Project: Parkland Airport - West of Edmonton

[Flightfan151]

Much of the anti group's fears and concerns seem superficial but they are getting desperate and aggressive. They are pushing the big "sympathy for the destruction of our rural idyll." They are resorting to the lowest common denominator (and often) to evoke sympathy from impartial parties and I am very concerned at the impact this will have on that small community as well as the devastation for aeronautics on a national level. I am surprised that the county mayor is getting so involved. All of the other politicians are steering clear. I suppose he does not have to worry about his election security as he has already been declared re-elected. I just don't understand why he wouldn't want to support positive growth in a stagnant community (at no financial expense to the county)

[Prodriver]

That is a great story and one that has been repeated in this country a million times and shows the forgotten value of aviation in a large country. To call that and any application of our A/C and there role in aiding people, parts supply, medevac etc. ridiculous is a little bit silly. I now know why the Beaver and the Norsman got built w/ a heater !

[Aunty Aerodrome]

For your interest,

Two new letters from Parkland County Administration to Minister Lisa Raitt are available for reading at http://www.antiaerodromecoop.com/progress-updates.html

[Flightfan151]

Does anyone know where Mayor Shagec is getting his facts? I think I must be missing something, according to transport Canada TP1247 part 3.3 agricultural and bird related concerns seem to be within 3.2 km not 8.0 km. and I don't see any mention of potatoes? Wouldn't that reduce his number of concerned residents from "dozens" to dozen?

[skymarc]

This is crazy, Parkland County should talk to Neuville in Quebec. The city spent tax payers money to fight a lost cause. Its a federal mather.

[Aunty Aerodrome]

Does anyone know where Mayor Shagec is getting his facts? I think I must be missing something, according to transport Canada TP1247 part 3.3 agricultural and bird related concerns seem to be within 3.2 km not 8.0 km. and I don't see any mention of potatoes? Wouldn't that reduce his number of concerned residents from "dozens" to dozen?

I believe the reference to growing vegetables (except potatoes) can be found here:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... u-1418.htm

[Flightfan151]

Thank you Aunty A. That was the reference I had looked at as well but I didn't find any 8.0 km reference, only 3.2. And certainly nothing on potatoes. But, thank you for your efforts and the link.

[Tom H]

To take this vegetable thing off the plate and get things back to reality

From the link provided...

Prohibitions for bird hazard considerations should only be included upon the expert advice of a bird hazard specialist.

Seeing as Villeneuve is in the same zone, same style of agricultural lands and has not has the bird hazard considerations enacted it can be very safely assumed that it will not be at Parkland.

The same can be said with the bird migration issue.

In my highly biased personal opinion

[Flightfan151]

Excellent point Tom!

I also don't foresee the airport contributing to environmental pollution to any greater extent than the existing agricultural pollution that is already occurring (airport will likely create less allergens in the air)

Somewhat concerned about the mayors implication that the county is not interested in supporting the aerodrome. Does that mean the county will be Turning those tax dollars directly over to the federal government?

[rac007]

Has anyone actually been reading these progress updates on the anti-aerodrome site? Does anyone take it seriously? It's so laughable it seems like lines from a TV sitcom. Parents manipulating their kids to get the sympathy vote. The AAC thinking they can control what goes on above their heads, "The AAC's mission is to "protect our airspace"...". Thinking that "low flying, wobbly planes" is a violation of the CARs. I've never heard of a regulation against "wobbly planes", but as far as low flying is concerned if you're not over a built up area and at least 500 feet away from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure (CARs 602.14) you can fly at cruise speed 1 foot off the ground if you want to.

[Aunty Aerodrome]

Potatoes are referenced in the chart. http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... -3-170.htm

Regarding "the mayors implication that the county is not interested in supporting the aerodrome. Does that mean the county will be Turning those tax dollars directly over to the federal government?", from what I have heard, the mayor is concerned that the costs associated with the required infrastructure to support a development of this type would not be covered by the taxes received. As such, the County would be financially making up the difference. See his assessment of EMS for example.

