You might remember that I wrote a piece this summer dealing with island security issues during the G20 summit. I was (and still am) concerned in particular with agenda item 2 (a): Future Use of the 215 acres.

You are right that it's a huge parcel of land. On the other hand, many Porter supporters maintain that the size pales in comparison to the total acreage of existing parklands on the Islands, which is around 568 to 600 acres. Like almost all pro-Porter arguments, the "we've already got enough green space on the islands" line is balderdash. Do the math. 215 + 568 = 783. That would put us in the same league as New York (Central Park = 843 acres), Vancouver (Stanley Park = 1000 acres),  San Francisco (Golden Gate Park = 1,017 acres), and London (Hyde Park/ Kensington Gardens = 675 acres).

It is almost universally acknowledged that the cachet of these wonderful cities would be severely diminished if they were bereft of their enormous, easily accessible downtown parks. Size is an important factor in the appeal of such famous urban oases, where visitors can immerse themselves in the greenery to a degree impossible in smaller parks.

In fact, I would argue the precise opposite of what the Porterites are saying. Too much space on the islands is already devoted to the transportation needs of Toronto's well-heeled.

Aside from the airport, the marinas and clubhouses of various yacht clubs occupy much prime real estate on the islands. The clubs are relatively quiet, safe and blend into the island environment –  so I am not advocating their closure. The same can hardly be said about the airport, however, and I agree that it should be replaced by  "truly spectacular"  usage.

It has been suggested in some quarters that a residential community be established on the 215 acre airport site. I believe this proposal to be utterly unimaginative. Harbourfront suffers from excessive residential density and the last thing we need on that part of the island facing Harbourfront are more homes, even if they are low-rise.

The airport (which is used by a small minority of Torontonians and by many visitors who do not have a long-term stake in this city)  should be replaced by recreational functions  that can be enjoyed by all of the city's inhabitants. Residential usage does not meet this requirement.

 Yours truly,