Community Development - Blatchford

[MalcolmTucker]

The airport generates a surplus for the airport authority and pays close to $20 million in taxes in my recollection. If the leases are long term for the most part, there really isn't a good way for the city to raise extra revenue from the airport by trying to hurt it that won't hurt the airport authority.

[itom 987]

I recall reading that the Airport Authority uses revenue from the international airport to subsidize the municipal airport. The city can put a tax, user fee, permit on almost anything.

For example the city can charge 25 cents for the privilege of using a washroom.
In some countries you have to pay to use a washroom, in other countries you need to buy your own toilet paper on top of that.

[feepa]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

The airport generates a surplus for the airport authority and pays close to $20 million in taxes in my recollection. If the leases are long term for the most part, there really isn't a good way for the city to raise extra revenue from the airport by trying to hurt it that won't hurt the airport authority.

Edmonton Airports has quite the different recollection. Perhaps you can provide where you arrived at this information? Or is this more Calgary-fodder?

[feepa]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Envision Edmonton didn't start the war,

No, Tony Caterina did, when he started campaigning towards opening YXD to scheduled services... Seeing as he's closely related and campaigning with Envision Edmonton... Envision Edmonton/KBA/CAANA/Airco etc started this go round.
The war should have ended years ago, with politicians in this city closing city center airport in the 60's like was ORIGINALLY planned.... but due to outsiders such as yourself interfering, city council got weak at the knees and has allowed this war to continue for 50+ years.

CLOSE IT NOW. END. The war won't end until its closed for good.

[MalcolmTucker]

The city can tax the land, but if the tenants lease it, and most leases in my experience have property taxes in the main rent, not the floating operating expenses portion.

In any case, if the city is bound to keep the airport operating by a vote this fall, any attempt to hurt airport businesses will hurt the airport authority by driving away businesses while leaving them with the burden of maintaining the airport for who knows how many years.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by feepa

Edmonton Airports has quite the different recollection. Perhaps you can provide where you arrived at this information? Or is this more Calgary-fodder?

From the 64th page of the EIAA 2009 annual report:

Included in the revenue and expenses reviewed above are revenues of $3.9 million (2008 -$4.5 million) and expenses of $3.6 million (2008 -$3.5 million) for ECCA.

That is a surplus if I ever saw one.

[Daveography]

^ That's not much of one...certainly not close to the estimated $90M/yr that is estimated would be collected in property taxes by redeveloping the land.

[MalcolmTucker]

The surplus doesn't go to the city. The tax revenues from the airport are between $15 and $20 million if my memory serves me.

Also, you have to think of what that potential $90 million is: it is not found money. It is not revenue that would totally not be in the city coffers if there is no redevelopment.

The airport lands would be a magnate for development for sure due to likely permissive land rules, but that would just be diverting projects from elsewhere in the city for the most part onto the YXD parcel. Plus on top of that you are getting rid of the revenues from the current YXD.

So - will the development spur enough extra development that would not have happened elsewhere in Edmonton that it will replace the current YXD revenue? That I doubt.

[christopherj]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

From the 64th page of the EIAA 2009 annual report:

That is a surplus if I ever saw one.

To be fare, $300,000 is not a lot for that much land.

[itom 987]

"Included in the revenue and expenses reviewed above are revenues of $3.9 million (2008 -$4.5 million) and expenses of $3.6 million (2008 -$3.5 million) for ECCA.
Total revenue was down $0.6 million when compared to 2008 levels. Aeronautical revenue was down $0.7 million. Landing fee revenue was lower due to a decrease in activity as several of the scheduled service operators did not operate for the full year. In addition there was lower charter activity to support the energy sector.

Concession revenue was unchanged from 2008 and real estate revenue increased as a result of full year impact of new leases with two tenants in 2008 and increased licensing fees for the 2009 Edmonton Grand Prix.
The increase in expenses in 2009 of $0.1 million resulted partially from increased amortization, salary and benefits and bad debt costs, partially offset by lower interest costs. Salaries and benefits were higher as 2009 includes the increases contained in the union agreement. Bad debt expense was higher as the 2008 amount was reduced by the recovery of accounts previously written off resulting in a lower than normal bad debt amount. The decrease in interest expense results from cash payments made to reduce the long-term debt balance during the year. The increase in amortization expense reflects the full-year impact
of additional capital assets placed into service during 2008, and the partial-year impacts of new assets placed into service during 2009."