But to be fair, from reading his correspondence, this isn't all about the residents, or the money etc. He has genuine concerns for the lack of Emergency resources that the county has available should an accident occur on this site. The county just isn't equipped to deal with a fire or god forbid, a crash on this site. Unless the developers are planning to have a fire truck, stored water (lord knows the wells out there aren't going to support a fire fight), and EMS services, the safety of anyone using the site should be a concern. Not only to the county, or the residents, but to all of you. Accidents happen all the time. In cars, buses, trains, and yes, even planes. Should something go wrong, wouldn't you want to know that help is available? I don't know any of you personally, but I don't wish bad things upon anyone and can honestly say that I don't want to read about you being seriously injured or worse, or see photos of your family members crying on the front page of the local media because help wasn't available for you.

I'm just saying that some of the issues he addresses aren't only for the concern of the locals or the environment. The lack of resources in this area should concern anyone who would use the facility even moreso than the county administration.

Just a thought.

While there are clearly two sides to this issue, everyone involved should have concerns - on both sides of the fence.

[rac007]

Most aircraft accidents and incidents at small airports do not involve fire. Unlike in the movies, airplanes don't erupt into flames every time they have a deadstick or wheels up landing. Any large accident involving fire and/or multiple aircraft would be the same as a major car accident on the highway, and yet those somehow get dealt with.

[Prodriver]

There is probably federal fire equipment at Enoch. There is fire eq. 10 minutes away in Devon, Spruce grove etc. I'll bet in our post 911 world no first responder would miss out on an opportunity to respond to an issue there. The farm that the PADC bought pays taxes and they should receive a certain amount of service for the said tax dollars as there is a home on the property. There will also be property taxes paid on any hanger built on site and that will help the poor mayor help cover his cost issues. Maybe some increased density with some airpark homes is in order. That guy is a tool, I hope he looses the election and they get someone more pro business in there!

We should get all the planes from the Oct 12 City Center fly in to fly over the new airport on the way home, that will really scare them!

[Flybabe]

With all due respect...

There are hundreds of airstrips in Canada that have crops adjacent. EIA has farming right up to airport perimeter, and the effects of farming there would be more noticeable than a small field such as Parkland.

There are several that are on flyways - ALL of Canada is covered in regards to flyways (http://www.ducks.org/conservation/where-we-work/flyways). There are several that are amidst wetlands.

Quite frankly the arguments are, IMO, extremely ridiculous... considering outward development of Edmonton proper is creeping ever closer to the PADC area ANYWAYS. This has nothing to do with agriculture, or waterfowl, or wildlife, but everything to do with NIMBYism.

FWIW, I agree on the concept of using children to oppose something. Leave them out of it.

[Shiny Side Up]

Potatoes are referenced in the chart. http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... -3-170.htm

Regarding "the mayors implication that the county is not interested in supporting the aerodrome. Does that mean the county will be Turning those tax dollars directly over to the federal government?", from what I have heard, the mayor is concerned that the costs associated with the required infrastructure to support a development of this type would not be covered by the taxes received. As such, the County would be financially making up the difference. See his assessment of EMS for example.

Generally well managed aerodromes will be self sustaining. While they may have to draw upon municipal or county resourses, the flow of benefits is usually in net favour of said counties or municipalities.

But to be fair, from reading his correspondence, this isn't all about the residents, or the money etc. He has genuine concerns for the lack of Emergency resources that the county has available should an accident occur on this site. The county just isn't equipped to deal with a fire or god forbid, a crash on this site...

I'm just saying that some of the issues he addresses aren't only for the concern of the locals or the environment. The lack of resources in this area should concern anyone who would use the facility even moreso than the county administration.

Bit of a red herring typically used. If anything, if you have a concern that your area's emergency infrastructure isn't sufficient, adding an aerodrome will most likely improve it's capabilities. Its exceedingly unlikely that an accident would occur of an aviation type that would stretch the resourses of the area. However a non aviation disaster of similar magnitude (perhaps a train derailment or some such) your area now how a better ability to cope with.

[Tom H]

Aunty

Unless the developers are planning to have a fire truck, stored water (lord knows the wells out there aren't going to support a fire fight), and EMS services, the safety of anyone using the site should be a concern.

I seriously wish the AAC would pile in the car and go to...
Villeneuve
Cooking Lake
Westlock

Most small airports/aerodromes have no fire or EMS on site. It is not required for a small scale operation and considering all factors shiny side up's comment really covers it.

Tom H

[Anti-Aunty]

Look on the bright side, PADC is a responsible developer. You could have had a dump!

