Project: Parkland Airport - West of Edmonton

[MrWings]

I personally believe it is hypocritical if they do not step aside from their C.O.P.A. membership during their opposition and rejoin after the conclusion of the issue.

So, according to you, every COPA member must support and defend all airport development blindly regardless of merit?

It might be argued that the development of Parkland airport will negatively affect the growth and prosperity of Villeneuve. So, by your logic, COPA Parkland supporters are working against the beliefs and mission of COPA and should no longer be members.

[Tom H]

I personally believe it is hypocritical if they do not step aside from their C.O.P.A. membership during their opposition and rejoin after the conclusion of the issue.

So, according to you, every COPA member must support and defend all airport development blindly regardless of merit?

It might be argued that the development of Parkland airport will negatively affect the growth and prosperity of Villeneuve. So, by your logic, COPA Parkland supporters are working against the beliefs and mission of COPA and should no longer be members.

So I take it by your response you did not read this part...

So to be clear and understood...the potential precedent is my concern, not Parkland Airport.

Think about the long term impacts of that precedent on General and Private Aviation.

Then tell me how this won't effect ALL aviators in Canada.

In my highly biased personal opinion

[Tom H]

It seems that Parkland Airport are betting the farm (pardon the pun) on the Supreme Court of Canada ruling concerning the jurisdiction of an aerodrome.
I hope that they clearly understand that applies specifically and only to aviation activities.
In other words, other sort of activities, that are not DIRECTLY aviation related, cannot be permitted/allowed without the real risk of local government legally able to assert their control.

The current business operating at the site, needs to cease and desist. A residence cannot be on the site.
Any business or activity not directly aviation related will void their current exemption from local (non-federal) authorities.

In my humble opinion.

I agree with what you are saying.

It's a private enterprise so I trust they have a solid grip on what they have gotten into and a solid business model and plan.

That said and to be perfectly mercenary...

I would rather they fail at their own hand or mercy of the market than have a new precedent set that will effect the ability of new airports to open in the long term.

I have no dog in their fight and frankly I think the market will dictate how far they are going (as I have said before), but the greater threat of a new precedent being set on "who" and "how" new airports are approved should be concern for all aviators.

In my highly biased personal opinion

[rac007]

As far as business plans and market share go, it sounds like the parkland group already has significant backing and investment from a number of the few large businesses and corporations that are left in Edmonton, those that don't want their company aircraft under the control of the ERAA.

[Tom H]

As far as business plans and market share go, it sounds like the parkland group already has significant backing and investment from a number of the few large businesses and corporations that are left in Edmonton, those that don't want their company aircraft under the control of the ERAA.

And I have no problem with that...as I said

It's a private enterprise so I trust they have a solid grip on what they have gotten into and a solid business model and plan.

I've had the pleasure of meeting both and they seem like good folks and I wish them all the best.

But I don't have a dog in their local fight.

What worried me is the precedent of Transport Canada being politically overridden and the TC approval being reversed...that sets a national precedent.

All of a sudden new aerodrome and airport approvals are not a safety/operational decision by TC, they are a political decision based on what group can scream the loudest and have the best lawyers.

Now how many aerodromes/airports will get built across Canada?
How many private fields will get shut down or not allowed?

How will that effect growth of recreational and general aviation across Canada?

In my highly biased personal opinion

[Beefitarian]

Don't know. You could go check. But the whole area might be a radioactive crater.

Too scary, several of those giant airbuses might land. I saw a film of the Hindenburg.

[Tom H]

I personally believe it is hypocritical if they do not step aside from their C.O.P.A. membership during their opposition and rejoin after the conclusion of the issue.

So, according to you, every COPA member must support and defend all airport development blindly regardless of merit?

It might be argued that the development of Parkland airport will negatively affect the growth and prosperity of Villeneuve. So, by your logic, COPA Parkland supporters are working against the beliefs and mission of COPA and should no longer be members.

Good morning Mr.Wings and all

To get back to the other side of the debate:

So, according to you, every COPA member must support and defend all airport development blindly regardless of merit?

First off lets get something clear, I have not been a member of COPA for a long while.

I have not agreed with how they have done a number of things, have not agreed with how they have presented a number of situations or how they have covered some aviation events/issues.

