Big Day: CCA Vote

[big W]

Originally Posted by Nigel

So what will be the cost of the environmental clean up, and how long will that take?

I am not even sure why this would enter into the dialouge. What ever the level of contamination that is on the site is irrelevent as far as the city is concerned as the result would be the same. If the site is contaminated, and it was done by the tenant, then the tenant would be responsible for the clean up legally. In other words, there would be no cost to the city to clean it. If the City as owner/occupier of the airport caused the environmental comtamination, then it is responsible to clean it up if the airport is running or not. Either way, the city is responsible for the clean up of the site, if the airport was functioning or not.

Now the length of time to clean up the site depends on the level of contamination. The higher the contamination, the longer it would take to clean up. However if I were a betting man, I would guess that much of it would be hydro carbon contamination and would be limited to small patches so much of the airport lands could be developed right away and the portions that are contaminated would be tested for the next 10 -15 years. Most of the contamination would naturally break down, therefore the costs would be limited. If they are talking about fully shutting down in 10 -15 years, then this becomes almost entirely a non issue. So long as we are not spilling more into the chemicals into the soil in the mean time. The costs to cure would probably still high, but no where near the $500 million Caterina was spewing.

[canucklehead2]

Unfortunately the Sun poll only goes back a week, however the result is alluded to in the following letters to the editor...

http://www.edmontonsun.com/comment/l...90691-sun.html

As for full disclosure purposes, what other shit I'm doing right now is that I'm working at a non-profit arts organization keeping an office open for the public while working on an educational graphic novel project for elementary school students, just in case your curious

[feepa]

Originally Posted by canucklehead2

And since you've completely ducked by question to you, "Do you think the consolidation vote in 1995 should have been done by City Council alone?" I'm assuming you'd say yes...

I think the city gave a resounding direction to city council of the day to end all schedule air services at the City Center Airport... Did city council go through with what they asked of the public to vote? NO. They allowed concessions to various communities.

So no, I don't think it should have gone to plebiscite... but being that it did, it certainly helped form a mandate to council on how 77% of the city felt about the city center airport and helped shape what happened yesterday.

And I dont really care what your eating habits, or online habits are. This issue has been on and off the radar for many years now, and certainly in the last 12 months, we have all known that council will be voting on it. I've certainly seen you on these forums, and others, but haven't seen your opinion on this issue till after the fact.

Kinda too late to cry blue in the face, at the Royal Fork or not.

In case your not wondering, cause I know your not, I ate at my desk at work, a taco salad that I had made at home the night before. I watched council online through my computer. I watched/listened to at least half of the discussions.

[canucklehead2]

Well WCO, granted that the issue came up so quickly and few details were available to the public, it's natural that people aren't 100% clear on what's going on. Given a bit of time and more investigative reporting I'm sure the public could be educated to a reasonable standard.

But hell if you watched the debate yesterday, Council wasn't even aware of WTF they were voting for, so how is that any better?

[feepa]

Originally Posted by canucklehead2

Here I'll throw you a bone...
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Life/...946/story.html

You can keep your leftovers from the Royal Fork...

The Kingsway Business Association released a poll Monday suggesting 74 per cent of respondents disagree with shutting down the City Centre Airport and turning it into housing.

Ya, I bet thats a real scientific poll...

RIGHT HAHAHAHAHAHA GOOD ONE, Bone

[hilman]

Originally Posted by canucklehead2

I tend to give the general public a bit more credit than that and frankly I find your attitudes anti-democratic... These so-called "ignorant voters" are also the ones who put these people on council, so...

With a decision as big as the closing of Canada's oldest airport and potentially selling the land to private interests, it seems to me that the "ignorant" public should be able to have a direct and final say on the matter...

You honestly think Joe Public is going to actually research the pros and cons or keeping it open or closing it down? You honestly think people will read through the hundreds of pages of reports to make an informed and intelligent decision? I don't think so, they will watch the news and see poor old Cal crying about how it is the only way to link the north. Guess what, I am very thankful that City council finally decided to close that 536 acres of wasteland.

