CommunityAIR

Why doesn't Ford collect this debt instead of cutting children's programs?

2012-01-20T00:59:32Z

A letter from Geri Doherty re: CommunityAIR's recent press release on the TPA's tax arrears.

I commend you on your persistence, your thoroughness and your dedication. You have tracked all the delays, inconsistencies and outright evasion of the long-standing Porter debt. I am puzzled by three aspects of this.

Why does Mayor Ford not actively pursue this legitimate 45 million dollar, five-year debt instead of trying to balance his budget with cuts to children's programs, snow and garbage removal and cuts to long-term care?

Why haven't Torontonians demanded that the airport property tax bill be paid long ago? Would any of them be allowed to ignore payment especially when they were planning to spend money on renovations? Yet as featured in the January 11,2012 Toronto Star, Porter apparently has money to start construction on a tunnel to the airport in a matter of weeks. The four-minute ferry boat ride paid for with our property tax debt money needs replacing with a tunnel described as a "spectacular piece of superstructure".

The third puzzling aspect is the lack of pressure from the press. We are still hearing in the press about the fake Muskoka G20 Lake and Huntsville's G8 legacy largesse, and this week's Maclean's magazine features 99 ways that the government has misspent our money, but there is no mention of Porter Airport's delinquent taxes.

I would encourage everyone to read Brian Iler's Press Release and the documented data supporting it. I'm sending this letter to as many people as I feel might have some ideas as to what should be done and who might be inclined to act on them including Mayor Ford and his councillors and our MPP for Trinity- Spadina: Rosario Marchese - rmarchese-co@ndp.on.ca, as well as our MP for Trinity -Spadina: Olivia Chow - chowo1c@parl.gc.ca.

CAIR's Empire Club leaflet: "Gravy plane" must stop

2012-01-17T21:17:26Z

Island Airport Noise and Pollution: Destroying Toronto’s Waterfront

Toronto’s waterfront is our city’s jewel with over 15 million visitors each year. Governments are spending millions to make it even more beautiful. When Waterfront Toronto’s current redevelopment projects are completed, about 100,000 people will live and work on the waterfront.
Yet what do visitors to our waterfront find? An increasingly noisy, polluting airport that conflicts with every other use of our waterfront.
Noise from planes at the Island Airport is a constant and vexing presence from early morning until late at night for all Waterfront recreational users and residents, but particularly for the daily lives of Bathurst Quay residents. Traffic congestion, illegal parking and idling vehicles choke this residential neighbourhood.

Constraints Unenforced
Waterfront residents were given legally binding assurances that:
·   Only short‑take‑off‑and‑landing (STOL) aircraft are permitted for commercial flights from the Island Airport. Q400 aircraft (flown by Porter and Air Canada from the Island Airport) are not STOL.
·   Aircraft breaching an objective definition of “excessive noise” are prohibited. Q400 aircraft breach that prohibition.
The Federal Government and its Port Authority refuse to enforce those noise constraints.

“Living” with the Island airport
Residents have lodged many many complaints. Rather than addressing them, the Port Authority now even refuses to publicly post them and their “responses”. These are typical:
·   “Loud engine noise prior to 6:45am, loud sustained noise straddling 7:18am and 8:34am”
Response: “Airport Security was unable to identify any unusual noises at times noted in comment”
·   “Really loud engine noise at 6:45am. Again loud at 21:13 and 21:25”
Response: “Normal operations”
·   “Excessive airplane noise. I can’t put my child to sleep with that kind of noise!”
Response: “We were unable to identify the cause of the noise noted”
·   “Continuous excessively loud engine noise, primarily of airplanes idling, also taxiing, take-off and landings for over half an hour”
Response: “Although there were several landings and take-offs, there were no unusual airport activities during time noted”

The “Gravy Plane”
The federal government has been far too generous to the Island Airport. It has:
·   paid $35 Million in dubious “compensation” for the cancelling of the bridge(of which Porter received $20 million)
·   given Porter virtually exclusive use (186 of 202 “slots”) of 215 acres of prime waterfront land
·   purchased two ferries, and terminals, for another $20 million
·   provided in excess of $488 million, long term, low interest financing (4.92% weighted average) for most of Porter’s aircraft
·   allowed the Port Authority to fall $45 million into arrears on its City tax bill
·   legalized the Port Authority’s contemplated pedestrian tunnel – to cost more than $45 million – that facilitates even more Island Airport expansion.
The “gravy plane” has to stop.

For more information, visit CommunityAIR’s website and blog: www.communityair.org

CAIR denounces noise, pollution at Empire Club speech

2012-01-17T20:52:55Z

CommunityAIR press release, January 17, 2012:

Opponents of the continuing expansion of the Island Airport leafleted Porter CEO Robert Deluce’s speech at the Empire Club today.

“We thought it important that attendees get a more complete understanding of the impact Island Airport expansion has had on our Waterfront and its residents than they would get from Mr. Deluce.” said Brian Iler, Chair of CommunityAIR. “The noise, pollution and traffic congestion increase daily.”

