To answer your question, that island is currently one of Toronto’s biggest tourist attractions. Too bad it is not very accessible. The airport sits squarely between that attraction and Toronto’s ability to access it. Its presence itself disables Toronto’s ability to realize a civic and economic crown jewel. Toronto has no other big downtown parks. Yet the city is expected to grow by some 700K+ by 2051. A lot of those people will live in condos, and the growth will demand not only housing but public space, recreation, culture, and tourism. Cities cannot compete if they cannot offer quality of life. The question is what is the highest and best use for the current airport lands? Should a rare piece of central waterfront be dedicated to aviation, or should it serve the broader public as parks, recreation and city-building? The island airport was always a compromise. It was given license to exist as long as it stayed small and did not grow and disturb the park. That was the point of the Tripartite Agreement that Ford seeks to overturn. He wants to create an airport serving six times what it currently serves (1.7 million today, 10 million tomorrow). It would not only ruin the island but the city around it and the very idea of a boutique airport. Ford’s action is an affront. It is a fundamental breaking of a social and legal contract. It is an authoritarian abuse of power—an act of Trumpism. Would we replace Central Park with a parking lot, the Louvre with office space, Niagara Falls with a hydroelectric dam, the Eiffel Tower with office towers, Parliament Hill with a ferris wheel, or Stanley Park with an airport? No. Why? Because these unique sites have a higher and better use. The same is true of the Toronto Islands. Air travel capacity can go many places. Toronto has only one downtown waterfront. Let’s use it in a way that maximizes net public benefit—not narrow private interests.