I’m not optimistic about this referendum on transit funding (can you tell?). And the Price Tags poll suggests I’m not alone: 73 percent think it will fail, 23 percent pass. (As of Friday morning. You can still vote here.)
So all the more power to Lee Haber, quoted in the Georgia Straight: Pro-transit coalition GetOnBoard B.C. stays upbeat.
… the campaign director of the pro-transit coalition GetOnBoard B.C. suggests that next year’s referendum could succeed. …
“The important thing is that it’s regional, and that it’s clear that there’s something in it for everybody,” Haber told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview.
Haber stated that the discussion so far has focused too much on funding sources that nick people’s wallets. He said the emphasis should be on transit projects that are needed by residents across the Lower Mainland.
But while Lee and the coalition are fighting the good fight, why are they alone?
Where are the leaders – especially the TransLink Board and in the business community – who need to be framing the issue now? So far, waiting.
Where is the Premier? Does she want this referendum to pass? Does she care? What is her vision for the Lower Mainland? (It’s looking like it’s more Motordom, given her actions. But words still count for something.) Her Minister, Todd Stone, is trying to calm the waters, but cannot substitute for direction from the top.
Where are the media? So far, with a few exceptions, the referendum has not even made it into the consciousness of the editors. The drumbeat of negativity on TransLink continues – and will only get worse with the rollout of Compass. There needs to be coverage of the stakes, even the classic horserace, not to mention the options. But so far: crickets.
Finally, take a look at the comments on the story in the Straight. A lot of good points, with not a lot of hysteria. But it’s easy to see how the issue continually degrades into a debate over technology, bureaucracy and misinformation.
It’s hard to be optimistic. But that also means one has to avoid being blinded by negativity.
The business community is awakening, starting with an Oct. 31 conference at the convention centrframing the importance of efficient transportation to the regional economy. It’s free, with some great speakers lined up (I’ll be moderating the opening presentation by B.C. Business Council economist Ken Peacock.) and they want key decision-makers in the room. Sign up at http://www.movingthefuture.ca/ and pass the word.
I think he’s found the key – don’t focus on what people are paying, focus on what they’re getting for that money. Make it clear that this vote isn’t really about funding, but about transit infrastructure.
to be sure, here is what reads the bc liberals platform:
”
driving Forward [sic]
Today’s BC Liberals will:
• Work with the Metro Vancouver Mayor’s Council and
TransLink to identify possible sources of funding for
transit improvements. Any new revenue sources would
then be subject to a referendum to be held at the same
time as the municipal elections in November 2014.”
So it is pretty much about funding, and not about what to be built
And as once Stephen Rees, mentioned, it could be not necessarily a bad thing…focusing on what can be built (as the leapahead plan suggests), could be a good political tactic to win a referendum, but is not necessarily conductive of both good planning, and adequate transit…and alas, it is also what eventually teach us various US referendums…
Furthermore, The province has an history to decide any major Transit infrastructure, be alignment or technology: It could be surprising to see the province put that on referendum.
You will notice the “new” word. That means whether any “new” revenue source is denied to Translink, it left the usual ones, and the mayors council don’t need a referendum to raise the property taxes,…
they don’t need a referendum either to close some tax loophole in other Translink tax, like the one on parking tax, exempting cities parkmeters (that alone could generate $20M annually)….
So it is not necessarily like doom and gloom…
The above in regard of existing revenue source (e.g. property tax) seems to be overlooked, especially by the author of this blog. It is good to mention that it has been clearly stated by the minister Stone ( http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2014/06/mayors-council-vision.html):
As property taxes are not a new source of funding, any increases would not be subject to referendum. I encourage the Mayors’ Council to give further consideration to this opportunity
So the Transit referendum can be drafted as a choice of
* a base plan paid by an increase in property tax
* or a “better” plan paid by alternative source revenue (e.g. “road pricing”).
That can be seen as a good opportunity to directly ask to the taxpayer which tax or user fee it prefers, assuming one or the other will come in place anyway
so, again, there is no reason to make this transit referendum an all or nothing issue.