The Mayors’ Council thinks not.
Referenda are tools without context and would be divisive to the region… [and] making complex policy by referenda is contrary to principles of good governance.
The real question is whether the Premier wants a ‘Yes’ vote on the result. If so, she will have to take some ownership of the question – which I expect is the sign the mayors are looking for.
If the Premier believes ‘No’ is an acceptable response from the voters for any new funding – and hence no transit expansion for Metro Vancouver – then why should the local politicians and leaders participate in an expensive, divisive process that gets them no further ahead?
You can vote now on this question in the Metro newspaper poll:
Should the question of how to fund TransLink be put to a referendum?
At posting, about 62 percent say no. Vote here at bottom of article.
A referendum on such a complex topic is certainly likely to become populist and divisive (suburban vs. urban). It is also likely to become a popularity contest on TransLink; on the status quo (cars, roads, bridges); and on “new taxes”.
Why would the Premier want a yes when a no vote lets her do nothing and tell anyone who complains that they’re getting exactly what they voted for?
But it gets better than that. If we the people vote no anything the Premier announces for transit, however small or ill conceived, makes her look like she cares more about transit than the average citizen. She gets to be a hero for doing next to nothing.
No blame for mistakes and all the credit for minuscule improvements. She’d be a fool to miss that opportunity.
Yikes, the issue of whether or not to have a referendum is already divisive! And we haven’t even gotten to what the referendum question will be yet (another divisive topic)! This will definitely be a long ride.
Considering the cost of the HST vote was 8.9-12 Million, this money could surely be used to fund transit? It’s been >2 years since Translink’s funding woes began (with the 400M evergreen line), and we still don’t have a sustainable funding model. Shall we continue to complain?
If a referendum is to take place, for it to pass, it better say where the money is going towards: see here: http://streetsblog.net/2013/06/25/survey-people-hate-a-gas-tax-hike-unless-it-pays-for-something/
I suppose it depends.
The CoV, and other munis probably, have voters approve capital plans as drafted by council. AFAIK these have little controversy and always pass. the one in 2011 covered things like replacement of the Blodel Conservatory roof, a new library for strathcona among other initatives.
http://vancouver.ca/your-government/capital-plan.aspx
Of course there will likely be controversy with the TL plan, especialy if they want to roll out novel funding initiatives. the success will depend on 2 things IMO:
-who will write the questions? the mayors? would victoria have any input? if mayors want car levies and have both choices include car levies, then we will have car levies (voting can be on the amount, or how it will be charged, for instance)
-will there be consensus from the mayors? As i’ve said before, mayors themselves spearheaded resistance to vicotria dictating TL policy (eg, canada line, property tax increases). Mayors themselves have called for car levies as a funding source, yet both the libs and the NDP have declined to implement them. You would need to have consensus and some sort of championing, someone to guide this thru the run up to the referrendum. At least the 2 biggest munis (surrey and vancouver) seem to be supportive of new funding sources and more transit, but IMO the onus now shifts to the mayors council.