Where is the Porter blog that includes criticisms from CommunityAIR?
I find your postings quite amusing also and often paternalistic ("I want you to have perspective about the things you do not understand") and yes sometimes rude.
Why do you think CommunityAIR members would be so naive as to support the idea of jets? I know you say 'some can be quieter.' Do you really think those who follow the Port Authority will trust them to allow only quiet jets, when they have allowed Q400s and other planes that violate noise limitations and STOL rules?
I do not feel that CAIR is as biased as you say, they post both perspectives on the blog including yours. It is however, a blog whose purpose is to further the CommunityAIR campaign. I have yet to see an open unbiased dialogue hosted by the Port Authority or Porter Air.
I know not how many people I have met who know nothing about the issues of the airport or are completely misinformed. This is why the TPA polls are not valid. If you tell people all the information, such as that the tunnel will cost taxpayers $40 million that will be taken out of Toronto infrastructure funding that would otherwise be used for roads and subways, I suspect you will find much more opposition. The Port Authority regularly misleads the public. This creates mistrust in those who follow their activities. Until Porter Air reveals its books to the public, the Port Authority returns its documents such as meeting minutes to their unedited form, honesty and transparency are present at the TPA, and the TPA respects the rules set out by the Tripartite Agreement, an air of mistrust will continue. Forgive me if this leads me to suspect that you may be paid for your blog writing.
How coincidental is it that the Star publishes an (extremely biased) op-piece supporting jets, when Porter is trying to negotiate deals to be able to land at American airports that would like to have reciprocal landing rights at TIA, and then Joe comes out in favour of jets? And you argue that we should hop on this because we object noise and pollution? Do you only read the headlines Joe? Objections to the airport are about way more than pollution and noise, they are about alleged corruption at the TPA, about misleading the public, about squandering tax-payers money.
The federal government has sold Toronto's waterfront out. Handing the Port Authority back to the City and closing the airport is the only way to move the waterfront towards the spectacular place that it could be.
Joanna
Why do you think CommunityAIR members would be so naive as to support the idea of jets? I know you say 'some can be quieter.' Do you really think those who follow the Port Authority will trust them to allow only quiet jets, when they have allowed Q400s and other planes that violate noise limitations and STOL rules?
I do not feel that CAIR is as biased as you say, they post both perspectives on the blog including yours. It is however, a blog whose purpose is to further the CommunityAIR campaign. I have yet to see an open unbiased dialogue hosted by the Port Authority or Porter Air.
I know not how many people I have met who know nothing about the issues of the airport or are completely misinformed. This is why the TPA polls are not valid. If you tell people all the information, such as that the tunnel will cost taxpayers $40 million that will be taken out of Toronto infrastructure funding that would otherwise be used for roads and subways, I suspect you will find much more opposition. The Port Authority regularly misleads the public. This creates mistrust in those who follow their activities. Until Porter Air reveals its books to the public, the Port Authority returns its documents such as meeting minutes to their unedited form, honesty and transparency are present at the TPA, and the TPA respects the rules set out by the Tripartite Agreement, an air of mistrust will continue. Forgive me if this leads me to suspect that you may be paid for your blog writing.
How coincidental is it that the Star publishes an (extremely biased) op-piece supporting jets, when Porter is trying to negotiate deals to be able to land at American airports that would like to have reciprocal landing rights at TIA, and then Joe comes out in favour of jets? And you argue that we should hop on this because we object noise and pollution? Do you only read the headlines Joe? Objections to the airport are about way more than pollution and noise, they are about alleged corruption at the TPA, about misleading the public, about squandering tax-payers money.
The federal government has sold Toronto's waterfront out. Handing the Port Authority back to the City and closing the airport is the only way to move the waterfront towards the spectacular place that it could be.
Joanna
Comments