The CEO of the Toronto Port Authority has accused CommunityAIR of  spreading myths and factually  incorrect information about the TPA and its operation of the Island Airport.

CommunityAIR has responded in detail, demonstrating that, in fact the alleged “myths” are founded in fact. The full documents are found on the CommunityAIR website, which can be accessed here: http://www.communityair.org

 The letters speak for themselves, and are worth a careful read. Here are excerpts from TPA CEO Geoff Wilson's letter, and CommunityAir's chair Brian Iler's response:

Wilson:

Myth: Taxpayers are funding the BBTCA" operations, including a planned $900,000 investment in several new noise barriers.

Fact: This is: completely false. BBTCA operations are funded through revenue received from  operators and an Airport Improvement Fee paid for by passengers using the airport.

Furthermore, BBTCA actua1Iy generates revenue for two levels of government: Last year, the TPA paid approximately $6.2 million in Payments in Lieu of Taxes to the City of Toronto, and $612,000 in royalties to the federal government.

Myth: The airport is ruining the waterfront.

Fact: Three successive annual public opinion surveys show that Torontonians support the TPA in its efforts to improve the waterfront and initiatives to improve access to the BBTCA, including a proposed pedestrian tunnel, The TPA is undertaking a wide array of initiatives to enhance the quality of the environment in the waterfront, not just at the BBTCA but throughout the harbour area. These include:

·         An agreement to purchase power from renewable sources through Bullfrog Power;

·         Investing $906,000 in sound barriers at the airport,

·         Investing $1 million to create protective islands and fish habitat wetlands at Tommy Thompson Park

·         A transition to green lubricants on TPA machinery, vessels and vehicles;

·         Aggressive enforcement of anti-idling rules for vehicles using TPA facilities;

·         Encouraging the use of shuttle buses and public transit to and from the airport,

·         Altering approach protocols for aircraft landing at the airport to burn less fuel.

Iler:

Your letter states that certain issues raised by CommunityAIR are “myths”. A myth is a fiction, or half-truth, in the meaning that you seem to attribute to it. Again, to describe our statements as myths is defamatory.

You are wrong in alleging CommunityAIR indulges in “Myths”.

Here’s why.

             “Taxpayers are funding the [Island Airport’s] operations”.

Not a myth. Reality.

The TPA is a government agency, and its assets are public assets. Use of those public assets to support the airport is taxpayer funding.

There have been massive public subsidies provided to this airport:

·                     The land it is situated on comprises some 215 acres of the most valuable land in Toronto. With water on three sides, situated in central Toronto, its market value is certainly many many millions of dollars. The TPA has made this valuable land available for the near-exclusive use of Porter for a modest sum that cannot come close to the economic rent for such property. Making government asses available at below market value is certainly considered a “tax expenditure” by the Department of Finance, we are advised. This is a direct subsidy.

·                     The TPA has paid $20 million of taxpayer money to Porter, ostensibly as damages for the cancellation of the bridge, even though Porter had not served any lawsuit on anyone.

The principles used to calculate that payment bear no resemblance to the legal principles used to calculate damages. The clear impression is that this sum was given to provide the startup capital Porter needed.

·                     The TPA has purchased two ferries, and the ferry terminals, from its public funds for the benefit of Porter primarily. $20 million subsidy.

·                     Even the proposed new tunnel will require the use of public assets to secure financing, leaving the TPA on the hook should Porter leave the airport. Is it also possible that the TPA has also agreed to assume the debt on the new terminal should Porter cease to operate out of it? That would also be a subsidy.

·                     The TPA still refuses to pay its fair share of property taxes to the City of Toronto – even with the recent “macro settlement”, the amount is now ~$29 million. Money the City needs, and the TPA does not.

We understand the fiction of “payments in lieu of taxes”. They are intended to compensate a municipality to the same level as other property taxpayers. To have resisted such payments all these year s is a scandal. This is a unilateral imposition of a subsidy for the airport onto the City.

·                     The fact that the Export Development Corporation – a federal government agency – has provided Porter with financing that it didn’t have to seek from the market, for all of its aircraft after the first four, is another massive government subsidy, direct to Porter. Up to $450 million – the actual amounts are not specified, but the range is given by EDC.

We understand that that presumably is a loan, not  a grant – it is, however, money supplied by the Government of Canada, and if Porter fails to pay, that is taxpayers’ money lost.

·                     The noise barriers are funded by the TPA – the money spent by the TPA from its public funds may, or may not, be repaid by passenger fees – many contingencies can occur that would mean those fees never materialize. The result – another subsidy.

Those noise barriers, by the way, appear (we have no details as to their design or effectiveness) to funnel noise directly to the most popular beach in Toronto – the Hanlan’s Point beach - and to the Island Yacht Club, which until recently was one of the most idyllic places to be in our City. Both of those uses will be disastrously affected by runups for 20 aircrafts’ maintenance – double the current unacceptable volumes.

Save the money and send the aircraft elsewhere for their maintenance. Runup noise does not belong anywhere at the Island Airport.

                 “Myth” – “The airport is ruining the waterfront”.

Calling this a myth in the face of everything you have heard in the last month from residents and others who value their waterfront suggests you have not been listening.

We’re not sure how an opinion can be a myth. Perhaps if it has no factual basis whatsoever.  That is most definitely not the case here: many many people feel that the TPA is ruining our waterfront. Their opinions are honestly held, based on their own experience and observations. You insult them by calling such opinions “myths”.

All of us are entitled to work to stop the TPA’s efforts to impose a noisy smelly airport on our waterfront, ruining it for all other uses. We are entitled to do so without being accused of myth-making. 

 As we speak to people along the waterfront, we find a deep fear that Toronto’s waterfront jewel is being ruined. As the noise and pollution doubles from its current level to your threatened 212 slots, the number of those who come to that conclusion will grow significantly.

We seek to protect our waterfront – before it is too late.

The tipping point at which a person concludes that the waterfront is being ruined by your airport’s operations can happen when one’s child is repeatedly awakened in the middle of the night. Or when they cannot hear a conversation around the dinner table. Or when visitors wonder how Toronto could have allowed this to happen to such a great recreational area.

I could go on – these, and more, have been recounted to me personally.

By dismissing these honestly held opinions as “Myths”, you insult all of us who hold them.