Business in Vancouver has just posted the ‘face-to-face-off’ between myself (here) and Jordan Bateman (here) of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. The question: Should funding for TransLink be increased over current levels?
Here’s an excerpt from Jordan’s side:
TransLink has wasted too much of our money over the years to be trusted with more of it.
It’s a nightmare list of waste.
Six boards of directors. More than 400 staffers making six figures. Executives cashing in bonuses while raising taxes and fares. The Main Street poodle on a pole. …
There’s more, unbelievably, but you get the point.
TransLink has made many questionable expenditures over the years, and it’s time for taxpayers – the ones footing TransLink’s $1.4 billion annual bill – to have their say through a referendum.
An independent review of TransLink, done by the transit commissioner in 2012, showed that “TransLink’s funding formula is the best in Canada.” … Yet, TransLink is insatiable in its thirst for more. Like a pyromaniac fidgeting for more matches, the agency wants other taxes – maybe a vehicle levy, perhaps a sales tax, maybe more road tolls or a regional carbon tax – whatever it can shake out of taxpayers’ pockets to fund its dreams of a $23 billion spending spree.
TransLink’s waste problems have corroded the trust of many taxpayers. The executives in charge would do well to follow their chair’s lead, scale back their grandiose expansion plans, and instead work on rebuilding their credibility with the public.
TransLink must show it can be trusted with its current funding formula – “The best in Canada” – before it is given any more taxpayer money. •
.
Here’s an excerpt from my position:
By wording (the question) that way, the vote turns into a poll on the organization, not its purpose. For the Canadian Taxpayers Federation that wording is a terrific opportunity to further discredit the agency – an opportunity to vent, to “send a message.” If the question were worded “Should funding for transit be increased …” that might get a different response.
So what happens in the event of a no vote? No more transit for Metro – for a decade? For a generation? Forever? No one believes that. But this imposed referendum – unlike every other major transportation project (no vote on bridges, no vote on highways) – puts the whole regional vision at risk. …
We’d also be in endless rounds of negotiations, conflicts and expenses. Perhaps after considerable angst, we’d find some way to make transit happen. But why then have a referendum with “none of the above” as an option – especially if a referendum is required every time the region wants to expand its transit system to accommodate growth and shape development? …
There’s likely a reason why the taxpayers’ federation would have you believe otherwise.
If a government agency delivering a public good paid for collectively can be discredited and defunded, it leaves more room for other purposes: namely roads and bridges, and more reliance on individuals to fund the transportation system privately through car purchase and maintenance.
A more expensive way to get a worse transportation system.
Just as some would have you vote no to send a message, the referendum is a way to vote yes to send a better message: a message that our quality of life, our economic prosperity and our hope for a more livable future is dependent on continuing to plan, implement and pay for an expanded transit system as part of a regional vision that has served us all so well. •
You can link over to Business in Vancouver and add your comments there.
That’s not really a face-to-face… I’d like to see a long-format debate where Bateman has to defend his position up against well reasoned rebuttals, against someone who will point out the flaws and logical leaps in his arguments. Not one where he gets to front his bizarre viewpoint relatively unopposed (as always seems to happen in media interviews, where far too often the interviewee’s opinions are just accepted by the interviewer, unopposed).
Let’s have this debate, find a venue, Price vs Bateman, and knock Bateman off his self appointed pedestal once and for all. Expose the ideological viewpoints and logical fallacies that are his talking points.
Thanks Gord, at least you had enough class to provide both sides…not so with Mr. J’s twitter links.
Matt – great idea. Doubt the press would be very interested however. Bateman’s media-orientated factoid soundbites are far easier to report unquestioningly.
The CTF took a page out of Karl Rove’s book. They deal in small, sensational fictoids or factoids (doesn’t matter which one) that are designed to rile up the base.
They are media savvy. They know that they don’t need to have an argument that would stand up under extended scrutiny, all they need are soundbites that can be expressed in a sentence and evoke angry emotion.
Republican strategist Frank Luntz said:
“You say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and then again and again and again and again, and about the time that you’re absolutely sick of saying it is about the time that your target audience has heard it for the first time.”
Well, I’m quite sick of hearing about free coffee at Translink or the main street poodle, but most people haven’t even heard about those yet. This is why Mr. Bateman keeps saying it.
The pro-transit side doesn’t have the same chewable soundbites like this:
“Six boards of directors. More than 400 staffers making six figures. Executives cashing in bonuses while raising taxes and fares. The Main Street poodle on a pole.”
None of those sentences had more than 10 words. They aren’t sophisticated, but they stick in people’s minds.
