The only story getting more ink than the Income Trust meldown in Toronto's media today is the federal report on the city's waterfront. Released yesterday, the report says everything is just fine on our border with Lake Ontario. What, me worry?

To say local politicians reacted - as Tom Wolfe writes - like poleaxed mews to the news is no understatement. Mayor Miller said the report was, "Not worth the paper it was written on." MP Olivia Chow called the report, "a total whitewash." Globe and Mail city columnist, John Barber, says that the report illustrates the federal government's contempt for the city. He even suggests the only recourse is through the courts.

The Chair of the much despised Port Authority said, "It is nice to have a third party come in and review the process … and come to this result." Taxpayers open your wallets for another round of subsidies to Porter Air. I love free enterprise.

Of course, one of the ironies of today's Globe coverage is that on one side of the page 14/15 fold-out is a full page ad for Porter "Flying Defined" Air, while on the other are inches of text decrying that very airline. In spite of the fact that I write for a national newspaper, this kind of advertising relationship always strikes me as more than a bit awkward. Still, I guess that is what a free media is all about.

As yet, other blogs remain quiet on the issue.

1. Are you referring to this report?: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2006/11/02/report-portauthority.html?ref=rss

   I think we can agree that municipal control of a federal agency, and the essentially federal land it presides over, was never going to happen (except in David Miller’s wet dreams). Shall we give Pearson Airport to Hazel McCallion too?

   To pretend shock and outrage at being told this, once again, is a disingenuous ploy on the part of our local politicians to garner votes.

   (And it may work, because while Toronto voters show a failure to “think globally”, we’ve got the “act locally” part down pat.)

   As for the uncomfortable juxtaposition of Porter Airlines advertising and TCCA condemnation in the Globe, I’ve always felt that news media should confine their political expressions to clearly defined op-ed sections. Refusing advertising for political reasons is a political expression in itself. Witness Fox and ABC’s refusal to air ads for the Dixie Chicks’ “Shut Up and Sing” because it disparages Bush.

   Posted by Diane  on  11/03  at  10:36 AM

2. The reception of the Tassé report by our civic leaders raises two questions:

   First, nobody had any reason to think that Tassé had any biases or vested interests when the government first proposed him to report on Toronto City Centre Airport and the TPA. Leaving aside their dislike for his conclusions, do our mayor and his supporters have any evidence now for dismissing the Tassé report’s conclusions?

   Second, why won’t our politicians at least address the possibility of building a vibrant multi-use neighbourhood, which accommodates the airport. Now the federal government has rejected any rash plan to destroy City Centre airport, can the residents of Toronto perhaps have a realistic �visioning charette� to put together a plan for building a neighbourhood on the waterfront that works, even with the airport there?

   Since our city and regional politicians appear unwilling to even agree to study the issues, can anyone blame the federal government for refusing to trust Toronto with an important part of Canada’s transportation system without adult supervision?

   You can read more of what I have to say here.

   Posted by John Spragge  on  11/04  at  09:28 AM

<< Back to main