fairly shared” amongst different users or “stakeholders”, residents and air travelers alike. But the dynamic nature of this situation is missed or just simply ignored … the two “stakeholders” are pitted against each other on a collision course. The resident community (including people who use the waterfront but don’t live there) is growing and commercial airports have to grow simply to survive. The shared limited resource is now constantly under siege with no end in sight.

Even then, the tired old tri-partite agreement between the three levels of government reeks of this misguided “balance” sentiment whereby a commercial airport is permitted to operate cheek by jowl with a growing waterfront community, but limited in its scope of operation in the spirit of being “fairly shared” … no “fixed link”, no jets, strict operating and noise control parameters, and traffic volume limits.

However the absurd folly of this “balance” argument is clearly evidenced by the fact that the tri-partite agreement has been more ‘honor'd in the breach than the observance’ … the constant bid to build a bridge and relax traffic volume limits, aside from the continuous breaching of operating and noise control parameters. And of course if the Toronto Board of Trade had its way, the island airport would be just like London City Airport, commuter jets and all.

The late Jane Jacobs warned of the fatuity of this thinking, and the tri-partite agreement, considering the island airport a “Trojan horse”, eventually unleashing havoc on the waterfront community in its interminable quest to grow.

David Wilson