It’s unfortunate that a conversation about transit funding has been reduced to a “Translink – yay or nay?” question. I oppose a referendum because I believe transit needs stable and significant funding, but I also am not a fan of Translink. From the governing structure to the extravagant bonuses and salaries we hear about, I don’t approve of the organization. And if support for transit is lumped in with support for Translink, a lot of people will be against it. Even if broadly speaking they support better bus service and an expanded skytrain network, they will be swayed by Bateman’s arguments. Support for better transit should be separate from supporting the inefficient body that runs it in this region.
Interestingly, when Jordan Bateman was running for langley township council, he said this:
“I am committed to keeping taxes as low as possible. But we also owe it to Langley’s children to build the infrastructure that will keep them safe and healthy and to improve public safety. We need full-time fire halls and more police officers, and we must balance both the present and future needs of the Township. ”
In the same interview, he supported an LRT along 200th st with extensive TOD.
http://www.canada.com/langleyadvance/news/story.html?id=e5688882-76a4-4771-a8b2-fdeaeaba997a
Well said Gordon!
Still haven’t seen anyone refute the “400 staff being paid over six figures” stat. It’s a slap in the face to the majority of Metro vancouver taxpayers who make less.
Hi Bob, the number of people reported to be making ‘six figure salaries’ is about 400, and here’s some background. There’s something like 6500 people employed at the various transit operations and maybe another 350 at TransLink’s offices. Many of TransLink’s staff are accredited planners, engineers and accountants, in keeping with its role of planning, financing and overseeing the operating companies. There are also the senior human resources people, a few lawyers and the relatively small executive branch. These people, be they in the public or private sector, earn over $100,000 per year in keeping with the level of education and professional accreditation they are required to have.
Quite a few of the transit police officers, highly skilled tradespeople in the bus, rail or marine operations and even some of the senior bus drivers may show up in the financial report as making over $100,000 because they have worked a great deal of overtime (especially common with police officers) or have cashed out some of their vacation time. Unfortunately, TransLink does not separate this information, which can easily lead someone to conclude that these people have $100,000 or more in their base salary.
I’d like some kind of reference as to why 400 people making over $100k is out of whack for an organization the size of Translink.
I believe the biggest flaw in Mr. Bateman’s campaign is the fact that all of the issues he raises are nested within only 13 per cent of TransLink’s budget — the administration expenses. If everyone in administration took a 20% pay cut and if things like Poodles on a stick were eliminated (whoever approved that one should be first against the wall, BTW), it would get us practically nowhere toward the system improvements we need in the region.
Mr. Bateman should also be called on this business of ‘TransLink’s insatiable appetite’ for funding. That’s like someone having another child and then blaming the fridge because they have to put more food in it each month. We are not talking about TransLink’s needs, appetite or wish list…we are talking about what the region will need to take care of an additional million residents.
This goes back to Gordon and Adam’s point — the CTF wants this to be all about TransLink (which, by the way, rates extremely well in world-wide comparisons for efficiency and financial management — something you’ll never see reported in the media).
agree, notice it was also a major flaw of the provincial audit, which was axing low performing route, so suggesting to eliminate 10% of the bus routes, to achieve a mere saving of $3.6 millions, or less than 0.75% of the annual bus operating cost…
http://voony.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/bus-performance-preliminaries/
Gordon, Jason’s argument feels like those unpleasant folks that stand up at town hall meetings and just keep blabbering away about something that is not related about the debate at hand. It’s almost a bait and switch approach. Your argument feels like I’m being talked to and engaged; it’s thoughtful.
The issue should truly be about transit and not just TransLink. Good work, Gordon. I’m also glad to see that the few comments on BIV.com all lean towards the PRO side of the question.
I can’t help but wonder whether Jason Bateman is a cynic who knows his arguments don’t hold water but thinks he’s working towards some kind of greater good, or whether he’s just a little dim but can speak well enough that the media for some reason takes him seriously.
Either way I doubt he went into local politics in the first place with the goal of becoming the spokesperson for the least informed members of society, so I hope he finds a more rewarding career path in the future.
“Best in Canada” is hardly good endorsement losing $1/4 Billion since 2000 on fare evasion. Still no turnstile gates & fare checkers! What’s the complete list of ineptitude?
There all two issues:
– The choice to not have fare gates was made in 1986.
– I have ridden Transit and have seen homeless people and students board with out paying. The driver can not waste all the passengers’ time in trying to throw them off the bus.
So the loss is a phoney number. To hire staff to check that everyone who boards has paid would cost a lot more than $1/4 billion since 1986.
Translink was forced by the BC Government to install fare gates even though the high price Translink executives advised against it as not being cost effect.