HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Business, Politics & the Economy


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2010, 3:59 PM
coalminecanary coalminecanary is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,404
Airport Employment Growth District (AEGD)

Why isn't anyone talking about the aerotropolis?

This scandal-laden project, if it goes forward, will very likely cost us much more than a stadium, and will not bring any benefit to the city.

Meanwhile it is sliding through under the radar and being voted on at the same meeting as the next (and final? ya right) stadium vote:

http://raisethehammer.org/article/11...p_aerotropolis

http://progressivedevelopment.ca/wp/...e-staff-report

There is a long list of valid reasons to NOT support aerotropolis, but to me, the biggest is the horrendously huge cost to taxpayers. A close second is the absolute lack of need for these industrial parks, as demonstrated by the very high vacancy rates in many many other industrial parks in the city.

But I guess aerotropolis is a lot less glamourous than the stadium despite being much more important...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2010, 6:47 PM
emge's Avatar
emge emge is offline
Needs more coffee...
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 837
it seems unstoppable to me, unfortunately. I wish it weren't, but the common-sense arguments have been presented and re-presented... and I don't think they make much difference.

Hamilton Civic League did do a citizens' forum on the topic where they invited panelists from all sides of the issue (unfortunately, not all were able to come) - there was a decent balance though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2010, 4:04 PM
coalminecanary coalminecanary is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,404
what a sad and defeatist attitude

the aegd is a nightmare. much worse for us than the stadium. but we dedicated 144 pages of lip flapping to that!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2010, 5:30 PM
mattgrande's Avatar
mattgrande mattgrande is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,183
Is there anyone on council seriously considering building this, though? I thought council had pretty much put it on the back burner.

Related: http://www.thespec.com/news/local/ar...opolis-bratina
__________________
Livin' At The Corner Of Dude And Catastrophe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2010, 5:33 PM
highwater highwater is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattgrande View Post
Is there anyone on council seriously considering building this, though? I thought council had pretty much put it on the back burner.

Related: http://www.thespec.com/news/local/ar...opolis-bratina
It's being voted on in a couple of weeks, so no.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2010, 6:05 PM
Jon Dalton's Avatar
Jon Dalton Jon Dalton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,764
If this goes ahead that tells me that Hamilton has given up on itself. That it has chosen mediocrity as its only hope for any sort of a future. Of course the AEGD will fail to even achieve mediocrity at creating jobs.
__________________
360º of Hamilton
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2010, 3:10 AM
emge's Avatar
emge emge is offline
Needs more coffee...
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 837
coalminecanary, i'm not particularly defeatist about a lot of issues, but this one has so many big names behind the scenes pulling the strings it's much more difficult to extricate/fight than the stadium issue. It's simply a lot more complicated than the stadium issue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2010, 8:51 AM
LikeHamilton's Avatar
LikeHamilton LikeHamilton is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 2,153
Quote:
Committee gives clearance to aerotropolis project

Daniel Nolan October 6, 2010 TheSpec.com

Aerotropolis is taking flight.

The controversial project to open up land around the Hamilton airport to industrial and commercial development was approved 6-0 Tuesday by the planning and economic development committee.

The committee, however, also voted on a motion from Mayor Fred Eisenberger that after Phase 1, or 33 per cent of the project is developed, the city undertake a review to assess Hamilton’s need for additional employment lands. This will include a review and analysis of what the mayor called the “absorption rate” and the availability of existing brownfield and greenfield sites in the city’s employment areas.

Aerotropolis, which city staff say will bring in annual tax revenue of $52 million, and cost an estimated $353 million in infrastructure, was approved by committee members Tuesday night after hearing 30 delegations over the course of two days.

The issue now goes to city council for approval Oct. 13. Staff’s figures are based on the Airport Employment Growth District – popularly called aerotropolis – being fully developed by 2031. A consultant says 45 per cent of the jobs will be in wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing.

Ward 12 Councillor Lloyd Ferguson, chair of the committee, believed the project will help reduce city taxes and create jobs. He noted the majority of infrastructure costs will be funded by development charges.

“We have 35,000 people leave this city everyday for jobs and, in fairness, we should have them here,” Ferguson said after the vote. “They shouldn’t have to get on the QEW or the GO train and go to Toronto. We desperately need more commercial and industrial assessment.”

Ward 14 Councillor Robert Pasuta, a vice-chair of the planning committee, had some concerns about the project, but said he voted for it because he was confident the airport lands would attract developers.

“We heard delegations say it could be a good thing,” he said after the vote. “We heard delegations say it could be a bad thing… It’s a gamble, but at some point in time we have to move forward.”