Here are a few facts:

- $900,000 is the amount of money earned in property and business taxes per year for the city from ECCA. This equates to $1679 per acre. In order to break even, you would need 500 houses placed on this land. I am pretty sure we won't be putting 500 acreages on it.
- For the 4 main destinations of the ECCA (Fort McMurray, Grande Prairie, High Level and Peace River), 17,578 passengers out of 65,520 allowable seats were used. If this is such an important airport, why are there only 27% loads on each plane, shouldn't they be full? In perspective, EIA handled 778,000 landed seats from the North.
- 41% of ECCA flights start and end from the ECCA without landing at another airport with 27% of ECCA flights being charters to the North and 3 % scheduled air service. In total, 73% of the flights at the ECCA are not going to or from the North.

Sorry but this land will be used for 25,000+ people, expansion for NAIT/NLRT, improvements to Yellowhead Trail, etc and will benefit all of us. Once full built, it will provide $20 million+ per year just in residential property taxes!! Please tell me what business in their right mind would waste 536 acres of land to only get $900,000 in return and be used by a minute amount of the city's population? Answer is no one would, this decision will benefit exponentially more people and am glad the city council had the intelligence and courage to do it.

[ue]

Originally Posted by canucklehead2

I tend to give the general public a bit more credit than that and frankly I find your attitudes anti-democratic... These so-called "ignorant voters" are also the ones who put these people on council, so...

With a decision as big as the closing of Canada's oldest airport and potentially selling the land to private interests, it seems to me that the "ignorant" public should be able to have a direct and final say on the matter...

Is it really Canada's oldest airport? I had no idea - I knew it was old, but not the oldest.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by canucklehead2

Well WCO, granted that the issue came up so quickly and few details were available to the public, it's natural that people aren't 100% clear on what's going on. Given a bit of time and more investigative reporting I'm sure the public could be educated to a reasonable standard.

But hell if you watched the debate yesterday, Council wasn't even aware of WTF they were voting for, so how is that any better?

The issue has been up ever since Tony Caterina and Don Koziak started running for election.

[feepa]

It's not Canada's oldest airport...St-Hubert, is Canada's oldest airport,

[deedub35]

Originally Posted by feepa

I think the city gave a resounding direction to city council of the day to end all schedule air services at the City Center Airport... Did city council go through with what they asked of the public to vote? NO. They allowed concessions to various communities.

So how binding is this latest decision? Caterina reopened this last year. Is some newly elected joker (Caterina 2) going to be able to reopen this in a few years time? Hopefully by then 16/34 gone and the east half of the airport has begun redevelopment.

[feepa]

Caterina tried to re-open discussion around schedule service, and was promptly denied.

The discussion that's been ongoing for the last year was about whether or not the airport should be closed permanently, or remaining the status quo (GA + scheduled services to 4 northern community) Scheduled service was not part of the debate, even though Tony tried as hard as he could to make it part of the discussion.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by canucklehead2

Here I'll throw you a bone...
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Life/...946/story.html

That is meaningless.

It was a telephone poll done by the Kingsway Business Association (one of the airport's most vocal supporters).

They didn't even release the nature of the questions they asked. They could have pursuaded random people to vote any way they wish.


I wish I took a screencap of the 630 CHED online poll back in October where 81% of the 1.2 billion (!) votes wanted that airport closed. That would sure show you!

[deedub35]

"The telephone poll of 415 people across Edmonton was conducted by RC Research in late March and early April. Results are considered accurate within 4.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20."

Originally Posted by MrOilers

That is meaningless.

It was a telephone poll done by the Kingsway Business Association (one of the airport's most vocal supporters).

Exactly.

Sample size is not large enough to give an accurate representation. So many variables that can skew the result.

What neighbourhoods do these 415 people live? What do these 415 people do? Who these 415 people associate with? Do they have relatives up north? Do they know people that are sick?

[wco]

Originally Posted by canucklehead2

Well WCO, granted that the issue came up so quickly and few details were available to the public, it's natural that people aren't 100% clear on what's going on. Given a bit of time and more investigative reporting I'm sure the public could be educated to a reasonable standard.

But hell if you watched the debate yesterday, Council wasn't even aware of WTF they were voting for, so how is that any better?

I can think of three councillors off the top of my head. And this issue is an old one.

