Joe argues that Porter can only survive if it is flying out of the Island Airport, and John Spragge says that Pearson already has enough air pollution and people on the Waterfront should be plagued by air pollution from planes just like the people in Malton.

These are not arguments.  They are justifications and rationalizations.  They don't hold up to reason and logic.

The hundreds of thousands of people living in the downtown are already plagued by the air pollution of people from the suburbs, Malton and Brampton included, driving downtown in their cars.  We get enough air pollution, John, we don't want any more.  Isn't it as reasonable for us to argue that point, as it is for the people of Malton to argue they are getting too much air pollution from the jets?  Why is the defense of their community legitimate, but you don't grant us the right to defend the Waterfront and our communities?

And Joe, why in the world should the profitability of Porter make any difference in the decision to allow a busy commercial airport to operate in the downtown?  Cities have the right to control land use.  They have had that right in this democratic country since Toronto was founded by Lord Simcoe.  It makes no sense to defend the right of Porter to use the Island Airport on the simple argument that the company cannot survive otherwise.

CommunityAIR is fighting for the quality of life of our community.  We say that a noisy, polluting airport, on the brink of a major expansion is incompatible with the quality of life of all Torontonians and incompatible with the creation of a clean, green Waterfront.  It must close.

Bill Freeman