Council had to move on the issue this fall or else see it deferred and dealt with by the new incoming council. That would have required a repeat of the community and business delegations. The planning committee earlier this year voted to defer the project to January 2011, but Eisenberger convinced council to change its mind due to an outcry from the business community. Council approved the concept of aerotropolis in June 2005.

dnolan@thespec.com

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/ar...opolis-project
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2010, 2:15 PM
coalminecanary coalminecanary is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,404
I notice mr. frugal himself, lloyd ferguson, thinks spending 350 million on essentially a high stakes gamble is a great idea

This should be front page news but the spec buries it inside with no picture even. How about a map of the land and some graphics showing the insane costs?

I really wish this issue could be deferred to the next council
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2010, 10:04 PM
matt602's Avatar
matt602 matt602 is offline
Hammer'd
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Burlington/Hamilton, ON
Posts: 4,429
This is whole thing is bullshit and it's overdue to be brought to the public's attention. You think wasting money on a stadium is a big deal? Get a load of this shit.
__________________
"Above all, Hamilton must learn to think like a city, not a suburban hybrid where residents drive everywhere. What makes Hamilton interesting is the fact it's a city. The sprawl that surrounds it, which can be found all over North America, is running out of time."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2010, 1:20 PM
coalminecanary coalminecanary is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,404
AEGD thinking is aged thinking!

Mayor and council,

How can you justify spending 353 million dollars to service lands that have shown zero promise of actually being developed by businesses?

We are in no position to be spending this money against the will of the citizens and against the will of the province when we can barely afford to keep our existing infrastructure in order!

I urge you, please, do not proceed with the AEGD. Do not throw our money at a dead end project.

At a very minimum, if we are going to proceed with the aerotropolis, we need to ensure that residential properties will NEVER be developed there. Are you willing to write that restriction into the decision?

Are you serious about economic growth and development?

If so, the correct approach is to focus on changing the culture at city hall which currently resists new businesses, and remove the red tape that is keeping people out of the game.

Got 353 million burning a hole in your pocket? How about putting it toward a fund that offers tax incentives to upstarts?

When aerotropolis fails - either through years of still-vacant serviced lands, or (more likely) through covering the aegd with tract housing, where will you be? Will you answer to the citizens about the failure you created?

Thank you for your time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2010, 11:34 AM
markbarbera markbarbera is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,049
Last night Council voted 13-2 to approve the Airport Employment Growth District plan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2010, 1:01 PM
coalminecanary coalminecanary is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,404
who was against?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2010, 1:03 PM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is offline
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 18,857
My guess, McHattie and Bratina.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2010, 3:44 PM
emge's Avatar
emge emge is offline
Needs more coffee...
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 837
Yep, those two.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2010, 4:08 PM
coalminecanary coalminecanary is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,404
why do they have to be so anti business all the time

(sarcasm btw)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2010, 12:05 PM
coalminecanary coalminecanary is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,404
So the way I see it, there is now only one reasonable choice for mayor - only 3 have any chance, and only one of those is opposed to this thinly veiled subsidy to sprawl building
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2011, 7:41 PM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is offline
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 18,857
http://www.sachem.ca/news/article/239894

The earliest date that an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing will be held to determine the future of the airport employment growth district (AEGD) is March 2012.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2012, 2:02 AM
matt602's Avatar
matt602 matt602 is offline
Hammer'd
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Burlington/Hamilton, ON
Posts: 4,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelTown View Post
http://www.sachem.ca/news/article/239894

The earliest date that an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing will be held to determine the future of the airport employment growth district (AEGD) is March 2012.
Council duped, public money at risk on airport lands charade
Dave Braden
June 29, 2012

The City of Hamilton is defending a decision at the Ontario Municipal Board to designate 3,000 acres for employment purposes around Hamilton International airport, an area often referred to as the aerotropolis. The purpose is to create an industrial employment zone that will reduce the strain on residential taxpayers. This approach looks responsible — except for glaring contradictions and risks.

The provincial policies on growth and the land-use policies of the City of Hamilton require mixed and efficient land uses and protection of environmental and agricultural lands. Ontario’s Greenbelt legislation has reinforced the latter. The aerotropolis concept is the antithesis of these principles.

The proposal to establish a huge area for employment possibilities was seen as a potential means of creating jobs and tax assessment. This same proposal was seen by the residential development industry as offering a “back door” for including their lands in a development zone.

Originally and during debates, city officials maintained that this project was exclusively for industrial purposes. In the past month the city’s legal representative agreed with many residential investors and put the issue of residential uses back on the table without the knowledge of council. The rationale for this initiative is increasingly clear.