While the group was handing out leaflets in the Royal York Hotel to those coming to hear Deluce, two security guards appeared and forcibly evicted one of the CommunityAIR volunteers–for leafleting

“This was a public meeting–even I hadreceived notice of it-I would have thought that the Empire Club and the Hotel would be more respectful of free speech.” commented Iler.

The leaflet (published in a separate blog posting), points to

the broken promises of noise constraints,
the impact the expanding airport has had ‑ particularly on Bathurst Quay residents, and
the “gravy plane” of federal government largesse that has made the expansion possible.

Concerns about lead in aviation fuel

2012-01-17T00:54:02Z

While leaded gasoline appears to be a diminishing problem for our waterfront, as Porter squeezes out the remaining flight schools, this letter from Earthjustice may be of interest to some of our readers:

Do you live within a mile of an airport used by general aviation aircraft? Do you feel threatened by the possible negative health impacts resulting from lead exposure due to lead in aviation gasoline? Do you have anxiety about lead exposure; especially exposure to children? Read through this email and then contact Avi Allison, Litigation Assistant for Earthjustice, who would be happy to provide more information to anyone who is interested - aallison@earthjustice.org .

I am writing on behalf of Earthjustice, a non-profit environmental law firm dedicated to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. Earthjustice is currently involved in a case on behalf of Friends of the Earth regarding the continued use of lead in aviation gas (avgas). Despite the elimination of lead from motor vehicle gas and the widespread acknowledgment that no quantity of airborne lead can be deemed safe, airplanes continue to emit tons of lead every year. The impacts of these emissions are particularly strong in communities near airports. Over 20,000 airports still use leaded avgas, and millions of people in nearby communities suffer the consequences.

Five years ago, Friends of the Earth filed a petition seeking to compel the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate lead in aviation fuel. Since the EPA failed to respond to this petition, Earthjustice recently filed a notice of intent to sue, and are hoping to file suit within the next month. As they prepare for this filing, they are reaching out to individuals and organizations who are concerned about lead poisoning and aviation pollution. There are opportunities for stakeholders to speak to the press and to get involved in other ways. Avi Allison, Litigation Assistant for Earthjustice would be happy to provide more information to anyone who is interested.

__________________________________
Avi Allison
Litigation Assistant
Earthjustice
156 William Street
Suite 800
New York, New York 10038
212-791-1881 ext. 8230
Fax: 212-918-1556

www.earthjustice.org

Background on TPA's tax arrears

2012-01-13T17:53:06Z

CommunityAIR's letter of March, 2011 to Mayor Ford and Information on TPA's tax arrears:

Dear Mayor Ford:
With our City’s current serious financial challenges, we write to encourage you to apply your
considerable talent for getting things done, to collect the money owing to the City for
property taxes by the Toronto Port Authority.
By our calculations (see below), the amount owing is approximately $43 million, a very
significant sum. Arrears have been accumulating since the TPA’s creation in 1999.
To the City’s credit, over many years, it has steadily and doggedly pursued the TPA through
the labyrinthine PILTs appeal process within the Federal government, joining in a successful
appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada by the City of Montreal, and more recently,
obtaining a victory the Federal Court of Canada (see below). The effect of these decisions is
that the City is entitled to be paid property taxes by the TPA on the same basis as all other
taxpayers.
It’s now time for you to let the TPA know that the gravy train it has been riding for so long
is over – like every other property owner in our City, it must stop being a tax deadbeat and
pay its fair share of taxes.
Yours truly,
Brian Iler, Chair

How the Port Authority’s Tax Arrears Add Up
The 2008 TPA financial statements (found at
http://www.torontoport.com/REPORTS/Finance_2008_ENG.PDF) reveal that property
taxes claimed as owing by the TPA to the City for the years 1999 to 2008 were $39, 588,000
– an average of$4.5 million per year. To the end of 2010, then, that figure is$48 million.
Over the eleven years since the TPA was first imposed on the City, the TPA has paid the City
a total of just $6,492,835, for all of its properties – prior to the November 2009 “macro”
settlement between the TPA and the City, just $73,749 had been paid by TPA for the entire
1999-2009 period. See Report to City Council on the “macro” settlement at

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-25601.pdf

That leaves $41.5 million outstanding to the end of 2010.
Just for the 215-acre Island Airport lands, based on current property tax rates and MPAC’s
valuation, the TPA should have been paying about $1.4 million per year to the City –- or
$15,400,000 for the years since 1999.
At the same time, the City has an obligation, which, unlike the Port Authority, it is
honouring, to pay a net of$2.6 million annual capital and operating payments to the TPA
in 2010, 2011, & 2012 (see:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-25601.pdf

The June 24, 2010 Federal Court of Canada Decision
The Federal Court of Canada decision is at

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2010/2010fc687/2010fc687.html

It described the previous adverse decision of the Federal Disputes Advisory Panel on the
amount of taxes the TPA should pay as follows:
The problematic areas are significant and multiple. They cover areas of jurisdiction,
of law and of procedural fairness. They include a failure to appreciate the
significance of evidence and they contain conclusions as to specific properties which
are unreasonable:
The Federal Court of Canada decision referred the matter back – again – to the Federal
Disputes Advisory Panel.
To our knowledge, no new hearing before that Panel has been scheduled.

TPA to spend $45 million on tunnel but won't pay city overdue taxes

2012-01-13T17:20:35Z

CommunityAIR press release, January 11, 2012

The Toronto Port Authority, a Harper Government agency, today announced construction is to start in February on a pedestrian tunnel to the Island Airport.

“What an appalling use of public resources. For no public benefit.” said Brian Iler, Chair of CommunityAIR.
“If they have access to that kind of money, we insist that the TPA pay the City the longstanding taxes it owes to the City. And then, perhaps, Mayor Ford will deign to keep our libraries open.”

The tunnel that was originally projected to cost as little as $20 million (Star June 3, 2009) went up to $38 million in August 2009, and $45 million in 2010. Significantly, the TPA failed to reveal today what the current cost estimate is, or just how much in the way of public resources will be devoted to it.

According to Porter CEO Robert Deluce, this tunnel is a key component of yet more airport expansion:
“…But Mr. Deluce said the TPA isn't constrained by the existing cap, and could increase the total number of commercial slots available to 300 within three years, if a pedestrian tunnel is built by 2012 or so. [our emphasis] "It's very much dependent on improvements to infrastructure," he said after a presentation to Insight Information
Co.'s airline investment conference in Toronto [ as reported in the November 16, 2010 Globe and Mail].”

The TPA has consistently refused to pay its fair share of property taxes to the City. – in excess of $45 million is claimed by the City, according to public sources. Last March 11,CommunityAIR asked Mayor Rob Ford to “apply your considerable talent for getting things done,” and collect them. He failed to respond, and, to our knowledge, nothing has been done since then to collect.

“If the TPA has the kind of money it takes to build this tunnel, it shoulould be paying its taxes.” said Iler.

Protests at Germany's Largest Airport

2012-01-06T05:23:54Z

New Runway Noise Enrages Frankfurt Residents

By Matthias Bartsch

Lawmakers in the German state of Hesse apparently underestimated the noise pollution that would come from a new runway they advocated at the Frankfurt Airport. Residents feel they were deceived, and a protest movement is swelling. But there may be no solution. In fact, the noise is likely to increase.

The protesters are starting to feel their own power, a little more every Monday when they meet to demonstrate. The participating citizens' initiatives say "at least 5,000 people" were at Frankfurt Airport's Terminal 1 last week; the police put their own more conservative estimate at 3,000.

There are a striking number of gray heads among the demonstrators, but also families with children, occupants of row houses and of pricey mansions. They have been demonstrating ever since the new northwestern landing strip opened at the Frankfurt Airport in late October, marching angrily through the terminal building with drums and whistles, holding up signs that display a variety of place names from throughout the surrounding Rhine-Main region, which is named after the area's two famous rivers.

Their weekly demonstrations are having an effect, too. Last Monday evening, as the protesters gathered beneath the large black flight information board to take up a version of "Silent Night" with lyrics expressing themes of noise, smells and enraged citizens, Volker Bouffier, governor of the federal state of Hesse, was in the nearby state capital Wiesbaden doing damage control. Bouffier, a member of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), was at the state chancellery to meet with the head of Fraport, the company which operates Frankfurt Airport, as well as representatives from airlines and air traffic control, in a desperate search for ways to keep the skies above the Rhine-Main even just a bit quieter.

The meeting, announced by Bouffier just three days beforehand, served as a tacit admission of serious negligence. With its focus on creating growth and jobs, the state government had for years underestimated just how extensively noise from the airport expansion would impact local residents, only to discover to its shock that it may have sentenced its own voters to a life smothered in aircraft noise.

Growing Anger

Bouffier's government is watching with horror as the level of rage grows among its own voters from week to week -- in the Sachsenhausen district of Frankfurt, for example, or in the tree-lined district of Lerchesberg, where airplanes now skim just a few hundred meters overhead, often only a few minutes apart.

Upscale Lerchesberg, located on the southern outskirts of the city, borders directly on woodland. Doctors, lawyers, judges, engineers and famous athletes all have their homes here. One local resident, a PhD-holding professional, recently told a Frankfurt daily that he would even be willing to rent his villa's attic apartment to al-Qaida terrorists, if they would just turn their attention to the airplanes thundering overhead. One mother wrote a heartbreaking letter to the editor about her two-year-old son, who now wakes up at 5 a.m. from the noise of the jets flying over their roof, crying, "Mama, it's too loud!" Schoolchildren went on the radio to describe how lessons have to be interrupted every few minutes as airplane noise fills their classrooms even with the windows closed.

Many of the protesters say they could never have imagined it would be this loud. And many members of the government in Wiesbaden likewise seem only now to be realizing that schools, preschools, nursing homes and doctors' offices all lie within the new approach path to Germany's busiest international airport.

Surprised By Both Noise and Reactions

Fear that this unexpected wave of outrage might even exceed the level of protest directed at Stuttgart 21, a controversial infrastructure project in the neighboring state of Baden-Württemberg, is putting regional politicians on the defensive. Hesse's Economy Minister Dieter Posch of the business-friendly Free Democratic Party (FDP), for example, until now one of the strongest proponents of the airport expansion, said notably: "The level of additional noise, as well as the people's reactions, surprised us in their intensity."

