I think it's ridiculous for the various elected officials to try and pressure the Greater Toronto Airport Authority into continuing funding Derick Sifton's airport (or "folly" might be more accurate) for $1.5 million annually.
As Mr. Sifton has threatened to close Buttonville a number of times over the years, I can only assume this airport is not financially viable and has not been for years.
A neighbour and I recently attended a Buttonville Airport Community Committee meeting where we expressed our concern about the safety of operating an airport in what is today a very densely populated urban area.
What was farmland in 1962 when Buttonville started is now homes and playgrounds and offices.
We cannot afford the risk of aircraft crashing and perhaps killing innocent people. Please remember the recent horrific accident in Buffalo, NY.
The majority of the flights from Buttonville are training, re-certification pleasure flights and according to the Transportation Safety Board statistics, these flights represent 30 per cent of the airplane crashes.
It astounds me to suppose anyone can think that "training flights" over Thornhill or Markham and Richmond Hill are a good idea.
John Burns
Buttonville
*************************************************
March 11, 2009
Letter to the Editor
Re: Buttonville Airport
We are long time Markham residents living in proximity of Buttonville Airport. The Airport operation impacts many residents in the surrounding areas on issues such as safety, pollution and noise, and it does not seem to be a viable business.
The area has changed since the early 60’s when the airport was purchased by the Siftons. Goggle map clearly shows the extraordinary growth and density of urban development in the area surrounding the airport. What was once empty field are now thriving businesses, offices and homes, schools and playgrounds that comprise Markham, Richmond Hill and Thornhill. There is no longer open space for emergency landings. This fact increases the risk of injury to the resident of the area.
Buttonville is home to a number of Flight Training Schools, including Helicopter training and Seneca College Flight School. Not only does Buttonville encourage aircraft flights for purpose of “pleasure flying”, they also provide training flights that operate older single engine aircraft, which are more likely to encounter failures. Transportation Safety Board of Canada statistics show that training flights and pleasure flights account for a large number of aircraft accidents. This risk to our safety should no longer be tolerated.
Furthermore, the issues with the 24 hours 7 days operation without strict restriction on late night flights, and the frequency and huge number of pleasure/training planes circulating in the neighbourhood have never been addressed by Buttonville to concerned residents. The residents in our neighbourhood deserve a night curfew on these pleasure/training flights similar to the curfew imposed by the Toronto City Centre Airport, with the exception of medical air ambulances and police helicopters on emergency.
Once again we are being asked to bail out a privately owned airport that has been struggling for decades. Mr. Sifton regularly threatens to close the airport if his demands are not met. Over the years, the government has pumped 10’s of millions of Public money into this private business. It is time for GTAA, Transport Canada and our politicians to act responsibly and to hold public consultation and community meetings before handing out our tax dollars. It is also time to establish a process for continuous monitoring of issues and resolutions raised by residents on the airport by the towns.
Liza Chang
*******************************************
Email to Dan Horchik, Markham Councillor
Re: Buttonville Airport - February 27, 2009
Dan, I too thank you for the opportunity to be in the meeting.
Over the years, I feel that the critical issues related to the operation of the airport are not getting the right attention nor taken seriously by Toronto Airway. Issues on safety and pollution with the huge number of flying school and pleasure planes of single engine circulating in a densely populated area, and the safety and noise issue with the 24 hours/7days operation without a strict policy of what plane can fly at late night are typical examples. These issues when brought up by individual resident such as myself were brushed off under the need of medical emergency planes or the police helicopters without addressing the safety, pollution and noise problems affecting a large number of residents living in proximity.
The continuing argument that the airport was established before the neighbourhood and that not much can be done by Toronto Airway is a major obstacle for good neighbour policy. The other argument that the job and the business opportunity lost for Markham is seriously weak as the area if used for other purposes would generate as much job opportunities and tax dollars in my opinion.
Airport operation affects many residents in proximity. I think public hearings and a community consultation process should be put in place by cities of Markham/Richmond Hill/ Thornhill jointly:
1. To seek input and understand issues from local residents
2. To ensure the issues raised are addressed by appropriate responsible parties
3. Decisions made related to the airport operation are taken into considerations of local resident concerns, and the impact of growth and fast development in close proximity.
These hearing and process should be chaired by independent party not affiliated with Toronto Airway, perhaps someone like yourself who has community interest at heart.
Dan, I object to any public money going into subsidizing a private airport and continues for decades without a public hearing or a community consultation process. Please pass my comments to all relevant parties who are either stakeholders or community reps. Thank you very much for your help.
Regards, Liza Chang
********************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment