Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup

Barring an extraordinary outcome in the next federal election, the next occupant of the PMO is likely to support extending Billy Bishop’s runways to accommodate jets. With a challenge from Ford unlikely, does the City have any way to combat this?

I don't see how jets won't be flying out of YTZ in a few years, let alone it being converted to a park.
 
FC_ said:
Barring an extraordinary outcome in the next federal election, the next occupant of the PMO is likely to support extending Billy Bishop’s runways to accommodate jets. With a challenge from Ford unlikely, does the City have any way to combat this?

I don't see how jets won't be flying out of YTZ in a few years, let alone it being converted to a park.
Click to expand...
Can our Mayor rip it out?

chicago.suntimes.com

How a Chicago airport was erased from the map 20 years ago

Two decades ago, bulldozers sent by Mayor Richard M. Daley destroyed the runway at Meigs Field. The move was seen then and now as an example of mayoral overreach.
chicago.suntimes.com chicago.suntimes.com
 
Admiral Beez said:
Can our Mayor rip it out?

chicago.suntimes.com

How a Chicago airport was erased from the map 20 years ago

Two decades ago, bulldozers sent by Mayor Richard M. Daley destroyed the runway at Meigs Field. The move was seen then and now as an example of mayoral overreach.
chicago.suntimes.com chicago.suntimes.com
Click to expand...
Aside from the legalities and differences in city/mayoral powers between those situations and that the City of Toronto doesn’t even own the airport, it doesn’t look like Chow’s priority right now given that the door has been opened to continuance to 2045, and it doesn’t seem likely that the Toronto electorate (and the business community that bankrolls candidacies) is going to support anyone more hardline
 
Admiral Beez said:
How long is the proposed extension? Even the the smallest commercial jetliners like the A220-100 need at least 5,000 feet. The jets that would really like to use the island are the elite’s Learjets, Challengers, Global Express, Falcons, etc.
Click to expand...
Transport Canada uses a Challenger 604 for some of their navigational testing, and they land and take off at the airport regularly.

Considering that, I suspect that quite a few of the smaller business jets could also use the existing facilities without lengthening the runway.

Dan
 
Towered said:
Use those strong mayor powers! 🤣
Click to expand...

Oddly, I think Ontario did give her the power to do that. Strong Mayor powers apply to situations which align with provincial policy, such as increasing housing (only used in Ajax so far?)

So choosing not to renew the tripartite agreement, pushing through rezoning the city-owned land for housing, and selling that land may qualify as a valid use of those powers.

It would be hilarious to see the province stampede to revoke strong mayor powers in Toronto and shove through an MZO to reverse the zoning change.
 
rbt said:
Oddly, I think Ontario did give her the power to do that. Strong Mayor powers apply to situations which align with provincial policy, such as increasing housing (only used in Ajax so far?)

So choosing not to renew the tripartite agreement, pushing through rezoning the city-owned land for housing, and selling that land may qualify as a valid use of those powers.

It would be hilarious to see the province stampede to revoke strong mayor powers in Toronto and shove through an MZO to reverse the zoning change.
Click to expand...
I would totally do that if I were mayor to kill this thing for good, but I doubt Olivia has the will.
 
rbt said:
Oddly, I think Ontario did give her the power to do that.
Click to expand...

First, we need to clarify that the existing agreement is understood to be legally binding until 2033. So absent the consent of the other two parties, the runway is going nowhere, for now.

rbt said:
Strong Mayor powers apply to situations which align with provincial policy, such as increasing housing (only used in Ajax so far?)
Click to expand...

The City does not require strong mayor powers to terminate the tripartite agreement in 2033, a simple vote of Council will suffice.

Could the mayor use said powers for the purposes you suggest? I'm going to say 'no'.......because there will be no affordable housing on the current airport site.

The cost to make housing viable at the airport site is substantial; unless the City were to eat those costs.....which would be measured in the billions before you break ground on a single unit..........

There is potential play around housing.......but its not on the Islands...........

rbt said:
So choosing not to renew the tripartite agreement, pushing through rezoning the city-owned land for housing, and selling that land may qualify as a valid use of those powers.
Click to expand...

For reasons noted above, that scenario is extremely unlikely. Further, if Ports didn't cooperate, any housing on the City land is utterly non-viable.
 
Last edited:
This from Ausma Malik:

1728686119824.png
 
Northern Light said:
First, we need to clarify that the existing agreement is understood to be legally binding until 2033. So absent the consent of the other two parties, the runway is going nowhere, for now.



The City does not require strong mayor powers to terminate the tripartite agreement in 2033, a simple vote of Council will suffice.

Could the mayor use said powers for the purposes you suggest? I'm going to say 'no'.......because there will be no affordable housing on the current airport site.

The cost to make housing viable at the airport site is substantial; unless the City were to eat those costs.....which would be measured in the billions before you break ground on a single unit..........

There is potential play around housing.......but its not on the Islands...........

For reasons noted above, that scenario is extremely unlikely. Further, if Ports didn't cooperate, any housing on the City land is utterly non-viable.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The question was could Chow replicate what the mayor of Chicago did; which was a unilateral act without council support.

So presume council would vote in favour of renewing the tripartite agreement; could Chow still have the airport closed. The answer is a pretty clear no unless it somehow moves toward one of the provincial priorities the Strong Mayor veto can be used for. Strong Mayor can be overridden but it requires a super-majority of council to do it; she would need 8 councillors to go along with it.

Agreed that no housing would be built but the objective was to close the airport, not build housing. An excavator hired under an emergency budget item and with emergency permits to dig a foundation for the housing (not to be finished for reasons you describe) would ensure it was closed for a non-trivial amount of time too. It would be total political gridlock with numerous lawsuits; lots of losers and no winners.

I'm not in favour of the strong mayor powers specifically because it makes it too easy for a small group that doesn't care about re-election to cause chaos.
 
Last edited:
hard not to see some of the jonesing for strong mayor action as merely wanting to extend Ford bullying to the municipal level. While I don’t have much time for the current makeup of council, the debates are at least public. I dread the advent of a council as toothless to question a bullying executive as the current position at QP.
 
DSC said:
This from Ausma Malik:

View attachment 603510
Click to expand...
So its pretty obvious that the airport is here to stay until 2033 at least.

I would think it would be good for the people who were protesting for a park shift their focus instead to make Ports Toronto do things to minimize the impact of the airport to the surrounding area instead. Such as, making them put up takeoff noise barriers regardless of which option is chosen for the runway extension.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top