Friday, October 21, 2016Light Rain 8°C

Toronto might be OK with jets at the island airport

Posted by Chris Bateman / April 1, 2014

toronto island jetsToronto city council says it's prepared to talk about the possibility of Porter Airlines flying jet airplanes out of Billy Bishop Airport, voting unanimously in favour of a staff report that sought permission to enter into negotiations earlier this evening.

The vote only allows staff to present the city's conditions for jets to the Toronto Port Authority and Transport Canada, the other signatories to the tripartite agreement that governs the use of the airport. It's likely the final city council vote on whether or not to extend the runway and allow scheduled jet flights out of Billy Bishop won't take place until 2015 - after the next election.

Some of the conditions include evening curfews for flights, noise level restrictions, and reduced airport operation on weekends.

Council also voted that:

  • Tonight's vote does not support or oppose jets.
  • Money for the possible expansion of the airport can't come from the city or Building Canada Fund.
  • Waterfront Toronto be included in all talks.
  • City staff ask for an earlier curfew and quiet weekends at the airport.
  • The role of general aviation at the airport be examined and protected.
  • All current island airport safety guidelines be reviewed.
  • Changes to the airport agreement are not tied to a particular airline.
  • The impact to human health and bird populations be considered if the airport is expanded.
  • The ownership of Porter and other airlines be monitored.
  • There be no widening of Dan Leckie Way.

Rob Ford, a strong backer of allowing jets, missed the morning portion of the debate with a back injury. Doug Ford said the mayor was sore after injuring his back lifting weights and had been to visit a chiropractor. CTV News reported that Ford's Cadillac Escalade was parked at his Etobicoke home all morning.

Chris Bateman is a staff writer at blogTO. Follow him on Twitter at @chrisbateman.

Image: Ken Sekiguchi/blogTO Flickr pool.



OK / April 1, 2014 at 10:05 pm
Ba Da Da Da Daaa I'm lovin it!
Holy Thundering Jesus / April 1, 2014 at 10:27 pm
it's awesome, if you don't live their.
A home grown success story: Rob Ford Genius and Giant. Mini Docu-Series all this week!! / April 1, 2014 at 10:39 pm
BIG HUGE WIN FOR ROB FORD TODAY!!!! He was the main advocate for getting the Porter Airlines agreement through and today was a solid move forward in that direction. Was not a step back for sure, could have gone either way but it went.............FORDS WAY!!!!!!
Tammy replying to a comment from Holy Thundering Jesus / April 1, 2014 at 10:42 pm
AGREED. I'm smart and I think about where I choose to live, and I don't live there.
So a solid "meh" is a "huge win" for Ford?

iSkyscraper / April 1, 2014 at 10:58 pm
I'm pretty sure that everyone simply ignored whatever Ford said, as usual, and tried to think how adults would reason out a solution instead.

And, lo and behold, an adult result. The tripartite agreement was not about a certain engine technology but used no-jets as a proxy to keep the airport's presence functional but manageable. In an age of quiet jets, there should be a way to make this work with certain conditions exactly as detailed by council.

In real life, there are no quick solutions. I think this is going to work out fine.
Theo / April 1, 2014 at 11:18 pm
I am actually a little torn. I think Chow would be best as mayor, but her not supporting the expansion makes me reconsider.
A home grown success story: Rob Ford Genius and Giant. Mini Docu-Series all this week!! replying to a comment from Jacob / April 1, 2014 at 11:44 pm
Not a solid "meh" at all. Its called procedure and progress, policies and political discussion can take a long time to get through and get passed. Today was a step forward in the Porter Airlines debate. The TTC is 33% funded from the government as transportation is key and is essential. Porter Airlines should get some of the city transportation budget as well.
Thing / April 1, 2014 at 11:49 pm
I'm so glad I put those anti Rob Ford signs in Bellwoods park - this post/story is just one example how well I'm winning everyone over, Big Changes are already happening....
steve replying to a comment from Tammy / April 2, 2014 at 06:48 am
The thing is people choose to live were the airport is located based on what was there. There is a 30 year agreement signed in 1986.
Now porter wants to tear up that agreement and change what is there. A busy international airport in the middle of a residential area,
It is like being told stop complaining you moved next to a two lane road you should accept it will now be an eight lane highway.
Ford replying to a comment from Thing / April 2, 2014 at 07:27 am
...might be okay with pulled-pork fudge.

(IF there's blow for dessert)
speak4urself replying to a comment from Tammy / April 2, 2014 at 08:20 am
I live there and am thrilled that the airport could be expanding. Why should I have to drive up to Pearson to fly out, that's a pain. Wanna talk environmental damage, think about the pollution being belched out of the cars idling on the Gardiner on the way to Pearson when those downtown people could just walk to the island.

Personally I strongly support it.
speak4urself replying to a comment from steve / April 2, 2014 at 08:22 am
I love this idyllic residential area you speak of. You mean the wall of condos and 2 multilane highways that run across the Lakeshore?

Contracts and constitutions get amendments, happens all the time. Are you actually saying that things should stay the same? 30 years ago what was our population? Needs change, Toronto should keep up. This same "a deal is a deal" line was the one I got from Councillor Carroll, maybe she should stick to wasting $28K in her office budget and stay away from big complicated decisions like city building.
you're kinda stupid, aren't you? replying to a comment from speak4urself / April 2, 2014 at 08:46 am
i'm far did you get in high school?
just think for a second replying to a comment from speak4urself / April 2, 2014 at 09:39 am
the impact on the use of the harbour and waterfront is what I think should be concerning to the 100,000+ residents that live within a useable distance of the waterfront.

Forget the noise and pollution, as speak4urself said, those are a fact of life living downtown (as I have for the last 3 years)

Pearson will be accesible by a peaceful, comfortable 20-30 minute train ride from union by summer 2015 - in my view that's actually BETTER than slugging through downtown traffic (which would inevitably get much worse with an expanded airport) to fly out of billy bishop

In other words, lets not waste tax payer money tearing up the waterfront (which we've already invested 100s of millions in to revitalize) by chewing it up with an airport expansion that we just don't need.
VadimM / April 2, 2014 at 09:41 am
It is a wrong and misleading title of the posting. In fact the jets on the island airport are further from reality than they ever been. The vote has been delayed for at least one more year. The limitations placed on the project will handicap it and make very hard to implement as per Deluce's plans. Deluce in fact is the biggest looser here having spent millions on the lobbing efforts and marketing campaigns he ended up with nothing. In a contest -people's waterfront vs Deluce's jets- people won.
Scofflaw / April 2, 2014 at 09:42 am
I'm surprised that Rob and Doug Ford voted in favour of corporate welfare here. There is absolutely no reason why Toronto should be propping up Porter in this instance. Thankfully, the rest of council has enough brains to not rush this through.
Perry Como / April 2, 2014 at 09:43 am
Olivia Chow has never had a real job in her life. How can she run Canada's largest city?
Aaron / April 2, 2014 at 09:53 am
Two thumbs up for Rob Ford who has the vision to expand the airport. A win-win situation for Porter and especially for the city.
yassssssss replying to a comment from speak4urself / April 2, 2014 at 09:55 am
thank you! totally agree.

all of you people who are against this (and i suppose progress in general) do not understand how a city works. if you want large green pastures, no traffic, and no density, you should probably consider moving to port perry or something. i'm tired of everyone getting offended when something new is proposed in toronto. i agree that we must not make any rash decisions and take time with proposals, but just shutting them down because it's too new and shocking is getting old. i've lived in this city my entire life and i love that we are finally becoming a true city instead of a glorified, sprawled out suburb. we are expanding at an insane rate and need to adjust accordingly. enough with the small town mentality already.
Luckysod / April 2, 2014 at 10:06 am
Neither the article and only one of the comments grasps that the conditions the city has put on future negotiations will be almost impossible for Porter to meet. This is very far from a win for our joke of a mayor or for Porter. The motion as amended and passed politely dooms the expansion of the airport. It was a very smart move on the part of city council. It keeps hopes alive, but only for those who haven't read the fine print.
BigV / April 2, 2014 at 10:06 am
Well this now means my vote for mayor will go only or someone who supports the Jet expansion. It's a shame, I quite like Olivia Chow.
"could have gone either way but it went.............FORDS WAY"

More like the rest of council came up with something everyone could support and it happened to have some stuff that Rob Ford wanted so he also voted for it.
toronto dude / April 2, 2014 at 10:15 am
thank gawd calmer heads prevailed and Porter didn't get its way. it's already too big and busy for a dt airport and we have the union-pearson link almost ready so convenience to jets is no longer needed. i luv flying with porter to the U.S. and i'd luv to fly jets with them but jets don't belong in our dt.
Tsunami replying to a comment from speak4urself / April 2, 2014 at 10:15 am
Looking at wikipedia (, Toronto's population in 1986 was 2,192,721. 2011 census reports there are 2,615,060; a 19% growth over 25 years.