[Edmonchuck]

Originally Posted by CanadianCentaur

Just how quickly could height restrictions be modified or lifted in the 16/34 APO and the d/t development area if 16/34 gets shut down one way or another? As I said earlier, it wouldn't make sense to still height restrictions in place there if 16/34 isn't going to be used anymore.

With a VFR runway, your margin of error is larger.

[Edmonchuck]

Originally Posted by cdnklc

and make sure that nait is part of that "permanent track set up" so they can do "double duty" with things like shop space and get involved with cold weather testing for tires and chassis and durability for the rest of the year...

I think someone proposed that at one time as an alternate design plan, but got crapped all over as being anti-green and pro-airport and some such nonsense.

[Edmonchuck]

Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast

Is it really Canada's oldest airport? I had no idea - I knew it was old, but not the oldest.

Originally Posted by feepa

It's not Canada's oldest airport...St-Hubert, is Canada's oldest airport,

Blatchford Field is Canada's oldest LICENSED airfield. key difference.

Originally Posted by deedub35

So how binding is this latest decision? Caterina reopened this last year. Is some newly elected joker (Caterina 2) going to be able to reopen this in a few years time? Hopefully by then 16/34 gone and the east half of the airport has begun redevelopment.

It would be difficult. Possible, yes. However, it would take several council votes, and it would take re-opening the lease again. The risk reward equation is not there.

Originally Posted by wco

I can think of three councillors off the top of my head. And this issue is an old one.

This issue is an old one. over 50 years old.

[Edmonchuck]

Originally Posted by deedub35

"The telephone poll of 415 people across Edmonton was conducted by RC Research in late March and early April. Results are considered accurate within 4.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20."


Exactly.

Sample size is not large enough to give an accurate representation. So many variables that can skew the result.

What neighbourhoods do these 415 people live? What do these 415 people do? Who these 415 people associate with? Do they have relatives up north? Do they know people that are sick?

The RC research/KBA poll did produce one thing.

Most people really don't care about this issue. Many are unaware.

That aligns to what I see. The further you get from Kingsway, the more people don't even know this field exists. The real issue here is that old money keeps it alive.

[Edmonchuck]

Originally Posted by big W

I am not even sure why this would enter into the dialouge. What ever the level of contamination that is on the site is irrelevent as far as the city is concerned as the result would be the same. If the site is contaminated, and it was done by the tenant, then the tenant would be responsible for the clean up legally. In other words, there would be no cost to the city to clean it. If the City as owner/occupier of the airport caused the environmental comtamination, then it is responsible to clean it up if the airport is running or not. Either way, the city is responsible for the clean up of the site, if the airport was functioning or not.

Now the length of time to clean up the site depends on the level of contamination. The higher the contamination, the longer it would take to clean up. However if I were a betting man, I would guess that much of it would be hydro carbon contamination and would be limited to small patches so much of the airport lands could be developed right away and the portions that are contaminated would be tested for the next 10 -15 years. Most of the contamination would naturally break down, therefore the costs would be limited. If they are talking about fully shutting down in 10 -15 years, then this becomes almost entirely a non issue. So long as we are not spilling more into the chemicals into the soil in the mean time. The costs to cure would probably still high, but no where near the $500 million Caterina was spewing.

Everyone forgets that you CAN go after those responsible for the contamination, and thereby not costing taxpayers nearly as much. For example, the USAF would be on the hook for their messes.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by canucklehead2

Well WCO, granted that the issue came up so quickly and few details were available to the public, it's natural that people aren't 100% clear on what's going on. Given a bit of time and more investigative reporting I'm sure the public could be educated to a reasonable standard.

But hell if you watched the debate yesterday, Council wasn't even aware of WTF they were voting for, so how is that any better?

sorry canucklehead2 but this issue didn't come up quickly. it's been there and debated interminably since before the passenger terminal opened at yeg in 1963 and all of the details and reports and studies from the past half century are more available to the public now with google than they've ever been.

and i watched a good portion of the debate yesterday on screen and in person and sat through many of the hearings and presentations including two of my own. council knew exactly what they were voting for and council also knows that they voted for exactly what the majority of edmontonians wanted them to vote for. finally.