Community Development - Blatchford

[DAVEinEDMONTON]

Originally Posted by vid

Geezers tend to be NIMBYs, so I am going to borrow your logic and say tens of thousands of elderly Edmontonians want to close the airport and will make that position known when they overwhelmingly vote to close it on referendum day.

Especially when they find out that medivac will not be affected and that the city will save $200 million in LRT alone by not having to tunnel under the airport. Geezers love to save their tax dollars!!!

[Policy Wonk]

but... but... but... I thought the only people signing the petition were ornery old geezers who wanted to role back the clock to 1970?

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

but... but... but... I thought the only people signing the petition were ornery old geezers who wanted to role back the clock to 1970?

I don't believe any argument was made along those lines about the people signing the petition.

[tiddo1]

PW is probably right in this respect. Most people who vote tend to be older, and it seems more likely that the older population might feel some kind of personal nostalgic attachment to the airport.

To be honest, those who would rather like to see the airport closed (or don't care) are probably less likely to bother voting.

[feepa]

I bet we see the highest turnout since the vote in 95.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

but... but... but... I thought the only people signing the petition were ornery old geezers who wanted to role back the clock to 1970?

Bitchy old white men are the only people who ever use our municipal golf courses and every single one you talk to wants the city to sell them because they're losing money and there are other perfectly fine golf courses just outside of town.

The one thing you're forgetting about ornery old geezers is that they would rather take a tax cut than roll back the clock. If selling the airport means no more subsidizing the airport then in their logic, that means less taxes and less taxes means more money to spend on private golf courses and Coors Light (old men like Coors Light for some reason).

[bulliver]

^ I find it difficult to believe people would drive all the way to the golf complex in Twin City. They must be harassing and sabotaging the poor folks at the TBCC...

Seriously though, I agree with feepa, there will be a good voter turnout. This is an issue that will actually affect peoples day to day. It's not meaningless like say, a Provincial or Federal election.

[Daveography]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Yes, but they are also a municipal government and a significant proportion of the population has indicated their disapproval of the decision.

And by "significant proportion" you mean less than 10%* of it?

*The signatures collected represent about 10% of the population, before they have been vetted for validity, and without consideration to reasons for signing the petition, which includes those who support the closure but still want to see a vote on it, and those who were pressured into signing when confronted by a petitioner, but otherwise don't care one way or the other.

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Might you refuse my help relocating to Calgary?

?

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

So you dispute that from the moment of their creation Edmonton Airports has NOT done everything in their power to undermine YXD, including organized harassment of its tenants and lobbying for its closure?

Given that so far, you're the one and only person who has made any such accusations (and I'm surprisingly well connected to those in the know), yes, I do dispute your assertion.

If what you're saying were true, it would be quite a coup for the pro-ECCA side if it were publicized, but not a peep about this supposed harassment has been made public, nor discussed in the aforementioned circles I'm connected to.

On the other hand, I have heard that EA has been trying to work with tenants to help the relocate for years. It sounds to me like you're twisting that into "undermining" and "harassment" when the reality is much more simple: many tenants have refused to work with EA and have stayed and fought out of little more than a sense of entitlement to the land and airport which they neither own nor operate.

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Those fighting the closure of YXD have valid leases, signed on the reasonable assumption YXD would continue to operate until at the very least 2051 as set out in the previous plebiscite. It is going to cost the good people of Edmonton a fortune to break these leases.

Leases can be renegotiated between parties, cancelled by either or both parties within the terms in the lease, or broken by either or both parties and settled in or out of court. These are all valid avenues, just not all of them amicable. And that's a funny thing abut subleases: they are subject to the whims of the parent leaseholders (in this case, EA and the city). If the tenants have refused to negotiate amicably with their leaseholder, then breaking the lease and settlement is perfectly legitimate avenue of recourse if the expected benefit outweighs the expected cost.

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

This has come up before and Edmonton has never entertained proposals to sell YXD.

So what if it wasn't entertained before now? If precedent (or lack thereof) was reason enough to do something (or not), then nothing would ever change or progress. If Calgary had never built a single skyscraper for the only reason that it had never done so in the past, then it would never have seen built the skyline it has today*.


*Example only, don't read too much into this.

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

This isn't an issue of the operation imposing a terrible burden on the city that might be alleviated in private hands. The city wants to turn it over to developers.

Again, your choice of words betrays you. The way you word it, one would think that the city was simply going to give the land away. I'm not even going to dignify this further by clarifying how it works in this little place called "reality."

[MalcolmTucker]

Well, the airport makes money and pays taxes. Calling higher potential tax revenues moved to the airport land from places the city could then avoid fighting NIMBYs over upzoning on a subsidy is a stretch.

[DAVEinEDMONTON]

Leases can be renegotiated between parties, cancelled by either or both parties within the terms in the lease, or broken by either or both parties and settled in or out of court. These are all valid avenues, just not all of them amicable. And that's a funny thing about subleases: they are subject to the whims of the parent leaseholders (in this case, EA and the city). If the tenants have refused to negotiate amicably with their leaseholder, then breaking the lease and settlement is perfectly legitimate avenue of recourse if the expected benefit outweighs the expected cost.