Given the it appears that the only place to build real estate is in the waterfront (or within 15 minutes of it), and with the building of the Union Pearson express, this appears to serve as nothing more than Porter Airlines attempting to expand their business. Remember, a corporation's first objective is to make money. Porter is not being altruistic with their motives here. Let's not forget that there is a possibility that TPA will tear down a school and community center to expand the YTZ terminal and parking lot (

There is no benefit to Toronto from this. TO serve a few routes that Westjet and Air Canada already do that will only be a 25 minute train ride away from the downtown core in rush hour traffic. Try moving that fast on a bus from union station along Lakeshore at rush hour.

On a side note, I am curious however as to your situation with C. Carroll.
"The TTC is 33% funded from the government as transportation is key and is essential. Porter Airlines should get some of the city transportation budget as well."

The TTC is the least government funded transit system in North America... private companies should pay their own way.
MER1978 replying to a comment from speak4urself / April 2, 2014 at 10:18 am
"Wanna talk environmental damage, think about the pollution being belched out of the cars idling on the Gardiner on the way to Pearson when those downtown people could just walk to the island."

I'm sure you realize that the UP (Union Pearson) Express rail link opens next year right?
MER1978 replying to a comment from Aaron / April 2, 2014 at 10:20 am
"Two thumbs up for Rob Ford who has the vision"

Rob Ford has a vision... PLEASE.
Steve replying to a comment from MER1978 / April 2, 2014 at 10:31 am
Then you'd know it's a diesel train.

And then you'd know that it's going to be in the neighbourhood of $20-30 per way when completed IF we're lucky.

Surely you'd know that it is only making one stop in the downtown core, at Union, which is rarely the final destination for visitors in the core.

Then I'm assuming you already know that many business people don't fuss with public transit to begin with. Upon arrival at Union, many will just hop in a cab to get to their hotels elsewhere in the core.

I'm assuming you'd know that a cab to anywhere in the downtown core from Pearson is around $60-70.

That traveling business people often arrive in teams of at least two people. Or they could meet a friend on the plane heading the same direction in the city they are.

You'd know that a couple from midtown heading to Pearson is facing 90 minutes on the bus/subway to get there directly or 25-30 minutes to get down to Union and then however long it takes to get to Pearson.

Then you'd know, with cost not being an issue and time being of the essence, that they'd simply take a cab in most cases.

And I'm sure you'd know that Billy Bishop's experience absolutely obliterates the experience one receives at Pearson.

Union Pearson Link is going to do fuck all to make our lives (the lives of people who live 5KM from one airport and 30KM from another) easier versus using Billy Bishop, unless you live directly at Union. Expand the damn island airport already. I can't believe we're sitting on building necessary infrastructure.
VadimM replying to a comment from Aaron / April 2, 2014 at 10:43 am
Not a vision but rather a hallucination during one of his crack smoking trips.
MER1978 replying to a comment from Steve / April 2, 2014 at 10:44 am
Sounds like a whole lot of excuses... no it won't take you directly to your hotel... big freaking deal.

As for the "Billy Bishop" experience... you honestly don't think a whole lot of that has to do with the super low volume of flights + passengers? Drastically increasing both which is precisely what Porter wants will "obliterate" the difference that you experience currently.
MER1978 replying to a comment from Steve / April 2, 2014 at 10:48 am
"Expand the damn island airport already. I can't believe we're sitting on building necessary infrastructure."

Sitting on building necessary infrastructure???

We already have a necessary infrastructure "to do" list a mile long... increasing the airport will require hundreds of millions of dollars for new infrastructure that we currently don't need to purchase. Maybe Porter should come up with some of that money before we seriously consider their proposal.
Sarah / April 2, 2014 at 10:50 am
Some how everyone thinks some magical metro pass is going to solve all our transportation issues in the city and the city funds/props up a significant amount of the TTC budget.The city should also fund some of the transportation and travel to and from the city Porter is bringing.

I'll still prefer to fly Porter even when they build a train line to YYZ airport. For a family of 3-4 people traveling I'm not paying $25 per person just to get to the airport.
Scofflaw replying to a comment from Steve / April 2, 2014 at 10:51 am
Why are you against our venerable taxi drivers? Why can't they make money, too? It sounds to me like keeping business traffic at Pearson is a win-win situation for our cabbies.

