Mark, the one major flaw in your numbers is that the job and tax creation projections which have been reported are based on 100% uptake. This is simply not going to happen. Even the most successful business park projects do not provide 100%, so even in the best real world case example, the income is not going to match what has been reported as if it were truth.
Meanwhile, the costs of servicing the lands are 100% real and are front loaded - we have to spend this money before we will see any return, and in fact before we can accurately predict the return.
There is zero percent chance that the cost projections are too low and 100% chance that the income projections are too high.
Add to that that there is some very sound logic that suggests that the uptake will be significantly lower than 100%. How low? It's hard to say. But if we are targeting companies whose priority is accessible cheap greenfield land, the airport lands are a terrible bet. Aerotropolis will still be competing against surrounding communities who offer land that is more accessible by highway. Their land will also not come bundled with enormous stormwater management issues. Their land will not come bundled with restrictions on height, sound, RF usage and other limitations that are inherent in locations close to airports. So unless the companies being targeted actually need access to air, there are going to be huge barriers to their choosing to locate at aerotropolis.
Meanwhile, we already have greenfields which are equally (or more) accessible than the airport lands, and we can't attract businesses to those. You can see our available greenfields here: http://www.investinhamilton.ca/locat...velopment.html
Can you explain to me what, exactly, it is about the aegd lands that will appeal to incoming businesses? What exactly is the sales pitch? Why will they locate there instead of North Glanbrook which so far has attracted ONE tenant?
This is a huge gamble with our money and the promise of payoff is built on very shaky ground.
In this time when Hamilton can barely afford to keep existing infrastructure in place we simply cannot afford to take this risk.
Regarding my $1000 per taxpayer estimate, it's actually very conservative. The initial estimated cost is $323 million PLUS $125 million for the trunk sewer. That's $450 million. Our population is 500,000. How many households are there in Hamilton? A lot fewer than 500,000. And who pays our taxes? 70% is covered by residential taxes. WE CANNOT AFFORD THE AEGD, it is simple economics. I invite all proponents to pay for it themselves and keep all of the supposed revenue. You will be giving your money to the home builders association because the businesses are not going to just magically appear.
Regarding the types of jobs, if the majority of jobs are comparatively low on the income scale, where exactly are the people holding those jobs supposed to live? And how will they get there? This type of extended societal cost has not even been brought into the equation.
The entire project is wishful thinking. We might as well build a popsicle stick skyscraper and a giant magnifying glass. Then we can all ride the monorail to our escalator to nowhere