That's an admission that could have far-reaching consequences, since Posch is head of the government body that was responsible for approving the expansion project, and for estimating the noise impact correctly and lawfully. If the regulatory authority itself underestimated the noise level, then the question is now whether construction of the landing strip in its current form should have been allowed at all.

Many local residents feel in any case that their political representatives deceived them. Bouffier's predecessor, Roland Koch, also a member of the CDU, pushed mightily for the project during the last decade with a "guarantee" that the controversial expansion would be tied to an "absolute nighttime flight ban" from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. for the entire airport. "No new landing strip without a nighttime flight ban," Koch, now head of the construction company Bilfinger Berger, spent years promising whenever the slightest opportunity presented itself.

Support Crumbles

But just before the construction permit came through, then-governor Koch changed course. The nighttime flight ban could not be legally enforced, he announced. Yet instead of accepting the consequences as promised and calling off construction of the landing strip, Koch made vague statements about "exceptions to the nighttime flight ban."

Those exceptions, made mainly at the urging of Lufthansa, the country's flag carrier and one of the airport's most powerful customers, were later ruled unacceptable by Hesse's highest administrative court, whose judges insisted on a complete flight ban at night. But instead of accepting the ruling in favor of the area's residents, Hesse's economy ministry appealed the decision, which will be heard by Germany's Federal Administrative Court in March. The official rationale from Bouffier's government says this is simply a matter of "legal certainty."

In the face of their citizens' outrage, though, even the front of Fraport supporters within Wiesbaden's governmental coalition is crumbling. The first to leave the fold, at least temporarily, was Bouffier's interior minister, Boris Rhein. The 39-year-old CDU politician, never noticeably concerned by the flight noise issue, is running for mayor of Frankfurt in March. It seems he saw his chances of success shrinking within the affected city districts, and last Monday Rhein suddenly came down on the side of the residents, calling for a nighttime flight ban "without ifs, ands or buts," as well as further limitations on usage of the landing strip during the hours of 10 to 11 p.m. and 5 to 6 a.m.

Noise Reduction Unlikely

CDU members report that Rhein received "a huge amount of flak" at the next meeting of the party's state parliament group for his tacit challenge to Bouffier. The mayoral candidate's noise-fighting proposals, which the Green Party then seized the chance to put to a vote in the state parliament, were resoundingly rejected by Rhein's fellow CDU members. Outmaneuvered, the interior minister kept his silence from then on.

But peace has by no means returned to the state's CDU-FDP coalition. The next to break ranks was the FDP's leader within the state parliament, Florian Rentsch. If he has his way, Rentsch said, there will soon be "zero nighttime flights."

The government of Hesse is now under considerable pressure to find alternatives that would limit the burden on local residents, but Governor Bouffier came away sobered from his crisis meeting with flight experts. The assembled experts and stakeholders had made it clear, he said, that it would not be possible to implement his promise to achieve a "significant noise reduction" for those in the immediate vicinity of the airport through technical means in the foreseeable future.

Airport operator Fraport, in which the state of Hesse and the city of Frankfurt hold a majority share, wants to use the new runway to increase the number of takeoffs and landings from just under 90 to over 120 per hour, which in turn means a considerable increase in noise. Bouffier's proposal to mitigate the noise to some degree by funding the installation of thicker window glass in nearby houses is not exactly taking his voter base by storm. Well-insulated walls and modern triple-glazed windows are already standard in most homes in the prosperous districts of southern Frankfurt, yet the menacing drone of the jets still finds its way inside.

Residents Consider Moving Out

One example that demonstrates the coalition's helplessness in the face of increasing protest is the proposal to increase the angle of approach for the new landing strip from 3 to 3.2 percent. This would allow the jets to approach at a slightly higher elevation, but specialists in the field believe a difference of 40 to 50 meters (130 to 165 feet) in flight elevation would hardly be noticeable to those living near the airport. At the same time, air traffic experts warn, it might well bring grief to even more residents, since increased height of the source unfortunately also increases the area affected by the noise.

The whole matter has started raising fundamental questions. "How is it possible that a runway like this one, bordered on both sides by residential neighborhoods, is even being built at all?" wonders Jochen Krauss, a 53-year-old trauma surgeon who lives in the Niederrad district of Frankfurt. The effect is worse than that of a highway built directly through an existing residential area without concrete noise barriers along it, he says. "Aircraft noise triggers people's instinct for flight," he adds, and those who live under such conditions in the long term will "definitely suffer damage to their health."

Residents of Niederrad are plagued by noise not only from the new approach route, but also from an existing takeoff path that passes directly over Niederrad and will remain unchanged despite the additional impact of the new route. The result is that residents live with constant flight noise, no matter which way the wind is blowing, 365 days a year, often at over 80 decibels for each flight that passes overhead. "Really, the only thing left to do is to move away," Krauss says.

Still, local politicians believe strict usage restrictions on the new runway could at least reduce the noise. They have united across party lines to approach the state government in Wiesbaden with their proposals for extensive adjustments to the plan: significantly expanded quiet hours and limiting use of the new runway to lighter, quieter short-haul and medium-haul planes.