The Fords love corporate welfare so maybe the cabbies should incorporate and stick their hands out in front of the Ford. They might be able to get a piece of that sweet pork that Fords like to dole out.
Safe hands my ass!!!!! / April 2, 2014 at 10:56 am
Kathleen Wynne where's our money?
Sandra / April 2, 2014 at 11:21 am
I have flown to and from both airports and let me tell you that flying via the Billy Bishop airport is 100xs more enjoyable than from Pearson's. It feels like you truly have arrived at your destination when flying Porter and doesn't take long at all to leave (in which I always hate). The ferry ride is a rare treat then you conveniently hop on a free shuttle bus to various destinations. I love it! The NEW CS100 jets have accommodated for noise, emissions and/or pollution and with the proposed nightly curfews and reduced weekends to maintain 'normalcy' in the GTA is a great idea. Here's my take on it: 1. Eireanne's Quay should be made a shuttle bus ONLY access. 2. A $2.00 shuttle fee should be enforced with the money paid to the city. 3. Cabs/limos wait for potential fares at the various shuttle stops (ie. Union Station). 4. An overhead walkway can (and should be) designed then constructed from the airport (mainland side), so people can walk to at least Front-Bathurst for a small $2.00 user's fee. A walkway is totally doable and would be a tourist attraction in itself. There has to be an engineer out there that can design a safe and affordable one. 5. It would be ideal to have the expansion to the Billy Bishop before the onslaught of visitors to the city for the Pan Am Games 2015. 6. Taxi-ing over the harbor, Toronto Island and the downtown core is quite simply AMAZING and absolutely SPECTACULAR (night or day)!! The expansion will inevitably pay for itself that possesses the potential to increase the city's budget immensely as well as being totally feasible (ie. the increase of landing fees and taxes ALONE that will be paid to the city from this increase of flyers)!! Toronto is the nation's capital so why not make it as a grand of experience as possible to visit? And besides, it just make 'CENTS' as well in more ways than one!! Flights into the Billy Bishop really do opens one's eyes to the majestic and beautiful metropolis that Toronto truly is, and it would be a shame to allow for this opportunity to slip away. Or, 'fly' away!!! ;)
Living near the waterfront replying to a comment from Steve / April 2, 2014 at 11:27 am
Thank you for mentioning that!

I live near the waterfront and I do not get people's hatred of Porter and the island airport. It is the best airline I've ever flown with and the experience at Billy Bishop is fantastic. I hate having to go to Pearson.

The plans I've seen for the airport expansion are not that drastic and I think that if they are done people will hardly notice.

Really so long as the jets are as quiet and environmentally friendly as they claim I do not see why the plan should not be allowed to go through.
LOL / April 2, 2014 at 11:35 am
MER1978 - a perfect example of a NIMBY with no real facts to back up his nonsense.
Sandra's mommy / April 2, 2014 at 11:40 am
Come on Sandra, stick to what you know. Come sit down and watch Frozen again with Mommy
Iloveporter / April 2, 2014 at 11:51 am
I live downtown and I love Porter. If they can expand on the airport in a way that does not increase air or noise pollution - why not? The planes fly over the lake when they're landing so they shouldn't be a concern to the downtown residents.

On the other hand I don't want to smell jet fuel when I'm enjoying the harberfront trail so more information (studies) are needed in order to make the right decision.

It's too early to take sides imo.

Steve replying to a comment from MER1978 / April 2, 2014 at 11:59 am
They may be excuses to you, but I think you really don't understand how travelers think. You have to be on a plane back home in 48 hours... do you navigate the transit system to go to your meeting/hotel/office... or do you hop a cab? 98% of business travelers would opt for the cab because it saves time. Someone else is paying the $70 cab fare.

Business travelers using the link WILL get into cabs at Union if that's not their final stop. You may not like it, you may consider it "not a big deal", but it is and it will be.
Jake replying to a comment from MER1978 / April 2, 2014 at 12:00 pm
Excuses? I think Steve hits the nail right on the head with his points there.
Steve replying to a comment from Steve / April 2, 2014 at 12:01 pm
Also, I've never been on a flight at Porter that wasn't full. There's been delays. There's been confusion at the gates. It happens. It's an airport. And it also happens to be better than the other one and in a more convenient location for just about everyone who arrives to the city.