The interesting thing about the leases is just how do you assess any damages? Loss of business? Incurrence of higher costs to lease space somewhere else? Moving costs to move your business elsewhere? I trust that the city nor Edmonton Airports Authority did not negotiate 66 year lease terms from 1995 to 2051 with the tenants as that would be highly unusual. I also think they most likely negotiated terms that did not include some sort of buy out clauses to take care of situations such as the closure of the airport. I suspect that is why the city of Edmonton is undertaking a phased closure to give the tenants ample time to find new digs. If the lease tenants decide to sue, I suspect that their actions to not move or relocate on a timely basis will impact any damages that they may think they deserve and I suspect as times moves forward, their case for any real damages will deminish if they decide to ignore the pending airport closure.

[S_B_Russell]

Edmonton’s airport development could be a post-carbon catalyst: American planner


By Gordon Kent, edmontonjournal.com September 13, 2010


EDMONTON — A major new community slated for the City Centre Airport could help spur other developments in the area, an American planner said Monday.

Although the city wants to turn the site into a sustainable community that mixes businesses, shops and housing for 30,000 residents, opponents argue the scheme faces too much competition from other projects.

But the new district’s innovative environmental focus could actually increase city growth by attracting people to Edmonton, said Steve McDowell, a principal with BNIM Architects of Kansas City, Mo...

Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...#ixzz0zUt2htjA

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by RTA

Given that so far, you're the one and only person who has made any such accusations (and I'm surprisingly well connected to those in the know), yes, I do dispute your assertion.

If what you're saying were true, it would be quite a coup for the pro-ECCA side if it were publicized, but not a peep about this supposed harassment has been made public, nor discussed in the aforementioned circles I'm connected to.

No, the same accusation has been made by many parties. Including presently Airco and previously Quikair and PeaceAir. What do you call abrupt changes in regulations that are extremely costly to comply with only to be changed again immediately if not harassment?

On the other hand, I have heard that EA has been trying to work with tenants to help the relocate for years. It sounds to me like you're twisting that into "undermining" and "harassment" when the reality is much more simple: many tenants have refused to work with EA and have stayed and fought out of little more than a sense of entitlement to the land and airport which they neither own nor operate.

And I would like to "work" with you on relocating to Calgary. What's that? You have no interest in relocating to Calgary?

These operators have long-term leases at YXD for which closure was not planned until a year ago. Why would they relocate? They have refused because Edmonton Airports has offered no compelling reason to relocate to either Leduc and certainly not Villeneuve.

Leases can be renegotiated between parties, cancelled by either or both parties within the terms in the lease, or broken by either or both parties and settled in or out of court. These are all valid avenues, just not all of them amicable. And that's a funny thing abut subleases: they are subject to the whims of the parent leaseholders (in this case, EA and the city). If the tenants have refused to negotiate amicably with their leaseholder, then breaking the lease and settlement is perfectly legitimate avenue of recourse if the expected benefit outweighs the expected cost.

Indeed, and it will be expensive. The remaining YXD tenants have all the cards. Nobody really knows if the benefit will outweigh the cost because nobody knows what any part of this effort will cost.

Again, your choice of words betrays you. The way you word it, one would think that the city was simply going to give the land away. I'm not even going to dignify this further by clarifying how it works in this little place called "reality."

You really need to work on your incredulous routine.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by DAVEinEDMONTON

I trust that the city nor Edmonton Airports Authority did not negotiate 66 year lease terms from 1995 to 2051 with the tenants as that would be highly unusual.

Airco for instance signed a 25 year lease with the right to renew for another 25 years.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by S_B_Russell

Edmonton’s airport development could be a post-carbon catalyst: American planner

Cool... except that virtually all of Edmonton's electricity comes from coal.

[Coldrsx]

^but it is 'clean coal'... it emits baby pandas and unicorns.

[craneSpotter]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Cool... except that virtually all of Edmonton's electricity comes from coal.

hmmm, maybe if Edmonton was located closer to Calgary it could run some wind turbines from all the hot air that tends to blow out of that city...

Let them do what they want with their municipal airport, what business is it of yours?

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

And I would like to "work" with you on relocating to Calgary. What's that? You have no interest in relocating to Calgary?

The difference being that all of these airports all serve the same city.

Asking businesses to relocate across town isn't even relotely similar to relocating them halfway across the province or anything.

[Policy Wonk]

They are however being asked to relocate to one of two airports with vastly inferior facilities for their purposes in much more inconvenient locations.

In their shoes wouldn't you stay and fight?

[Daveography]

^ If you rent an apartment and your landlord gives notice that he's going to demolish the building to build condos, do you stay and fight?

Not much you can do if you don't own the land you're on.

And reflects once more that silly sense of entitlement I've been talking about.

[Policy Wonk]

Well, unless there is a demolition clause in your lease and if the consideration offered by your landlord is insufficient - yes, you stay and fight. Or the landlord just waits out your lease.

The liability to a landlord unilaterally breaking a lease is enormous. It is the only reason this majestic building is still standing:


SSP Member: Jimby

It is also why should YXD actually close it will be the biggest payday the remaining tenants have ever seen. The core of contract law is a punitive disincentive to dishonouring contracts. You as the party breaking the contract will be punished.