Two items in The Sun today, the first by Kelly Sinoski – Rift widens in debate over referendum on transit funding – that illustrates the gap between the provincial minister and the mayors, along with a single line that reveals how difficult (if not explosive) the challenge will be to craft “a clear question that tells the public what they are voting for …”
(Todd Stone) argued Vancouver’s plans for a subway line to the University of B.C. would be a lot more expensive than an above-grade SkyTrain expansion of the Millennium Line.
Is the Minister actually saying that the vote could mean approval of an elevated SkyTrain line to UBC? I can think of no faster way to ensure a unanimous vote of Vancouver council against the referendum, along with a very large percentage of Vancouver voters, than to put that on the ballot.
A few sections on in The Sun, columnist Don Cayo nicely dissects problems with the Premier’s initiative – Clark’s referendum is risky and pointless; what’s needed is real democracy – and offers an alternative:
What TransLink needs isn’t more games and a jury-rigged referendum. What it needs is a real board, mandated by voters, with the power to make the changes it deems best, and facing the threat of members being turfed at the polls if they screw up.
Instead of this referendum, a campaign for a new TransLink board could be tied in with this fall’s municipal election. It would be a far better means to address the region’s transportation future. Candidates could spell out where they stand on priorities for improving the system and paying for it, and voters could choose.
If more of the above landmines begin to blow up as the wording is revealed, there may still be a chance for everyone to agree that, at minimum, it’s necessary to stop the process, take the time, and see if it’s possible to craft a consensus. It would be an opportunity for the minister to exercise real leadership – if the Premier will let him.