This is from page 62.
EIAA 2009 annual report

[Policy Wonk]

It is almost as though chasing away your customers with torches and pitch forks could bad for business...

Ultimately if the Edmonton airport is to live Edmonton Airports will have to return it to a sustainable position and cease sabotaging it. Prior to 2004 a comfortable compromise had evolved between YXD and YEG where both were flourishing in their respective roles.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

It is almost as though chasing away your customers with torches and pitch forks could bad for business...

Ultimately if the Edmonton airport is to live Edmonton Airports will have to return it to a sustainable position and cease sabotaging it. Prior to 2004 a comfortable compromise had evolved between YXD and YEG where both were flourishing in their respective roles.

However, that goes against the vote held in 1995 as been explained before.

[feepa]

The Edmonton Airport will live on. That is, the Edmonton International Airport. the unneeded city center airport won't live on. It will be be voted to be closed, and people such as yourself will go crawl under a rock, never to be heard from again, showing that you (Policy Wonk) and your cohorts truly have no care or interest about Edmonton. Edmonton will continue to thrive and get better, just like it continually has done since the early 90's.
The majority of Edmontonians and the respective businesses from all ends and inbetweens in this city have quicker easier access to the International Airport than the city center anyways.

[Policy Wonk]

There is a loophole, carriers operating under 703 or 704 regulations (as opposed to 705) are not considered to be airlines. Quikair began flying from YXD in 2001 and was not considered to be in conflict with the plebiscite at that time. Indeed it was never argued they were by Edmonton Airports or anyone else.

CAR 702 - Aerial Work (Usually, but not always helicopters, crop dusting etc)
CAR 703 - Air Taxi Operations (10 seats or less)
CAR 704 - Commuter Operations (19 seats or less)
CAR 705 - Airline Operations (Self explanatory)

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by feepa

and people such as yourself will go crawl under a rock, never to be heard from again.

No, we will move on to find another alternative to serving Edmonton's non-airline aviation requirements that Edmonton Airports is unwilling to adequately address. We will also be around to gloat at Edmonton's rather expensive vacant lot.

[feepa]

A year ago Edmonton city council proposed the idea to shut down the services at ECCA and transfer them to one of the fastest growing airports in Canada, the Edmonton International. Council voted 10-3 in favour of closure and the rest is history.

AEG was the organization that fought to keep the airport open, however they did not succeed. The evidence to close the airport was compelling and it also coincided with other major plans that city council had in mind. These plans included downtown revitalization, expanding the NAIT campus, developing the LRT to the Northwest, and building a sustainable and denser community.

AEG dissolved and now hides behind this new banner called Envision Edmonton. The arguments are the same. Many of the people are the same. And that is what makes me question the true interests of this organization.

How many of you who have joined this group has actually used the services at the ECCA more frequently than the Edmonton International? That includes business trips, personal trips, medavac, and virtually any other service you can think of.

The way I see it is Envision Edmonton, like AEG, puts its own interests before the community's. And to prove this point, here is a part of Envision Edmonton’s press release:

“Envision Edmonton is primarily funded by individuals and businesses, many of which have no direct investment in or association with the City Centre Airport…”

Let’s take a step back who is really behind Envision Edmonton:

Dr. Joseph Fernando: is an “expert on aviation medicine.”

Phil Milroy: the president of Westcorp

Bob Bentley: a former board member of the Alberta Enterprise Group (AEG)

Dr. Kerry Pawluski: founder of Angel Flight and director of the Aviation Edmonton Association

Ralph Henderson: president of the Edmonton Flying Club

Ed Schlemko: president of Airco ad a director of the Aviation Edmonton Association

Eugene Strilchuk: General Manager of Infiniti Air

Bruce Ritchie: President of the Aviation Edmonton Association

Dean Braithwaite: Flight instructor, GM of Edmonton Flying Club and a director of the Aviation Edmonton Association.