Translated from the German by Ella Ornstein

Choose high-speed rail over F-35s

2011-11-24T03:22:59Z

By Ken Gray, Ottawa Citizen November 23, 2011

Canada faces a much clearer and more present danger than the threat from anything the F-35 fighter jets will shoot down.

That's the hollowing out of Canada's manufacturing industry in southern Ontario and Quebec. Without the tax revenue that vital economic sector produces, Canada might not be able to purchase the military hardware and execute the effective foreign policy the country needs. If Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is concerned about the federal deficit, why is his government spending between $9 billion and $30 billion for the F-35 jets that now even U.S. hawks are concerned will cost, over their life cycle, more than $1 trillion south of the border? Would not this money be better spent to build the infrastructure to spur development of the Canadian economy so the federal government could afford jets sometime in the future?

So rather than save $9 billion or $30 billion on jets or, say, $2.5 billion over five years for provincial and federal governments on new crime legislation in the face of declining law-breaking statistics, the federal and provincial politicians have thrown cold water on one infrastructure project that could stimulate and revolutionize Canada's critical economic corridor from Toronto to Ottawa to Montreal - the high-speed rail project, the subject of a recent feasability report. One could understand the province dropping the bullet train; it has an enormous deficit and massive future financial problems dealing with health-care costs. But the federal government choosing $9 billion in fighter planes over $9 billion in rail, stimulus and infrastructure? Bad choice.

That rail project would pour money into a region that badly needs help. The reasons for the sector's troubles are well known. The long-term increase in the price of oil, and the fact that Western Canada sits on top of the second largest pool of the stuff in the world, is boosting the value of the loonie. That makes exporting high-tech products or attracting movie projects on the basis of a 70-cent dollar a foggy memory. A dollar at par with its U.S. counterpart makes exporting or attracting industry (Ontario produces more autos than any other state or province in North America) very difficult.

So let's just say that Western Canada or Hibernia's Newfoundland don't need federal stimulus now with oil profits gushing in. Central Canada? That's a different matter.

In the U.S. despite Congress chopping much of the six-year, $53-billion Obama plan for nationwide, high-speed rail, a bullet train is still likely to be built between Boston and Washington while the Anaheim to San Francisco high-speed line is expected to be completed by 2017 with $3.9 billion in federal funding. But then the U.S. has always been better at spending a dollar to make two than Canada ever has been.

A 1996 report on the U.S. Interstate Highway System by the American Highway Users Alliance shows what infrastructure spending can do. That report said the freeway system, begun in 1956, produced $6 in economic benefit for every dollar spent. "It is not an exaggeration, but a simple statement of fact, that the interstate highway system is an engine that has driven 40 years of unprecedented prosperity and positioned the United States to remain the world's pre-eminent power into the 21st century," the report said on the 40th anniversary of the Interstate system. Over those four decades, the freeway network cost about $329 billion in 1996 dollars.

But it also revolutionized transportation, an important factor in industrial production. Reliable freeways enabled industry to adopt ontime delivery which cut the amount of warehouse space and labour to maintain it. Efficient highways meant lower costs for shipping to markets or for receiving raw materials. And it facilitated door-todoor delivery of important goods and raw materials that the old, slow train system could not. Imagine where Ontario would be today were it not for Highway 401 replacing the antiquated two-lane Highway 2 through the heart of the province.

High-speed rail could do the same for travel that now-dated freeways did for commerce. At a time when high-cost oil is making air and road transportation much more expensive (perhaps in the future prohibitively so), high-speed rail takes travellers straight to urban downtowns without the slowness of driving or the high-cost and awkward land transfers of air. High-speed rail is the 21st-century Highway 401 of transportation in contrast to the old Highway 2 that is last-century's road and air.

Yet Flaherty's government persists in buying F-35s or enacting expensive crime legislation instead of spending $9 billion on revenue-producing high-speed rail. The line would bring together people to facilitate the interchange of ideas, something that, with an Ottawa stop on the line, could encourage this government to right its misplaced priorities.

Ken Gray is a former member of the Citizen editorial board. His column runs on Wednesdays and he blogs daily at The Bulldog on ottawacitizen. com. He welcomes your emails at kengray20@gmail.com.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

The solution? High-speed rail

2011-11-16T16:11:47Z

What about the people who live near Pearson, Bill? What makes you think that the working class communities around Pearson can put up with noise and pollution better than the residents of waterfront condos? If you want to reduce aviation, you have to make high speed rail work at an economic and environmentally acceptable cost. I suspect you'll find that quite difficult, but simply demanding the authorities move the airport away from you does not make for an acceptable solution.

John Spragge

They call it the "Tipping Point"

2011-11-08T01:55:14Z

Or at least that used to be the trendy term to describe the moment when problems accumulate to the point where change is essential. When I was a kid we used to call it by a more colourful term: "the straw that broke the camel's back." Whatever the term, the noise at the Island Airport is reaching an unbearable level.

