Admiral Beez
Superstar
Let this be the legacy of the original Pickering land seizure.
|
|
|
Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)
- Thread starter wyliepoon
- Start date
micheal_can
Senior Member
The irony is that if it wasn't taken, it would now be a suburb. So, really, the legacy already exists. Lets wait till the airport is needed.... which might not be for another 50 years, before doing anything more with the land.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
By that time, vertical agriculture and cultured meat would be mainstream.
MarkBrooks
Active Member
And the respond to lobby piece published by the CBC: ( note , I expect this will be censored like most other pro airport posts, but always hopeful that free speech can make A come back, as in it is always worth a try )
CBC Misses the Big Story - Friends of Pickering Airport
Print 🖨 PDF 📄 eBook 📱What happens when a young reporter from the City meets a slick well-practiced “Rural” lobby group hunting for cheap leases on a Billion dollars of government land? It’s a classic scene with all the right virtue signalling of farming, the environment, and food security. A...
pickeringairport.org
lenaitch
Senior Member
I'm not going to pick a side in this battle, but it seems the reporter is being called 'naive' for, um, reporting. I am not surprised that most of the original leaseholders have been "replaced". Given the average age of farmers, most are likely dead.
$120 per acre is likely low for that area, but I don't by how much. I was getting $100 in Simcoe Country a few years ago. Agricultural land leasing cost isn't a hugh money maker. For the private land owner, the big plus is keeping the land worked and a reduced mil rate in property taxes.
$120 per acre is likely low for that area, but I don't by how much. I was getting $100 in Simcoe Country a few years ago. Agricultural land leasing cost isn't a hugh money maker. For the private land owner, the big plus is keeping the land worked and a reduced mil rate in property taxes.
north-of-anything
Active Member
"In response to that blatant propaganda, here is an article from the unbiased pro-airport lobbyists:"
Come on.
Come on.
MarkBrooks
Active Member
Consider what is not said. The report repeats claims of farming value from a lobby group with no challenge to those claims. Talks to two front persons with a single residential lease, plus 3 acres of farm land, but fails to report that the other 9000 acres are leases by largely unknown persons and corporations from which the lobby groups funding is derive. Much of this land is farmed but thousands of acres are not, including a golf course ( glen cedar), truck parks, even a hang glider school. these commercial leases have no transparency but are part of the groups efforts to take advantage of the economic downturn caused by the pandemic to extend these leases.
consider:
-there is a long Waiting list for these leases.
- If an airport is not build as suggested by the KPMG report starting in 2026, and the leases are extended, why should those that now have those lease be allowed to Keep them?
-Is allowing the current lease holder to develop the land the best use of this land?
- hiding behind vitrue signally, such as the environment, food security, etc is the new blind spot in which corruption lurks. Who are the leaseholders?
- no one ( including the city) is spending money to counter this Misinformation, the only group with a voice is a group of volunteers with zero budget, trying to protect a billion dollar government land reserve for its original purpose ( the Friends of Pickering Airport ).
welcome to total lack of transparency that now passes as news.
I post on this forum from time to time because I truly believe that those reading can learn the art of critical thinking, what ever political affiliation. Put the phone down and look around, Apply the art of critical thought.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Countries everywhere are focusing on making any stimulus investment more focused on reducing emissions as well. See Europe's 2 trillion Euro plan. Or Joe Biden's proposed Climate and Jobs plan. I think we'll see a Canadian version of all this soon. So good luck with that airport. Even harder to make the pitch when so much more capacity just opened up at existing airports throughout the region.
ARG1
Senior Member
I don't think that airports are a good target against Climate Change to begin with. Cars are a good target because they are easy to replace with greener transportation, airplanes are not, and the demand for plane travel will not be decreasing any time soon. There could always be justification for a new airport, especially when eventually Pearson will get way too overcrowded. This is the type of lack of forward thinking that got London in the mess its in right now.
lenaitch
Senior Member
I will concede that, on the surface, a public registry of leaseholders might be advantageous, but there are likely other issues at play. If people or organizations linked to land development are lurking trying to eventually swap planes for subdivisions, that's a bad thing. The mere presence of a corporate leaseholder might not be nefarious; many farm operations are incorporated.
A perceived lack of transparency does not necessarily equal "misinformation". If, as you say, a group with zero budget is getting a lot of mileage, is this envy? I would strongly suggest that being anti food security and the environment is not a great marketting platform.
salsa
Senior Member
Yeah but I'm sure Mark will try to convince us that Pickering airport will reduce global warming. For more information, "check out my website!"
micheal_can
Senior Member
So, right now, aircraft flying in and out of Pearson is at an all time low. Many small, local airports have lost some, if not all flights to/from Pearson due to lack of ridership. In 6 years, it is doubtful that the traffic will be as high as it was in 2019. At that time, we will likely be still in a recession/depression.
So, if it is not started by 2026, and there is no immediate need for it, why not keep things as is. Let the land be farmed. Let the communities stay there. Once demand goes back up to where a relief is needed for Pearson, then revisit it. Maybe by then, the governments will have invested in Hamilton's airport. Maybe an airport train service exists for it. Maybe a fuel pipeline is built. Maybe a new, bigger terminal is built.
There is no need for the land to become subdivisions. But, there is potentially no need for it to be an airport either.
micheal_can
Senior Member
He already did that last year. Didn't convince anyone.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Everyone is entitled to support, or not support, the Pickering Airport.but this is a Trumpian level of conspiracy theories.
Leaseholders don't want to be bought out and have the land converted to an airport??? You don't say??? Let's see they are paying their land leases and, for the most part, running profitable businesses on top of that. Why would they be interested in being bought out? I mean even in the coldest rational economic calculation of $x profits for the next 50 odd years (+/- economic adjustments over that time) vs $y buyout and that money being redeployed elsewhere, there is a value of y that is greater than x times 50 years. However people are not rational, there is the cost of relocating/restarting their business and/or finding something else to do. This is not some grand conspiracy, this is human inertial desire to maintain the same.
This is no different than a pro airport group grasping at straws to validate their desire to build an airport.
Leaseholders don't want to be bought out and have the land converted to an airport??? You don't say??? Let's see they are paying their land leases and, for the most part, running profitable businesses on top of that. Why would they be interested in being bought out? I mean even in the coldest rational economic calculation of $x profits for the next 50 odd years (+/- economic adjustments over that time) vs $y buyout and that money being redeployed elsewhere, there is a value of y that is greater than x times 50 years. However people are not rational, there is the cost of relocating/restarting their business and/or finding something else to do. This is not some grand conspiracy, this is human inertial desire to maintain the same.
This is no different than a pro airport group grasping at straws to validate their desire to build an airport.
kEiThZ
Superstar
What we think is irrelevant. The bureaucrats who fund projects in the government and in the private sector will not fund this because:
1) Increases emissions compared to other alternatives.
2) No imminent need for the capacity, which means poor asset utilization and therefore return on capital.
A government that has money to spend on GTA infrastructure has so many priorities ahead of this in the region. And I've yet to see any private entity willing to foot the bill for this without substantial government subsidies, up to and including free land.