On July 8, four of the seven district councillors on the Planning and Economic Development Committee voted in favour of realigning the prevailing wind grass runway at the Muskoka Airport (at a cost to the taxpayer nearing $1 million) in order to accommodate the request of one tenant to expand his business.
This would be done at the expense of safety to the flying community, the ability of the district to attract business to the airport and would limit future development of the airport lands. Growth at an airport without a prevailing wind runway will be seriously compromised. This is short-term gain for long-term pain.
Members of the non-flying community might reasonably ask what this has to do with them, beyond the questionable use of tax dollars. The airport generates annual economic benefits to the district in the range of $40 million per year (their numbers) from jobs, taxes and spinoff in the community, etc. To make a decision that will have limited immediate benefits at the peril of future development, which will generate millions of dollars, is nonsensical.
Presentations were made by the public with expertise in aviation, business, the environment, history, safety and science to share with the committee the negative impact this proposal would have on the future of the airport from their perspectives.
What I understood from the message being given by these interested parties was that safety must be the first priority in considering any activities at the airport and that the airport should be developed to its full potential. These people are not against development but are desirous that a well-considered, long-term plan be prepared that would position the Muskoka Airport to be the safest and most vibrant airport in the region. Obviously, due to the huge sums of money involved to accomplish such a plan, it would have to be phased in over many years.
With the closing of Buttonville Airport in Markham in the next few years, many opportunities exist for potential growth at Muskoka. A number of airports in the region are in the process of expanding or upgrading their facilities to take advantage of these opportunities.
As with most things, this boils down to money. Understandably, it is difficult for the politicians not to take advantage of an opportunity to generate revenue, however limited, to offset the debt load they are faced with eliminating. On occasion it is necessary to say “no” and to step back and plan for the future.
If you feel this approach is not in your best interest as a taxpayer, call your district councillors and express your concerns. Some members of the committee have not listened to the stakeholders who stepped forward; perhaps they will respond to the electorate.
But call soon: the final decision will be made on July 18.
D. Robinson
Bracebridge