A thoughtful editorial in the Tri-City News: Potholes on road to transit referendum. But the head is too negative; it’s full of constructive suggestions. Here are the main points:
.
- The province must spell out the total it would contribute to Metro transit expansion over 10 years — not 12 or 15 or 20, as it suggests.
- Second, the mayors must pick how they want the rest of us to pay our share.
- They should first abandon the existing carbon tax as a source of revenue as there’s no way the province will part with it. … The mayors need to pick either some form of annual vehicle levy or a regional sales tax, or both, with that revenue to be replaced by road pricing over the long term.
- The referendum, then, should strictly be to approve the short-term source. Road or mobility pricing should not be subject to this or any future referendum. Sporadic tolling of new bridges is making toll reform inevitable and time-of-day road pricing offers big potential to ease congestion by changing drivers’ behaviour.
- Finally, the mayors need to torpedo the notion that voters can cast a No vote to punish TransLink and not pay any more for transit. They should declare that a defeated referendum on the new source will mean the same money will come from higher TransLink property taxes, which mayors have unfettered authority to raise.
- The referendum would then become an either/or debate over how we, as a region, will fund an improved transit system that is critical to our collective future. It would not be a none-of-the-above option for the no-new-taxes crowd or a spanking opportunity for those furious at the flaws of TransLink.
.
So far, the strongest, most challenging voices are coming from the ‘suburbs,’ not the urban core. If the Province thought the referendum would divide the region, pitting ‘burbs again Big City, think again. Leadership, in particular, is coming from the regional northeast.
Link should go here: http://www.tricitynews.com/opinion/270006861.html
Indeed the question ought not to be “no taxes or taxes for transit” but “do you prefer STEEP property tax hikes or more modest road levies and parking fees” !
Christy Clark is a clever fox. She knows that the MetroVan politicians would prefer to not raise taxes locally but lay the blame on her and the province for not funding transit expansions. So if the question is “will you approve tax increases to fund more transit” most folks will say no.
As such, the MetroVan politicians have to bite the bullet and increase taxes locally, regardless of what Christy Clark says or the populace votes for in a referendum.
Three sources of increased TransLink funding exist WITHIN the MetroVan cities that do not need provincial approval, to my knowledge:
a) property taxes,
b) land transfer taxes,
c) parking fees especially on residential streets
If property taxes are doubled, say over 10 years and parking is brought to market value, say $400/month and not a mere $10/month and land transfer taxes are raised too by 1% per $1M, say:
1% of the first $1M
Houses over $1M: $10,000 plus 2% on the next $1M
Houses over $2M: $30,000 plus 3% of the next $1M
Houses over $3M: $60,000 plus 4% on the next $1M
Houses over $4M: $100,000 plus 5% of the next $1M
Houses over $5M: $150,000 plus 6% on the next $1M
Houses over $6M: $210,000 plus 7% of the next $1M
Houses over $7M: $280,000 plus 8% on the next $1M
Houses over $8M: $360,000 plus 9% of the next $1M
Houses over $9M: $450,000 plus 10% of every $ over $9M
So a house in Kits would not pay $10,000 a year as right now for a $2.5M home but perhaps $15,000 plus $5000 for one car on the street, say over 10 years, phased in. Watch those second and third cars disappear fast !
That tax increase would be sufficient most likely without a referendum and/or provincial blessing or even a failed referendum !
As such the Metrovan mayors would be advised to suggest drastically higher property and land transfer taxes as the default, or more moderate property taxes, modest sales taxes AND road levies in a referendum option.
I agree the title of the article is unfortunate, but hopefully the idea of “potholes” will motivate people to get out of their cars and use public transit, as well as hopefully, make the necessary investments to fix potholes…..
We are getting closer, how about we get rid of the Sales TAX as well, as it has nothing to do with Transit and is bad for both businesses & consumers. Remember also that another Sales TAX – the HST – was turned-down in the last referendum… and we do not want to bring back any bad (unhealthy) scary memories.
As I have stated in previous postings, and to TransLink, the Mayors, etc. (see #VehicleLevyPLUS), the Vehicle Levy is the best option, especially if a Rebate could be applied to use on Transit (something TransLink told me they are now “looking into”) to sweeten it up. That way drivers will get something for their vehicle levy money – free public transit (up to the value of the levy they paid) & reduced road congestion (due to drivers actually using their free public transit).
I think the – default – option (if the referendum fails) of a Property TAX (which the Mayors have the power to implement on their own (but prefer not to)) is an excellent idea, as the “none of the above option” – should – not be an option.
It is really like a choice between two different types of medicines in order to relieve congestion, unclog arteries and reduce stress, with the Property TAX option having more side effects then the Vehicle Levy PLUS (Rebate) option.
AND – If we can motivate drivers to use Public Transit more often, maybe we can motivate Transit Users to use Bikes or Walk more often…. as well as make other – healthy – choices – (that can save the Province a bundle in reduced healthcare costs) – http://www.bcwellnesshub.ca/
Yes, road levy makes the most sense to reduce congestion but needs provincial / referendum approval that may not come in round 1 of such a referendum.
What about land transfer taxes and parking fees (as outlined above), both also within cities mandates ?
Hi Thomas, I am not sure that “Land-Transfer Fees” would generate the kinds of funds that TransLink is looking for and like any kind of “Property Fee” is not directly related to Transit, such a fee would also not just target Property Owners, but also Renters (by having such expenses passed down to them in the form of increased rent). Many Renters as you may know, are heavy Public Transit Users and some have even turned in their Cars for Bikes – we want to Reward this behavior, not Penalize it – As far as Parking Fees are concerned, yes, related to car use, but still insufficient to meet Transit Funding needs and unfair to drivers needing to park (& do business) in dense areas. Keep in mind also that the Transit improvement burden needs to apply to Commercial Vehicles as well, who will benefit from transit improvements and reduced road congestion. Time & Cost savings to Commercial Vehicles could even also result in reduced cost of food in stores (for example) – and other benefits – made possible though improved transportation efficiencies.