The city acknowledges that the project will require $350 million for servicing costs. It has intentionally avoided including the actual costs of a new water main and trunk sewer, which could easily add $100 million. Additional internal servicing costs have not been included but have been agreed to. This initiative will require a half-billion dollars for new infrastructure at a time when the city has a $2 billion infrastructure deficit.

The bottom line is that servicing costs are more than $200,000 per acre while serviced land values are in the range of $140,000 per acre, if buyers can be found. (For context, the Clappison’s Industrial Park required $300,000 to $400,000 in servicing and financial costs and sold for approximately $65,000 per acre.)

The likelihood of the city making developers pay their own way and following through on this requirement is close to nil if recent experience is taken into account. The city has a consistent record of promoting the servicing of employment lands and then approving their conversion to other uses.

The likelihood that the City will collect industrial development charges as planned is also nil, based on council’s record.

The chance that these lands will remain in an industrial classification is zero because of a combination of reasons: The city is not “business friendly,” the city tax rates are unusually high, there is no rail connection, the airport’s economic importance is diminishing, and predictable increases in energy costs will negatively affect distant, out-of-the-way employment lands.

The city should consider an alternative to the “full-blown” aerotropolis concept. In the early days of amalgamation, an inexpensive approach was put forward that protected a range of employment areas across the municipality, thereby providing a wide choice of servicing levels, locations and costs.

As suggested in 2001, consideration should be given to developing a smaller area, using inexpensive, temporary local servicing (e.g. septics and wells). This should be implemented to promote employment and to gauge serious interest in industrial development. This would be followed by conventional servicing when occupancy reached a designated target (e.g. 50 per cent). This strategy is affordable and practical. It would cost less than 5 per cent of the current plan.

The sad irony of this issue is that the majority of citizens, including most of the city councillors, think this exercise is about employment.

The truth is that the knowledgable developers and the planners involved know full well the employment option is being used as a two-step solution to more residential sprawl. Members of council have been duped and some staff are perpetuating this charade, all at the expense of the taxpayer.

When the developers themselves want the employment concept to fail, they will not work to make it successful. It is high time that we develop and support an honest, practical and affordable employment strategy, not a confusing, subsidized disguise for more residential sprawl.

http://www.thespec.com/opinion/colum...-lands-charade
__________________
"Above all, Hamilton must learn to think like a city, not a suburban hybrid where residents drive everywhere. What makes Hamilton interesting is the fact it's a city. The sprawl that surrounds it, which can be found all over North America, is running out of time."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jan 4, 2013, 3:39 PM
thistleclub thistleclub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,583
Two sides of Hamilton aerotropolis fight face off this month
(CBC Hamilton, Samantha Craggs, Jan 4, 2013)

Two local activist groups are gearing up for an Ontario Municipal Board hearing this month where they'll fight the largest urban boundary expansion in recent memory. In the meantime, they'll update people on what's happened so far.

Environment Hamilton and Hamiltonians for Progressive Development will battle the city in a three-week hearing starting Jan. 14. The groups have joined the Council of Canadians and the Hamilton Civic League for a public meeting next week updating Hamiltonians on what to expect.

The OMB hearing “is going to determine whether this proceeds, and if it proceeds, how large it is,” said Don McLean, a director with Environment Hamilton.

The meeting at city hall on Jan. 9 “will give people an update on what has happened until now.”

The Airport Employment Growth District, also known as the Aerotropolis project, is the city's plan to expand the urban boundary to open up about 700 hectares around the John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport for long-term development.

The city says the land will attract jobs, economic development and as much as $70 million per year in taxes by the time it's fully developed in 2031. Opponents' worries include the environmental impact, the economic effectiveness, the loss of prime agricultural land and the contribution to urban sprawl.

The city argues that the project represents an opportunity to diversify Hamilton's economic base. The growth plan will also reduce local dependence on commuting and take advantage of airport infrastructure, said Guy Paparella, director of growth planning.

Paparella foresees advanced manufacturing, logistics and transportation businesses locating there, as well as warehousing and distribution companies.

“This land is of strategic importance in terms of employment area for the whole city,” he said.

Environment Hamilton, which is fundraising about $50,000 for legal fees for the OMB challenge, says the city should intensify and revitalize brownfield sites before it develops arable land.

“We're all hoping for a commitment to more sustainable development,” executive director Lynda Lukasik said.

The public meeting will be from 6 to 9 p.m. in the council chambers at city hall.

The OMB hearing will be Jan. 14 at 10 a.m. at the Hamilton Convention Centre.

The city has budgeted about $300,000 for the OMB challenge.



AEGD Maps: Study area / Study area with aerial / Airport employment district and referral 11 area
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Business, Politics & the Economy
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:50 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.