From the end of curfew at 6:45 in the morning until the time the curfew is reimposed, at 11:00 pm, the airport is a constant hum of activity. I was out for a walk this evening and for the half hour that I strolled around the community there was constant noise coming from the airport. Sometime it was the sound of a plane taking off or landing but more often it was an unending barrage of sound from engines warming up on the tarmac.

Why, all of a sudden are we reaching the tipping point for noise at the Island Airport? There can only be one explanation. The number of aircraft and their take-offs, landings, engine run-ups and constant taxiing are now causing so much noise that it has gone beyond the unbearable.

Porter presently has 24 Bombardier Q400 planes that are operating out of the Island. Robert Deluce, Porter's CEO, said in a recent interview that another two aircraft will be delivered this month. He also said that more planes are on the way. Air Canada also operates two planes out of the Island. Do the addition. That makes 28 planes now and more to come. It is more than a tipping point. The noise is off the scale.

A busy airport in the centre of the largest city in the country violates every planning principle that has been developed. It deteriorates the quality of life, adds substantially to air pollution and is fast ruining the Waterfront, the jewel in the crown of the city's part system and the largest, most accessible, recreation area in Toronto, possibly the GTA.

And it is not like there are no alternatives. Pearson International Airport is underutilized. Recently the Greater Toronto Airport Authority invested $4 billion in improving the runways and terminals at Pearson. That is where Porter should go. The company can carry on its business at Pearson.

When are we going to have rational planning in the City of Toronto? When are we going to build on the city's greatest asset, its quality of life? When are we going to close the Island Airport?

We are well beyond the tipping point.

Bill Freeman

"A blight on the community" "The airport must go"

2011-11-07T04:19:11Z

Recent postings from residents:

I would like to comment on the low flying plane which passed just over the top of the poplar trees next door at 10:26 am yesterday. I was on the phone and the person I was talking to said,"what the hell is that?" It was very loud and waaaaaay too close.

Marcia Crist

The noise from the airport is an on-going obscenity. It's now 9:30 on Sunday night and the roar from the engines has been going on since late afternoon. The noise and pollution has gotten so bad, particuarly on Sundays, that we can't have our windows or doors open to get air flow or sit on the terrace to enjoy a mild evening. That dreadful airport is a blight on the community - how do we get it closed down?

Karen

Polluter Airlines is a horrible corporate citizen for a myriad of reasons. But obviously the larger issue is that no respectable and livable city ruins it's most coveted asset by rendering it polluted and unusable. The airport must go.

James

Airport, not Porter, should be focus of debate

2011-11-04T03:55:32Z

Actually Denis, this is closer to my point. The decision needs to be made on if we should have an airport on the island. (bias I support it). My thoughts are let's make this the focus of the debate and not the operations of Porter.

Rob

6:50 a.m. engine cleaning "beyond obscene"

2011-11-04T03:51:37Z

FINALLY, a common resolution to close the city Centre Airport. The cleaning of engines at 6:50 am is beyond obscene. Let's get behind this closing and get our Clean Green waterfront back!

Leida Englar

And the noise continues and continues and contin...

2011-11-03T02:00:16Z

Last night they were doing engine run ups at the Island Airport until the early morning. This evening, about 8:00 pm, I was out for a walk, and they were still at it. It was more than a hum from the airport. It was a constant barrage of noise.

So what is causing all the noise? Surprise, suprise, Porter now has 24 planes and Robert Deluce recently said the airline was adding another two to their fleet this month. Air Canada has two Q400 operating out of the Island. Add it up. That makes 26 now and 28 by the end of November. Oh, and Mr. Deluce has happily informed us that Porter is so successful that we are going to be rewarded by even more planes in the future. Lucky us.

There can be no secret where all of the noise is coming from. With all the take-offs and landings and with the engine run-ups required by regulations, it is inevitable that there will be unbearable noise. They are big engines, folks, and they make a lot of noise.

Oh, and they create air pollution too. You can't hear that, can't see it, but we all know that air pollution is raining down on the Waterfront from the planes operating out of the Island. Pollution is as inevitable as the noise. You will remember, no doubt, that most of the pollution from a plane is on take-off and landing because that is when the energy is needed to get the aircraft up in the air or to slow its descent. That is why short-haul flights, the specialty of Porter and the Air Canada planes at the Island Airport, are so polluting.

What can we do? Well, one thing we have learned is complaining to the Toronto Port Authority is useless. They have never attempted to control the noise or pollution of the airport. You might as well post your complaint in the sky. But then let's give them a break. It is an airport, and until it turns into something different the aircraft that operate out of it are going to create noise and air pollution. That is the nature of the beast.

Unfortunately we have learned that the Toronto Port Authority is not there to protect the public interest. No, no. They are there to run an airport. They are an agency that provides a buffer between the people and the government. It is a clever trick. The TPA is set up to give the appearance that the government is regulating the airport in the public interest while in fact they do little more than receive public complaints. The people who thought up things like "public consultations" and "advisory boards" and "send your complaints to us," sure are smart. You've got to give them credit.