As I cannot support their stands in those areas I am not a member of COPA, don't care if their insurance was 1/4 the price of anyone else etc. etc. If I can't support their actions, wish to vocally disagree (which I have) then it is not appropriate to be a member.

To the airport development comment:
C.O.P.A. members and all aviators need to be picking their fights.

In this case we are dealing with a precedent setting political issue, yes you should take a stand as it effects more than just the local area. It effects our future and that of those in aviation across Canada.

If it was a private airport choosing to sell to a developer and close no one has any say, doesn't matter if we like it or not.

In the example you give:

It might be argued that the development of Parkland airport will negatively affect the growth and prosperity of Villeneuve.

It's a business issue (as I have said a number of times) and the market will decide, there is no precedent setting monster waiting in the wings.

You and other C.O.P.A members (and non members) will influence that decision with your wallets.

In following this Parkland issue...
It started as a tempest in a teapot and I only posted in response to area residents that were misinformed and being, in my opinion, offensive.

But as I have followed it, in the media, their own website and other local sources, the political direction they have chosen to take has become dangerous on a much larger scale.

As the Parkland Airport opponents have chosen to take a very political direction this has become a potentially precedent setting challenge with very large Future and National implications in my opinion.

But think of the long term national effects if their effort succeeds?

Show me I am wrong on the potential precedent and I will happily admit being wrong and drop the issue.

At a local level
Coming right after the ECCA mess the biggest joke is they are painting with a very broad brush The Aviation Community as bullies and a bunch of rich guys flaunting their wealth.

Well as a single income family husband and father I take offense to that in a big way, I only get a few hours a year and have to scrounge like a devil to find the few bucks to do that...even then something else has to be given up. I can't see ever owning a plane, can't see ever using Parkland Airport but allowing myself and others to be painted that way is offensive to me.

I also find it offensive that in my conversation on this thread with LisaResident that ATVs and Dirt Bikes and such are ok (page three of this thread), yet they pollute more than light aircraft, do more environmental damage both physical and other (yep look er up on the net its true) and are noisier especially if modified.

So while I defend the locals right to oppose, the misinformation, the characterization being made of aviators and aviation in general, the entitled presentation and attitude is offensive.

The biggest laugh to me...it won't be many years before the area will be surrounded by development, one only has to look at the residential and industrial growth rate in the area, the expansion to the industrial base that was proposed by Parkland, then quashed by Edmonton at the Capital Region Board...there are worse things coming for them fast.

Parkland Airport would likely prolong their "way of life" if defending their way of life is the issue.

Seems like an overall issue where rational calm conversation and discussion could have resolved most of the issues and everyone could have walked away ok.

Instead we are now facing a National precedent setting issue being pushed by a few that will effect many thousands, as I see it.

Enough for a Saturday morning

And all of this of course is:
In my highly biased personal opinion

[Prodriver]

It is real simple, drive 40 minutes to Vill from Nisku or South side, build a 300-600 K hanger on leased land, and there is really no hanger rentals yet or pay $30.00/ sq foot to park at one of the YEG FBO's and pay $50.00 landing fee plus $6.50/PX tariff.

I like most missed the cheap hanger lots at Vill a few years ago. I called on a hanger that was for sale on private land with a tear down hanger and the guy wanted 1.4 Million. The EAA will not sell land at either airport and one is left with little choice but to hope this new option pans out and goes to 5300 ft as planned. Go drive by YEG and you will see all the none aviation stuff going up, they are building truck shops, retail etc. which is great and one would think that that much none aviation revenue would help offset some of the air op costs, or help them plan for a new GA ramp or even an area for affordable smaller hangers, but it doesn't seem to.
With no cost effective options for the lighter Business A/C (none Ft Mac flights) guys it makes it tough to apply an A/C in ones business in the Edmonton area, short of moving to Calgary like others have done.

I really hope this new Airport works out as it is needed and is a great location.

[fuelguy]

Lots have been available for lease at Villeneuve, and have been snapped up. More are being developed for release. How can we blame ERAA for previous inaction, when the same supporters of Parkland swore they would fight the closure with every possible legal means?.
They couldn't / shouldn't second guess the legal decisions that were made by the City and judges.
If the supporters of Parkland understood that the City ultimately controlled the airport, and worked with ERAA instead of launching lawsuit after lawsuit, they could have helped the development of Villeneuve happen sooner.
I know, the arguments about the cutting of scheduled flights at XD caused the slow demise of XD, the fact remains, at that time, 2 airports with scheduled service was not sustainable in Edmonton.
And, without the critical volume of scheduled service, it made it tough to survive financially.
Many will disagree, but the progression did make sense to me at the time.
I wish the City centre would remain open, it has truly been a gem for Edmonton.
I do not believe to proposed development is needed, nor will it be anything we will be proud of in the future, contrary to the City's hype.
All emotions aside, in my opinion, Villeneuve will be similar to Springbank in a short time. Leased lots, with lots of GA and other businesses, that will turn it into a viable airport financially.
At the end of the day, airports are having a tough go financially.
If the Parkland group want their own private airfield, so be it. Nav Canada will have to restrict their airspace to prevent conflict with eg and zvl.
As far as the Flying Club, and others moving out, and then expecting to use Villeneuve just for training purposes etc, without supporting Villeneuve as a tenant, or paying the fuel fee to help defray costs, I would expect and support the Villeneuve airport to charge a daily fee per aircraft for using the airport.
If they don't like it, feel free to use either yeg or Cooking Lake. Although I suspect they will be on the bandwagon soon enough.

[Tom H]

Lots have been available for lease at Villeneuve, and have been snapped up. More are being developed for release. How can we blame ERAA for previous inaction, when the same supporters of Parkland swore they would fight the closure with every possible legal means?.
They couldn't / shouldn't second guess the legal decisions that were made by the City and judges.
If the supporters of Parkland understood that the City ultimately controlled the airport, and worked with ERAA instead of launching lawsuit after lawsuit, they could have helped the development of Villeneuve happen sooner.
I know, the arguments about the cutting of scheduled flights at XD caused the slow demise of XD, the fact remains, at that time, 2 airports with scheduled service was not sustainable in Edmonton.
And, without the critical volume of scheduled service, it made it tough to survive financially.
Many will disagree, but the progression did make sense to me at the time.
I wish the City centre would remain open, it has truly been a gem for Edmonton.
I do not believe to proposed development is needed, nor will it be anything we will be proud of in the future, contrary to the City's hype.
All emotions aside, in my opinion, Villeneuve will be similar to Springbank in a short time. Leased lots, with lots of GA and other businesses, that will turn it into a viable airport financially.
At the end of the day, airports are having a tough go financially.
If the Parkland group want their own private airfield, so be it. Nav Canada will have to restrict their airspace to prevent conflict with eg and zvl.
As far as the Flying Club, and others moving out, and then expecting to use Villeneuve just for training purposes etc, without supporting Villeneuve as a tenant, or paying the fuel fee to help defray costs, I would expect and support the Villeneuve airport to charge a daily fee per aircraft for using the airport.
If they don't like it, feel free to use either yeg or Cooking Lake. Although I suspect they will be on the bandwagon soon enough.

Pretty tough to argue with anything you've said here...

Matter of fact I agree with the bulk of it and you've said it well.

If it were not for the potential precedent that could be set if Parkland's approval is politically overturned I would not be concerned at all.

Once that is off the table the market will decide.

In my highly biased personal opinion

[albertan22]

It seems that Parkland Airport are betting the farm (pardon the pun) on the Supreme Court of Canada ruling concerning the jurisdiction of an aerodrome.
I hope that they clearly understand that applies specifically and only to aviation activities.
In other words, other sort of activities, that are not DIRECTLY aviation related, cannot be permitted/allowed without the real risk of local government legally able to assert their control.

The current business operating at the site, needs to cease and desist. A residence cannot be on the site.
Any business or activity not directly aviation related will void their current exemption from local (non-federal) authorities.

In my humble opinion.

I'm both a pilot, and someone who has made their career working with land development to attain approvals. I actually support this airport development, but further to the above, I can't fathom Parkland Airport's approach to this development. Maybe the runway, taxiways, and potentially hangars fall under TCs jurisdiction, but what happens when they need transportation tie ins and upgrades, water, sewer, power, etc.? I highly doubt that Transport Canada has the ability to force Parkland County or the province to play ball for any of that. What about business licenses for those that wish to relocate to this airport? Why would the local regulators not make anyone's life miserable who moves to this airport out of spite for having their faces spit in by PADC?

I've been reading about the problems these businesses have had with ERAA, in my opinion PADC is well on it's way to creating the same kind of environment with the local governments (which every tenant will have to be in bed with in some manner or other) as the tenants at CYXD had with ERAA...

[rac007]

If the supporters of Parkland understood that the City ultimately controlled the airport, and worked with ERAA instead of launching lawsuit after lawsuit, they could have helped the development of Villeneuve happen sooner.

If the Parkland group want their own private airfield, so be it. Nav Canada will have to restrict their airspace to prevent conflict with eg and zvl.

If the ERAA and the city had worked with the businesses at the city center instead of sticking it to them and kicking them out the door, then Villeneuve airport could have been bigger than springbank. But as it happened, a lot of bridges got burned. As a result lots of people feel they can no longer work with the ERAA.

Nav Canada won't have to restrict anything. Until a control tower gets built parkland will be an uncontrolled airport. The international's airspace floor is at 3400 to 4300 feet where the parkland airport is located. Above that, pilots will be controlled by the international approach, as is the case now. At most they might put in a smaller Class E zone and change it Class D later.

[fuelguy]

As per my earlier post.

Edmonton Airports couldn't work with the City or the businesses at City Centre airport because of the ongoing lawsuits.
First ERAA was sued, then the City by the businesses that ultimately needed a place to go.

That they painted themselves into the "Parkland corner" is no surprise.

Emotions when doing business can be expensive!

[fuelguy]

If the supporters of Parkland understood that the City ultimately controlled the airport, and worked with ERAA instead of launching lawsuit after lawsuit, they could have helped the development of Villeneuve happen sooner.

If the Parkland group want their own private airfield, so be it. Nav Canada will have to restrict their airspace to prevent conflict with eg and zvl.

If the ERAA and the city had worked with the businesses at the city center instead of sticking it to them and kicking them out the door, then Villeneuve airport could have been bigger than springbank. But as it happened, a lot of bridges got burned. As a result lots of people feel they can no longer work with the ERAA.

Nav Canada won't have to restrict anything. Until a control tower gets built parkland will be an uncontrolled airport. The international's airspace floor is at 3400 to 4300 feet where the parkland airport is located. Above that, pilots will be controlled by the international approach, as is the case now. At most they might put in a smaller Class E zone and change it Class D later.

[fuelguy]

If Parkland is 2200 asl, circuit height will be 3200 ft.
RAC 4.52 (iii) states an aircraft needing to cross the airport before joining the circuit at an uncontrolled airport ( to determine wind runway condition etc) it should be accomplished at least 500 ft above circuit altitude

[rac007]

First ERAA was sued, then the City by the businesses that ultimately needed a place to go.

If Parkland is 2200 asl, circuit height will be 3200 ft.
RAC 4.52 (iii) states an aircraft needing to cross the airport before joining the circuit at an uncontrolled airport ( to determine wind runway condition etc) it should be accomplished at least 500 ft above circuit altitude

Chicken or the egg.
First the businesses were told they were getting kicked out without compensation for current leases, THEN the ERAA and city were taken to court.

And at 500 feet above the circuit they would be controlled by international approach, as I stated before. The same for turboprops and faster aircraft flying a 1500 AGL circuit. No big deal.

[fuelguy]

Absolutely no big deal. As long as there are no issues.
The first CADOR for a low-time student busting airspace, will change that.

[rac007]

Fortunately Edmonton controllers aren't nearly as uptight as the guys in Calgary. Then there might have been some problems.

[Tom H]

Fuelguy

Edmonton Airports couldn't work with the City or the businesses at City Centre airport because of the ongoing lawsuits.
First ERAA was sued, then the City by the businesses that ultimately needed a place to go.

That they painted themselves into the "Parkland corner" is no surprise.

Emotions when doing business can be expensive!

rac007

Chicken or the egg.
First the businesses were told they were getting kicked out without compensation for current leases, THEN the ERAA and city were taken to court.

Problem is both your arguments are sorta right.

Overall though
I've been around through 1992, 1995 and the latest mess, the debates got progressively nastier both pro airport and pro closure feeding the fire in different ways with the end result being problems across the board.

Since 2009 the file has been badly handled by the City. not following through and getting things settled and ERAA not dealing with Vill till now.

As I see it we are now at the point of salvaging and then rebuilding was remains in the Aviation Community in the region.