These nine individuals make up the 12 behind Envision Edmonton. If you ask me, all of them above have a direct investment in ECCA.

This organization is about punching the floor and kicking the air until it gets its way with ECCA. Its fear tactics are grossly reminiscent of AEG. You think that if the plebiscite actually does come and people vote to close it anyways that Envision Edmonton will stop? I have a feeling they may not. They will stomp their feet and plug their ears until the bulldozers come to remove ECCA.

Aristotle would slap these people back into the womb if he heard their arguments. They commit fallacy after fallacy after fallacy. Appeal to tradition, appeal to fear, and straw man arguments are the most obvious ones. Look at their take on issues such as medavac, fear of change, businesses leaving Edmonton like a stampede, the inevitable destruction of the aviation industry, and their whole idea that if we do close it down, we will likely regret it. It’s all fear mongering.

I’ve heard it all. We can make ECCA into the airports they have in other major centres such as New York City, Chicago, and London. That would be nice, but in case they haven’t noticed, these cities are way ahead of Edmonton. The purpose of city centre airports in these cities are totally different and play a much greater role in their respective cities than ECCA could ever dream of becoming.

ECCA does not and will not serve a business district the size of Manhattan in the foreseeable future. It does not serve as the gateway to the east and west like the Chicago Midway.

First thing’s first. Our downtown is underdeveloped. LRT is needing a major overhaul. NAIT is looking for ways to expand itself in the most efficient manner. Our urban sprawl issue is a nightmare. Let's fix those first, and in order to do so, ECCA has got to go.

We saw through these hollow arguments and dismissed them with ease once before. And looking at what the old boys from AEG have to say with their new Envision Edmonton banner now, we’ll likely dismiss it again. Envision Edmonton, like AEG, is looking out for itself more than it is looking out for the community. Who is on the board proves this. Their fear tactics prove this. And their lack of vision and compelling evidence to prove their arguments also supports this.

[DAVEinEDMONTON]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

No, we will move on to find another alternative to serving Edmonton's non-airline aviation requirements that Edmonton Airports is unwilling to adequately address.

Godd luck with that!!!

[Daveography]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

The surplus doesn't go to the city. The tax revenues from the airport are between $15 and $20 million if my memory serves me.

Also, you have to think of what that potential $90 million is: it is not found money. It is not revenue that would totally not be in the city coffers if there is no redevelopment.

The airport lands would be a magnate for development for sure due to likely permissive land rules, but that would just be diverting projects from elsewhere in the city for the most part onto the YXD parcel. Plus on top of that you are getting rid of the revenues from the current YXD.

So - will the development spur enough extra development that would not have happened elsewhere in Edmonton that it will replace the current YXD revenue? That I doubt.

I don't see a problem with the development of ECCA replacing development of further outward sprawl of Edmonton. In fact, it is one of the big reasons I support its redevelopment.

Also, the revenues of current YXD won't disappear, they will simply shift to other airports in the region, the majority of which are under EA control and therefore the revenues retained.

[MalcolmTucker]

The majority of the revenues of YXD are property taxes and won't be retained. And YXD slowing sprawl is disingenuous, you would be concentrating your 'urban city building' projects in one area - there is lots of under developed land within the current build form that would not develop due to this. It really is an urbanist cop out - not letting organic growth happen elsewhere in the urban build form, and instead try to replicate it in new build instead. (the last thing is a function of council more than anything, throwing up road blocks whenever people try to upzone.)

You are not going to stop someone buying a place in St. Albert by having condos and townhouses on the YXD. There is only so much market for certain build forms and locations, and YXD will only displace that development within Edmonton.

[240glt]

No one expects this to happen tomorrow... residential development on that lot is a decade away at least.

And yes there is a lot of developable land in & around but a lot of those parcles have other limiting factors that YXD doesn't have, & few if any of those parcels have the potential of this parcel


Wehther it's a "cop out" or "disingenuous" is a matter of opinion