Then again, you can't blame them. What can they do? It is an airport after all. It just happens to be in the centre of the most densely populated city in Canada. That, as they say, is as smart as a bag of hammers. But let's face it; that is the problem, folks. Unless we do something about this airport in the centre of our community, our Waterfront and our city then we are all going to suffer. So in conclusion, I propose the following resolution.

WHEREAS, the number of aircraft operating out of the Island Airport cause intolerable noise and air pollution for thousands of people, degrading the quality of life in our communities, our Waterfront, and our city.

BE IT RESOLVED, that we close the Island Airport.

All in favour?

Carried!

Thank you. Reason has finally prevailed in Toronto. Bill Freeman

And the noise continues and continues and contin...

2011-11-03T01:59:55Z

"That's why the airport should be closed."

2011-11-02T19:56:42Z

Sorry Rob, but you missed the main point, which is an intensive polluting industrial activity has no business in the middle of a densely populated downtown community. It endangers our health with the kerosene fumes that drift across us, noise that translates into higher blood pressure, sleeplessness and anxiety (mental & emotional) and traffic practically through the middle of the grounds of a Harbourfront Community Centre and elementary school. The airport is relentless in destroying and trying to destroy the community all for the profits of a few. Thankfully we were able to prevent them from turning the baseball field on the south side of the school into another parking lot. That's why the airport should be closed.

Dennis

"Should there be an airport on the Island"?

2011-11-01T22:15:48Z

Mr Iller,

Another day another Porter rant. I would like to say not everybody sees the world like you and that might be the reason why the newspapers are not taking what you provide as gospel. Or could it be that you have not evolved your arguements. Your issue of complaint claims to be anti-airport and all you appear to be doing is slagging Porter, a legally operating firm.

Looking at your list:

1)Air Canada was under utilizing the airport. They only moved 50000 passengers a month. Porter now moves that in about 2.5 days. Did it make sense to block Air Canada? Yes, as Air Canada would have taken steps to drive Porter out of business and then go back to the status quo. Also, the new slots were allocated based upon international standards.
2)I some how doubt that the $20M settlement was all of their start up money. Also, the government violated an agreement and they paid compensation. I do not consider that to be a subsidy.
3) Massive taxpayer money went to fund the planes? I do not think so. EDC provides financing to several airlines including Jazz Aviation. If you have an issue with funding, it should not be Porter specific.
4)The airport would not have needed the ferries if the bridge was built. See point 2
5)Back to my point, what does TPAs tax dispute with the City have to do with Porter.

That all being said, you focus on Porter's financial stability. If we follow you logic, we should stop putting money into Pearson because Air Canada has lost money for an extended period of time and did a dance with bankruptcy. Seeing that AC is the dominant airline at Pearson, we should stop doing any more work to enhance it, because who knows they could go bankrupt. Last but not least, Porter expanded quickly, which would explain higher losses due to start up. I bet if you took out their start up expenses, they would be profitable.

As I always say, can we focus on the real issue of debate, which is should there be an airport on the island.

Rob

On the Occasion of Porter's Fifth Anniversary

2011-10-25T15:55:56Z

Press Release
For Immediate Release Monday, October 24, 2011
Contact: Brian Iler, Chair

We’ve all read the Globe’s and Star’s so-puffy pieces on the occasion of Porter’s fifth anniversary.

Most readers would conclude that these were, in part, the newspapers’ expression of sincere appreciation for the millions of dollars of ad revenue Porter has given to them over those years.

What else accounts for their studious avoidance of any reporting of facts that interfere with the narrative?

They could have mentioned the massive subsidies the federal government, and its agency, the Toronto Port Authority, have provided.

Here’s a start at a list:

Exclusive rights for commercial passenger service for most of the last five years, and now, with Air Canada all but locked out, virtual exclusivity,.
All the start-up seed money Porter needed in that suspicious $20 million of federal taxpayers’ money paid as “compensation” for the cancellation of the bridge. Calculation of that “compensation” was based upon the basis that without the bridge, only 120 landings and takeoffs (known as “slots”) per day would occur, not the 167 with the bridge, and the Porter “losses” compensated for were based on that reduction of business. But now, Porter has 172 slots.
Massive taxpayer dollars to fund Porter’s aircraft purchases. From Porter’s ill-fated 2010 IPO we learned that 16 of its then 20 aircraft were financed by loans of $283 million from the Harper government’s Export Development Corporation – with the string attached that those aircraft were to be used 60% for transborder flights. Porter hasn’t come anywhere close. Worse, these loans are long term, and at surprising low interest rates: a weighted average rate of 4.92%, maturing between September 2021 and December 2024.
Two new ferries and terminals for $20 million of public funds – one purchased by the Toronto Port Authority with its board’s deciding vote cast by Colin Watson, an acknowledged “friend” of Mr. Deluce, contrary to the TPA’s own Code of Conduct.
The TPA has consistently refused to pay its fair share of property taxes to our cash-strapped City – by our tally, based upon City and TPA documents, about $43 million. See our letter to Mayor Ford last March, attached, which he failed to respond to.

It’s not that those newspapers didn’t know – we’ve consistently issued press release after press release, documenting all of this.