Seems like an expansion would take care of the increase in customers, no? At least in theory...
Sandra replying to a comment from Sandra / April 2, 2014 at 12:02 pm
Metaphorically speaking of course as the nation's capital, but geographically speaking - Provincial! Thought it was best to clarify before I am instructed to resort to watching animation again. I have never seen Frozen, but I heard it was GOOD!! Thank you! I am a dreamer - OH YEAH! :P :)
MER1978 replying to a comment from Sarah / April 2, 2014 at 12:04 pm
"the city funds/props up a significant amount of the TTC budget"

The TTC gets about 30% of its funding from the city... New York's transit system gets about half from government... enough with pretending like we over fund the TTC and thus have extra money to burn that we might as well throw at Porter.
MER1978 replying to a comment from LOL / April 2, 2014 at 12:04 pm
"MER1978 - a perfect example of a NIMBY with no real facts to back up his nonsense."

Too lazy to actually use some "real facts" to prove I'm wrong?
Eric / April 2, 2014 at 01:04 pm
I'm going to go ahead and leave this here. I suggest the pro crowd read it and take note the writers. Their opinions (should) count more than just about everyone else.
Eric replying to a comment from Eric / April 2, 2014 at 01:11 pm
correction...their opinion should be highly valued and given great weight but not more than everyone.
read the article people! it paints the real picture of airport expansion
Eric replying to a comment from Eric / April 2, 2014 at 01:14 pm
and it's not all fluffy white whisper jets and happy families flying to vegas to visit grandma
Alex / April 2, 2014 at 02:21 pm
This is a good decision, whether you support the expansion or are against it. It just says they want the results of the jet testing before deciding, and that Porter and the TPA will pay for the expansion. I don't get the reduced weekend part, that's just silly, but everything else makes sense. Hopefully after the election they sit down with Porter and work out a deal that makes everyone happy.
DC / April 2, 2014 at 03:29 pm
Olivia Chow lost my vote on this issue. I live across from Harbourfront and Yes, I want the convenience of Jets. I've been watching planes taking off and landing today, and I don't hear a thing. Some people don't understand progress. They cannot fathom the fact that technology, by a Canadian company, is producing a new era of quiet jets. Welcome to Miami and Vanouver.
DC / April 2, 2014 at 03:38 pm
For a relevant transit solution; now that they are about to install new streetcar tracks along Queens Quay, have the streetcars loop south to the island airport.

Consider having the Union Station express train also stop at the island airport, thereby serving both airports. Go Jets Go.
Sarah replying to a comment from MER1978 / April 2, 2014 at 04:40 pm
30% of the TTC budget is a significant amount they can't function without the city funding.

If I was to get a 30% subsidy on my mortgage, transportation, income that would be huge.

Yes there are always better and worse examples.

Don't bring New York into this, Laguardia is right on the water, Newark and JFK airports are also right on the waters edge, y'all remember the pilot that had to land in the river a few years back as well right. You want to compare Toronto to New York, well New York has three airports all by the waters edge and Laguardia is the busiest airport in the USA.
Tory replying to a comment from MER1978 / April 2, 2014 at 04:43 pm
Neigbourhoods change all the time for better or for worse. If you no longer enjoy your area, MOVE. Other people will gladly live there.
MER1978 replying to a comment from Sarah / April 2, 2014 at 04:50 pm
"30% of the TTC budget is a significant amount they can't function without the city funding.

If I was to get a 30% subsidy on my mortgage, transportation, income that would be huge."

I wasn't saying that 30% isn't a significant amount... I said that when compared to basically every other transit system the TTC is not as well funded and thus we don't have money to blow accommodating private companies which should at least partly pay for infrastructure upgrades that are only required to satisfy their business needs.
Rodney / April 2, 2014 at 04:50 pm
So how long before Chow flip flops again and now supports the Island Airport?
Trish / April 2, 2014 at 04:52 pm
Actually families and kids love the island airport. You ever see how they sit there and watch the planes take off and land....what a view. Just another great thing to take in while down at the waterfront.
MER1978 replying to a comment from Tory / April 2, 2014 at 05:04 pm
"Neigbourhoods change all the time for better or for worse. If you no longer enjoy your area, MOVE. Other people will gladly live there."

My neighbourhood isn't directly impacted by the island airport as it is currently or if it ends up being expanded... no idea what you're ranting about. There will be huge infrastructure costs for the city if this expansion goes through and absolutely everyone who pays property taxes has a right to be involved in the debate.

We have put many millions of dollars into revitalizing the waterfront and doubling the volume of passengers and increasing the number of flights which is precisely what Porter is asking for should not be quickly approved without proper study.