If we don't work together everyone will lose. So while I appreciate the mess on hand and how badly it has been handled (some are still in the middle of it), I think, we need to move ahead.

Parkland Airport is a point in case...
The market will decide the economics and the economics will decide if Parkland Airport will survive or not.

As I stated in an above post

If it were not for the potential precedent that could be set if Parkland's approval is politically overturned I would not be concerned at all.

Parkland Airport vs Villeneuve after that...vote with your wallet and let the best operated best promoted airport reap their rewards.

In my highly biased personal opinion

[ScreaminBanshee]

Tom H. Thank you for clarifying what I meant. Speaking out against Parkland is speaking out at GA in my opinion. Perhaps others will disagree but I feel quite strongly about this.

Secondly, to the gentleman who talked about water, sewer, and power. Parkland does not supply water or sewer to most areas. Power comes from a supplier not the county.

Thirdly, I sincerely believe the county is playing politics. Do you really think they are against the airport? Or are they just taking a stance where they know they will not lose votes before an election because it's truly out of their hands. They can say what ever they want and nothing will change the fact that they get an airport in their county. This could all change October 21.

Bottom line to me, any airport is good. I am not against Villeneuve. If it was threatened in anyway I would be doing what I could to support that airport. I find it crazy that the GA community is going against each other over more airports.

[albertan22]

Before I start this post, I just like to make it clear that I'm all for this airport, I think it's good for GA, and as a private pilot living in Spruce Grove I may even use this airport as my new base if there are reasonable aircraft rental options (currently flying out of Villeneuve). I'm even fine with the location exactly where it is. But as someone who gets approvals for exactly this kind of controversial project for a living, I can tell you that from my perspective, they've done nearly everything wrong so far.

Secondly, to the gentleman who talked about water, sewer, and power. Parkland does not supply water or sewer to most areas. Power comes from a supplier not the county.

They may not be supplied by the County, but any new water, or wastewater pipeline needs to be approved by the municipality's planning and development people to go forward. The Municipal Government Act gives them authority to regulate that kind of stuff. No pipes? Water trucks and honey wagons need roads and Parkland County has already slapped a road ban on Sandhills road to make that more difficult. Sandhills road isn't a primary highway and is therefore County infrastructure. Going to stay onsite and drill wells and build a sewage lagoon instead? These require provincial approvals, and the province doesn't move on that kind of thing without letters of support from the municipality. I'd guess that PADC didn't do their wetland assessment work either, as that environmental process alone (provincial approval process that is independent of land use) is taking 4 to 6 months and I don't even think they've owned the land that long. Trust me, the government is claiming puddles from snowmelt these days and find a way to make you pay cash compensation on every piece of cultivated land. They'll likely get slapped by the provincial authorities for that one and end up with some fines and a poor first contact with Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. I could go on but I think I've made my point.

Just because choice of land use may be federal in this case doesn't mean that there aren't other requirements to build something. Taking the stance that the feds are the authority on aerodromes and pretending that no one else exists will cost this airport in the long run, especially once the Parkland County lawyers start to figure this stuff out after October 10th. Why put them in the position to be looking for ways to screw the new airport? Why not just work with them from the start instead of shutting them out? As many have said, this should be a positive thing for the County and other nearby municipalities.

My career is in land development, trust me, burning bridges with a municipality and your neighbors is bad business and no way to get anything done. The first mistake PADC made was to let the media leak their plans before they'd even met with the County. Right from that point they were dealing with a hostile municipality when they didn't need to be. I'm worried for these folks and their investors at this point.

[Tom H]

Albertan22

Before I start this post, I just like to make it clear that I'm all for this airport, I think it's good for GA, and as a private pilot living in Spruce Grove I may even use this airport as my new base if there are reasonable aircraft rental options (currently flying out of Villeneuve). I'm even fine with the location exactly where it is. But as someone who gets approvals for exactly this kind of controversial project for a living, I can tell you that from my perspective, they've done nearly everything wrong so far.

Appreciate your post and perspective.

It brings to light something I have been wondering.

In following the progress on the Parkland Airport project on and off since last spring and having met one of the Gentlemen on a couple of occasions I am somewhat confused.

One example:
If I recall correctly the proposed location has moved at least once, maybe twice...I was told and I recall in the media...it was due to concerns from meetings that were held with people in the surrounding areas.

Which if I remember correctly (and I am pretty sure I do) shows the people involved have been engaging the community and adjusted as a result.

That's one example, I do recall others in the media but the above makes the point.

Now obviously the county and general residents have know for sometime (months) that things have been happening as there have been meetings of some kind (wish I could remember more detail)

The media has been on and off this thing since fairly early last year so it has been no secret.

If the county had been brutally opposed they could have been in contact with TC long before any site approvals happened opposing the airport, regardless of where in the county.

So I'd really like to understand the back story...cause the pieces don't mesh in my mind.

In my highly biased personal opinion

[albertan22]

Tom H

I don't have the full backstory either to tell the truth. But this: http://www.parklandcounty.com/About_Us/ ... 1_p761.htm sent up warning flags for me early in this project. That was about when I started following it actually.

I know that PADC has had their share of public open houses and information sessions, many of which were just people yelling them and not allowing them to even discuss their plans rationally. Other than that, I can't truly say what kind of meetings they've had. One would think that appropriately timed discussions could have brought the County on board. They're support for Villeneuve doesn't make a lot of sense since it's not even located in their county. Making this an election issue doesn't make a ton of sense either as the county is large, and most of its residents likely won't care about the issue. At most, you should end up with one councillor (the one who's ward this falls within) making it an election issue with the other 6 members of council remaining objective. A project of this nature has large potential to bring them new tax revenues after all.

When dealing with a project of this nature, in which you have a hostile public, it's best to "cross all you t's and dot your i's" by complying with all the legislation and policy out there so that the critics don't have a leg to stand on if they ever try to take things to court. It seems that PADC started a little late and has run out of time with the pending November closure date of CYXD though...

[ScreaminBanshee]

I have a flyer that has information current as of Aug. 13. It says this,

"Our team has been working on this project for the last nine months. We've worked with the land owners, Transport Canada, NavCanada, met Mayors, councils and planners, residents, businesses, groups, and associations.

We have also worked the the media - TV, radio, and print publications. We've held three open houses and have addressed many concerns and objections."

Sound to me like PADC has in fact been working with all these groups. Is Parkland County playing politics so they don't lose votes in the area?

When dealing with a project of this nature, in which you have a hostile public, it's best to "cross all you t's and dot your i's" by complying with all the legislation and policy out there so that the critics don't have a leg to stand on if they ever try to take things to court. It seems that PADC started a little late and has run out of time with the pending November closure date of CYXD though...

Actually you have this slightly backwards. If you apply for these things, then you are opening yourself up to municipal laws and then you have to follow them. Then the municipality could in fact deny the airport. To be successful in court you have to do exactly what the Parkland guys are doing. I am slightly familiar with this because my father is in a similar battle in Ontario. I also think the Parkland guys would know they have to apply for permits for things that aren't essential to aviation. Water drainage off a runway is essential to aviation, no permit for drainage pond. Paving a parking lot will need a permit.

I also feel the majority of the public is not hostile. I have talked to more of my neighbours that are for it than against it. The ones who are severely agaisnt it are fear mongering those who are on the fence.

[Tom H]

Albertan22 and Screaminbanshee

Your posts immediately above highlight exactly what I am referring to when comes to the confusion.

There obviously has been lots of notice of intent, some "real" open meetings and reaction due to area concerns....

Albertan22 I also appreciate that I believe you're correct when you say the vast majority of Parkland County could care less about an aerodrome....

I am also puzzled with the area residents...they lived with an aerodrome just a short distance to the North that housed about a dozen aircraft (I recall it being called Walter's field, flew from there a number of times) and there were no concerns about noise, migratory birds, etc. etc. (bet most didn't know it was there) and the fact ATVs, Dirt Bikes etc are ok.

A view of Google earth and a drive around the area also clearly demonstrates how few residents (farms or otherwise) are in any area that has the potential of being effected at all...yet the numbers they are getting at the, particularly anti airport directed, meetings seem to far exceed actual area residents in my opinion.

Add the mis information and fear mongering and it simply makes one wonder whats the real story...because its pretty obvious there is more going on.

My prime concern is still the potential precedent that could come out of this...but the more I look the more I wonder about the rest.

Whats the old expression...if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its likely a duck.

Think maybe its time for "everyone" to become transparent and open.

In my highly biased personal opinion

edit...blue edits added a few minutes after original post