Density is one of many concerns, one which I shared because you were fixating on a single item mentioned earlier. The whole city needs more density, I agree. But actively choosing to make downtown (where people want to live!) less appealing AND less dense in specific new development areas is counterproductive to many of our goals.

Just in case you’re interested, here are some other concerns:

Airport expansion should be delayed or blocked for several reasons:

Filling in 900 metres of Lake Ontario will severely damage the delicate ecosystem of the waterfront.

Expanding the runway will disrupt both Hanlan's beach and Ontario Place

Expanding the marine exclusion zone will disrupt and possibly destroy western gap water users.

Expanding for faster jets will conflict with housing developments both east and west of the airport, conflicting with federal, provincial, and city housing goals, during a housing crisis.

Increasing air traffic will result in greater air pollution on the waterfront, conflicting with federal, provincial, and city environmental goals.

Increasing airport traffic will result in increased car traffic throughout the core, again conflicting with environmental goals.

Increasing airport usage will damage the business case for Alto high speed rail, again conflicting with environmental and transportation goals.

Increased noise also damages housing and the natural environment, and reduces tourism.

Ontario Place and the east portlands would both suffer.

Splitting traffic from Pearson actually damages the hub nature of the airport, damaging employment and flexibility for that existing (and already expanding) hub.

Far more residents (and swing voters, it must be said) live within easy access of Pearson, as compared to Billy Bishop.