Screw Porter and their "well we already put in an order for the jets" reasoning... that is a BS excuse for rushing a decision on this.
Maxx / April 2, 2014 at 05:26 pm

Our roads are already congested. You think it's going to get better with a more heavily used airport downtown? NO!

There is a train route from Pearson to Union in the works, which should improve flow to the airport. Making the downtown airport larger is not the answer, an answer which is already being addressed.

They say it'll not be any noisier than it is now. It is already too noisy, interfering with relaxing activities such as listening and playing of music and just chilling out. IF you believe that it'll not be any noisier (meaning that the maximum amplitude of the sound coming from the planes will not get any larger) which I don't believe for a second, then it will definitely increase the quantity, i.e. the number of times the current noise level will come from the planes taking off and landing at the airport.

Further, the runways will have to be expanded for these planes and the waterfront will have less room for water activities. This will also depress the property land value for homeowners currently living there (which I don't).

All and all, this is just a BAD IDEA!
linden replying to a comment from VadimM / April 2, 2014 at 06:25 pm
I hope this plan is killed the way the casino was done and Toronto council votes No once and for all
Tobey replying to a comment from linden / April 2, 2014 at 07:42 pm
Ahhh yes the Casino Fiasco when LIBERAL COUNCILLOR ANA BAILAO was caught drunk driving after drinking with a lobbyist representing the casino company. Awesome Liberal handy work...
Theo / April 2, 2014 at 08:54 pm
It seems as though a lot of people don't have a very strong concept about how the Island Airport works. Adding jets over props is not going to increase the frequency of planes landing at the airport, it is only going to change which planes land with the same frequency. There is still the same space limitations at the terminal itself, and simply there is not place to park planes. This isn't like parking at the mall, planes take up a lot of space, and cramming them together is impossible. That being the case, there is effectively zero argument for an increase in noise pollution (in fact of the jets are quieter in design then they will probably be quieter than props.) Jets do hold more people, and that might increase some traffic around the airport, but if the proper infrastructure is built then it won't much matter.

Toronto could really benefit from a regional airport to go along with the international one, it would make so much about the city that much easier. It seems to me though that about 99% of people complaining about this live within easy reach of the airport. Not so fair for the rest of the city that they are crying "NIMBY" especially when they don't know what they don't want in their backyard.
toronto dude replying to a comment from Sarah / April 2, 2014 at 10:23 pm
yes do bring nyc into this and take did not build an airport on governors island
Jeb / April 2, 2014 at 10:25 pm
Are we ewastimg time at city hall voting on street names? What a waste of tax dollars.
toronto dude 2.0 / April 2, 2014 at 10:30 pm
Yes and please do and also note that Toronto did not build an airport on Algonquin island in Toronto either.
toronto dude replying to a comment from Theo / April 2, 2014 at 10:31 pm
speaking of people who don't have a strong concept of how the island airport works....umm...i don't think porter has plans to cancel their hourly hops to nj with a daily to palm springs...the jets are in addition to so yes traffic will increase dramatically...that is the whole plan. porter wants to make more money....end of.
Donald / April 2, 2014 at 10:33 pm
If we have no infrastructure in downtown Toronto why does Chow want to tear the Gardiner down, even thoug she's claiming she wants to move people through the city faster.
toronto dude 3.0 / April 2, 2014 at 10:35 pm
Yes Porter wants to make more Canadian money. Isn't that how most business are run. A true Canadian success story we can either nurture them or have another Blackberry story on our hands
Reg / April 2, 2014 at 10:38 pm
City hall is a friggin joke no matter what side your on. they can't even decide on a simple decision like food trucks in a day or a few weeks, we need to drag it out for months and months. WASTE OF OUR TAX DOLLARS!
LockDownTheDollars / April 2, 2014 at 11:01 pm
So were all OK with governments giving grants to private sector art galleries across the GTA that we get no return on at all, but were against funding a privatew sector airport that brings travelers to our city?
Jeb, I liked you better as Daniel Reed replying to a comment from Jeb / April 3, 2014 at 07:58 am
You didn't seem as clumsy, uneducated or as big an inbred mouthbreather under that handle.

Try posting as Daniel again so there's at least a little sport in feeling more superior to you and ignoring your opinions.


Huh? replying to a comment from LockDownTheDollars / April 3, 2014 at 08:03 am
I don't understand your point. Phrase it a different way that makes sense to taxpayers.
Other Cities: Montreal