Judge says jurisdiction over fill at core of airport dispute

AIRPARK
Riziero Vertolli,File photo
Barbara Sheldon at her home next to the airpark. An Ontario Superior Court justice has indicated he will have a decision soon on the landfill dispute between the City of Burlington and the Burlington Executive Airport.

MILTON An Ontario Superior Court justice has indicated he will have a decision soon on the landfill dispute between the City of Burlington and the Burlington Executive Airport.

Justice John Murray heard three hours of arguments between the two sides Friday and told court the issue seemed clear-cut.

"The very issue in this case here is whether someone can regulate the fill," the judge told a courtroom filled to capacity with city staff, airport representatives and residents.

City officials told the Burlington Post the case could be drawn out for months, with a series of court dates.

The dispute centres on who has jurisdiction over the filling work, which airport owner Vince Rossi has been conducting since 2008 and says is related to its expansion. He's arguing the work at his 51-year-old Bell School Line business falls under federal government jurisdiction. The business is also known as the Burlington Airpark.

The city and Halton Region say they should have oversight because the truck traffic and the work are disrupting the lives of residents in the northeast rural corner of Burlington.

The city estimates 50,000 truckloads of fill have been dumped at the airport, or about 500,000 cubic metres.

Burlington passed a topsoil preservation and site alteration bylaw in 2003. The city issued the airport an order to comply under that bylaw on May 3.

Rossi, in a July 18 notice of application, wants the order declared null and void and the courts to prevent the city from interfering any further. The city filed a court injunction July 22.

Both sides agreed at the end of July the airport will halt landfill operations at the property until the court makes a ruling on the July 18 application.

Peter Wells, the lawyer representing the airport, told Justice Murray the business is under federal jurisdiction, which includes construction and fill for expansion.

"The municipality has no business regulating any aspect of building an airport," he said.

Wells said the fill is the core of what will be used, in part, for a runway.

The Toronto lawyer also argued that from the way the city's bylaw is worded, it could potentially force the airport to remove the fill after years of work.

"Imagine what that means. It means ripping up a runway, taking out a hangar and the like."

Ian Blue, representing the City of Burlington, told Justice Murray the bylaw is minimally intrusive and would not affect activity at the airport.

The Toronto lawyer, who specializes in environmental and energy law, said the city's primary concern is whether the fill is clean, noting the surrounding areas rely on wells for their drinking water.

Blue also questioned whether the airport would actually develop the area where the fill has been unloaded.

"On the new fill, they've built one hangar, one taxiway, one apron. They say there's a plan for a terminal, hangars and heliport. They've been saying that since 2007, but the fill keeps coming."

Murray said he would not comment on the legitimacy of the fill operation in his decision.

"If it's a fill business, go regulate it. Why should we have that fight here? I'm not interested in a bunch of hooey."

The Hamilton Spectator

with files from Burlington Post

[Flightfan151]

I have heard that the city has been placing some restrictions on the growth and operations of the Museum at city center. Perhaps the parkland airport would be more accommodating for them as well. Although, it would be a shame to compromise a landmark, it would also be sad to see restrictions put on such a great educational facility.

[Beefitarian]

Look on the bright side, PADC is a responsible developer. You could have had a dump!

In the future when it's profitable enough someone will probably buy the Parkland airport and build a dump.

[skymarc]

I was surprised driving away from CYXD Edmonton City Center airport and spoting a major dump close to downtown. Its ok for a dump in the city but not an airport.

[azimuthaviation]

Start writing cheques and NIMBY turns into WIIFM faster than the ink dries.

[Flybabe]

Start writing cheques and NIMBY turns into WIIFM faster than the ink dries.

Ain't that the truth.

[Anti-Aunty]

Start writing cheques and NIMBY turns into WIIFM faster than the ink dries.

What are you implying, are you suggesting PADC pay corrupt blackmail funds to the Not In My Back Yard group?

Third world business tactics have no place in Canada.

[Flybabe]

I don't think that's what azimuth was implying.

What I got out of that (and I could be wrong) was that, if the opponents of PADC had received funds for their land themselves - say, for example, for land development pertaining to a new subdivision - they wouldn't be squalling.

With the proximity of this area to the outward growth of west Edmonton, it's only a matter of time before estate subdivisions pop up. They already are.

PADC might be robbing the residents of their perceived windfall. Maybe.. maybe not.

[Indanao]

Third world business tactics have no place in Canada.

Isn't that what happened to YXD?