And they could have asked Mr. Deluce why he repeatedly misled them about Porter’s profitability: although the media dutifully reported his claims to profitability – and have done so again in these stories – the IPO disclosed losses of $44,505,000 to March 31, 2010. See the press release they ignored, attached. Surely, until Mr. Deluce releases actual financial results, any statement by him about profitability of his businesses must not be given any credibility.

Not a mention of how Porter’s short-haul flights are the worst culprits when it comes to greenhouse gases, when we all know that such emissions have to be significantly reduced.

And nothing about the extreme impact Porter’s operations are having on nearby residents. Here’s one recent report:

“They have no idea what Porter has done to our neighbourhood! I try so hard to sleep past about 6:25 a.m., when the [Porter aircraft] run-ups go into high, but rarely accomplish that, even now that it’s not light then.

The overnight noise curfew at the Island Airport ends at 6:45 a.m.

And another:

“This is now the fourth evening that we are getting ready to eat supper and the entire neighbourhood stinks of jet fuel. Not a very nice atmosphere to eat. We already are bombarded by the noise, so please give us a break and keep the jet fuel out of our air.”

By choosing the pursuit of the bottom line, these newspapers have abandoned our City, and our waterfront communities.

Heathrow Success Dan Glass with CommunityAIR

2011-10-21T18:42:04Z

Heathrow Success and Infamous Climate Activist Dan Glass Comes to Canada!

Press Release

For Immediate Release Friday, October 21, 2011

Contact:

Bill Freeman, spokesperson, (416) 203-2956

Dan Glass: (647)786-0653(Toronto) or (UK)0044 (0) 7717811747

Dan Glass - most famous as the UK climate activist who super-glued himself to British PM Gordon Brown has recently been catapulted into the spotlight after being barred from speaking in the US by the FBI. (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/john-stewart-detained-interrogated-JFK)

Glass, with many others, was central to a the UK’s impressively successful campaign to halt a proposed third runway at Heathrow Airport. Dan spoke to a gathering of anti‑airport activists in Toronto last night – including representatives from Land over Landings, the community group fighting the long‑proposed Pickering Airport ‑ on how local communities can learn from the UK’s immensely successful Heathrow in efforts to halt the expansion of Toronto Island Airport.

“We invited Dan to share with us the strategies that worked so well for the Heathrow campaign. The result: stronger ties, and renewed determination.” said Brian Iler Chair of CommunityAIR.

“The task of finding much more sustainable ways to live and travel is an urgent one in this rapidly warming world. The Island Airport in Toronto is exclusively devoted to short-haul flights – the worst emitters of greenhouse gases, and the most readily substituted with greener alternatives. Our work here on aviation issues is vastly enriched by the knowledge and experience our friends in the United Kingdom are so keen to share.”

This event marks the launch of Dan Glass’s tour of community and activist efforts across Canada. Touring with US activist Holly Jones, Glass and Jones are focused on exploring, documenting and disseminating social and environmental justice efforts here in Canada for British, American and Canadian audiences. The tour will continue through Vancover, Edmonton and Athabasca.

In the face of relentless expansion of commercial flights out of the Toronto Island Airport, CommunityAIR organizers are fighting to protect Toronto's waterfront from further devastating pollution. 12,000,000 people enjoy the waterfront and the parks of the Toronto Islands annually.

Was super‑glue training on the agenda last night? “No comment” said Iler.

“That is why we need an aviation justice movement.”

2011-10-18T19:40:20Z

CommunityAIR is pleased to invite you to participate in a meeting with Britain’s [in]famous Dan Glass, of Plane Stupid

This Thursday Oct. 20 at 7 p.m. at Windward Co-op(on the west side of Little Norway Park, 34 Little Norway Crescent. South of Queen’s Quay, west of Bathurst.) Here’s a link to its location (marked .

Dan Glass is the UK climate activist who superglued himself to British PM Gordon Brown. More importantly, he was, with many others, central to a campaign that built an impressively broad coalition (from Plane Stupid to Conservative MPs), and successfully stopped the third runway at Heathrow. Here’s the amazing story, at http://aviationjustice.org/2010/08/28/the-battle-of-heathrow/ That campaign is further outlined in fascinating detail in John Stewart’s book, downloadable at http://hacan.org.uk/resources/reports/victory.pdf:

If you’re able to meet and scheme with Dan Glass and other anti-airport expansion activists, please let us know you can come.

Here’s what “Aviation Justice” means:

The way aviation currently operates is deeply unjust. Aviation contributes 5% of global emissions. Its emissions are rising faster than just about any other sector. Yet only 5% of the world’s population has ever flown. It is largely the rich world that is producing these emissions but it is the poor world that is being hit first, and most acutely, by climate change. That is deeply unjust.

“It is also deeply unjust to people living under flight paths. The authorities are cynical about it. Concentrate ever more planes on narrow flight paths to enable a growing number of people to jet off on subsidized holidays or to allow business to become over-dependent on air travel. Throw a few crumbs of comfort to the people in the noise ghettos, even though, for many in these noise ghettos there is no chance of escape for reason of personal circumstance, age, income or disability etc. Deeply cynical. Deeply unjust.

“That is why we need an aviation justice movement.”

Please pass this onto anyone that you think may be interested.