Tyranny of the minority:

Hijacking democracy and Island airport

The city's decision to stop endless debate over the Toronto City Centre Airport (TCCA), prompted by a minority of councillors who would like to crush the airport, was a brilliant one. The item was struck from the agenda of a May 1 meeting of Joint Committees of Urban Planning & Transportation (Chair Joe Pantalone) and Economic Development (Chair Mike Feldman).

On May 1, a group of green activists, largely made up of Toronto Island residents headed by Allan Sparrow, shouted foul that the meeting had been cancelled. Sparrow and company charged that the city was undemocratic but never explained why they had posted signs on elevators to the council chamber warning people that only those who wanted to shut the airport down would be welcome and that all others should check the meeting schedule of the Toronto Port Authority. Democracy dictates that citizens have the right to access meetings held at Toronto City Hall.

On May 1, Sparrow and company took over the council chamber where they presented a slide show, contents of which were less than honest and factual. Of the 44 city councillors holding municipal office, only two councillors Olivia Chow and Pam McConnell were present, and Chow did not remain for the entire meeting.

The meeting was a washout, but Sparrow, wife Sue and colleague Mark Brien were determined to put the best face on it.

There is a large group of councillors who don't know why this issue is back on the agenda. They say the city has already made its decision about the airport when council voted in favour of amending the Tripartite Agreement to allow for the construction of a double bascule (moveable) bridge to the Toronto City Centre Airport, subject only to the fulfillment of a number of conditions.

Among those conditions: 1) the completion of a federal Environmental Assessment, 2) the approval of architectural designs for the bridge, 3) the submission of a business plan for the airport by the Toronto Port Authority that assured the City it would have no financial obligation in providing access to the airport, 4) the presentation of clearance permits from the Canadian Coast Guard.

The Toronto Port Authority (under its prior incarnation as the Toronto Harbour Commission) spent nearly $2-million to complete the most extensive Environmental Assessment (EA) ever undertaken. The EA was conducted under the most comprehensive, democratic and technically competent consultation process possible. Four federal authorities were involved in the process and the project to construct the 400-foot bridge to the island airport was heard through an unprecedented level of public consultation rivaling the City of Toronto's public consultation process on Waterfront Revitalization in both scope and thoroughness.

The EA public process heard, evaluated and studied every possible environmental, social, economic and urban planning issue and argument surrounding the bridge and its effect on the airport, the City and its waterfront. It even examined the environmental impact of increased commercial airline flights to a level of 900,000 passengers per year and found the effect on the environment to be ineligible and insignificant. With the realistic mix of aircraft and airport ground equipment considered at the time, the EA estimated that in one year these passenger levels would generate emissions equivalent to the volume of pollutants generated by a 650-metre stretch of the Gardiner Expressway.

Even after the open EA public consultation process and a decisive vote at City Council, it seems that no amount of democracy is enough for the Olivia Chows, Jack Laytons and Pam McConnells of the world. When this minority group of councillors don't get their way, they are prepared to hijack democracy by conniving and contriving to make a political issue of the island airport and bring it to the forefront by any means and by whatever argument possible.

The City Council directive instructing the Joint Committees of Urban Planning and Economic Development to receive the Port Authority's submissions to fulfill the remaining conditions was high-jacked by the usual suspects. After being invited by Joint Committee to make a professional design presentation for the bridge with architects and engineers present, the TPA was deliberately knocked off the agenda on the spot by the usual NDP contingent seeking to undermine the airport at every opportunity.

These Councillors (Chow and McConnell) were even allowed by Urban Planning staff at the City to make a mockery of the Waterfront Reference Group public process by allowing the consultations to be taken over by developer consultant Alan Sparrow and his small fanatical tribe of anti-airport islanders. Meaningful discussion about important city initiatives in Toronto's eastern, centre and western waterfront plan were crowded out by a small group determined to transform every public forum into an anti-airport opportunity, however unrelated the topic. This group managed to get the island airport back on the May 1 agenda of the Joint Committee of Urban Planning and Economic Development in a clever, but flawed attempt to crush it through the Waterfront Reference Group.

These councillors even managed to prompt city staff to embark on a reporting effort to assess the impact of the proposed increase in airport activity, wrongly assuming that Urban Planning staff at the city even had the technical expertise and competency to study airport noise exposure factors, aircraft emissions and runway performance. Developed in conjunction with Transport Canada, the Tripartite Agreement governing the airport already protects the environmental balance needed on the waterfront. It sets out very tight restrictions through its ban on runway extensions and Îjet' turbofan engine technology, as well as through the noise and air traffic limitations provided for by the Noise Exposure Factor contour restriction. The anti-airport NIMBY brigade let by Alan Sparrow's "Community Airport Impact Review" have styled themselves as experts on airports by embracing every motherhood issue, propagating myths, and playing to the fears that stem from the widespread ignorance that naturally surrounds such a technical subject.

The island airport debate is a prime example of how the City of Toronto and its citizens are continuously being held hostage by a small, but organized contingent of NDP Councillors. It's the perfect case study on how Toronto's promise, progress and future success have always been held back by tyranny of the minority. For a lack of leadership, vision, organization and information around many issues, a majority of city councillors have allowed the city's will to be ruled by a minority. This weakness in Toronto's municipal government process yields one message: Torontonians are afraid to let their city succeed and they lack the courage to move beyond their mediocre rank in the world of prosperous and liveable cities.

However, it seems that the true defenders of democracy at the city have finally awakened on this issue. Their decision to cut off yet another attempt to rehash an issue that has already been studied, debated, consulted, voted and decided through an exhaustive, but exemplary democratic process is a principled one. The anti-airport NDP councillors will say democracy is being overthrown. The only thing being overthrown is a tyranny of the minority.

A decision to let the Toronto City Centre Airport succeed is also the right one. It's time for the city to recognize, defend and help foster the island airport's underestimated contributions to the economy, to the health care delivery system, and to public security and emergency planning.

City leaders would also be wise to recognize that Toronto's own airport is a key part of the transportation infrastructure that will be needed to make waterfront revitalization a success.