A week to wander – to Texas, as it happens.
So I’ll leave you with another poll to take the mood at the moment.
The last time PT took a poll on whether the referendum might pass was on December 11, just at the time the Mayors’ transportation package was announced. Over two-thirds of the 320 PT readers who responded thought it would.
So what do you think now?
.
.
Rather than showing the results continually, we’ll wait until next week to do so after we have received more responses from MLAs, which I’ll continue to post as they come in.
.
My sense of the campaign so far: the only issue is TransLink; most people support the package and, given a selection of difficult choices, the 0.5 percent increase in the regional sales tax.
But there needs to be some commitment to change in the governance structure of TransLink, regardless of the referendum’s outcome. And that assurance needs to be made by the person who can make it happen.
That’s the Premier, of course, but we’d settle for Minister Stone.
Change is coming. The credibility of pretty much the entire leadership of this region, public and private, is on the line – and the vote is in some way a vote of confidence. That’s particularly true for the appointed board – good people all but who would need to consider stepping down in the event of a negative outcome, perhaps at the same the mayors will be considering whether to walk away from any political responsibility for TransLink.
I’ll confess to some disappointment that the current arrangement has failed so badly, even though the changes imposed in 2008 were ill-considered. I think the man responsible for them, Kevin Falcon, the provincial transportation minister at that time, wanted TransLink to be governed more like YVR or Port Metro Vancouver, with a board of appointees who would make the considered and tough decisions behind closed doors. That has worked reasonably well for those agencies, after all, who report to only one level of government.
But TransLink also had to have a political board, and it had to come from a different level of government. Only elected representatives can levy taxes, and some of them had to be regional. But Falcon didn’t want them ‘interfering’ in how the money would effectively be spent, which meant a split jurisdiction between appointed and political boards. Thus TransLink had no face, no single person whom the public could see as accountable. Nor was there any love lost between the two bodies so that ultimately, the organization was undermined by spitefulness, making it an easy target for the anti-government animosity which has become the basis for a no vote – an easy rationalization for many who will say in retrospect that their vote was a message not a rejection.
I must note my personal involvement in all this. I was appointed by the Mayors’ Council to sit on the screening committee that made recommendations to the mayors on whom to appoint to the board. The panel narrowed down the applicants; the mayors chose. And that was about the extent of their direct influence.
That arrangement can’t go on – not without a lot of blame and little likelihood of constructive reform.
TransLink needs a single board and a single face. It needs electoral accountability. It needs defending. It is, after the over-the-top attacks are discounted, one of the better transit agencies in North America with a defensible record – just no one to defend it.
But change in its structure comes after the referendum. The question is whether, in focusing so much on TransLink dysfunction, we inadvertently send the region into dysfunction with a negative vote that can’t be renegotiated.
More to discuss on that when I return.
Your point about translink’s facelessness is exactly my point about the ‘yes’ side in this discussion in the other thread.
And banking on the premier to do anything resembling leadership is….optimistic.
A vote of YES authorizes the continuation of Translink as it stands and the continuation of extravagant unknown expenditures with no guarantees or safeguards. A vote of NO stops the continuation of Translink in its well-recognized current state of disrepair, demands accountability for transportation projects, and stops mismanaged spending of taxpayers’ money.
I don’t get how you can extrapolate so much out of this question. That’s what I hear from a lot of these ‘no’ people. That by voting no you’re saying this and that and it will lead to this other thing and that other thing.
What shred of evidence is there that any of that is true?
This is a vote on a tax to be spent on transportation projects. It is not a vote on transportation governance.
I’m not saying the governance is the best one, but that’s a separate issue.
The Yes side is dreaming and vainly pushing this myth that this referendum is not about TransLink, it’s about what TransLink is going to do. This is like saying that all the cars I’ve bought from General Motors have been terrible lemons but I’m absolutely going to buy the next model because they say it’s fantastic.
“Every time we go to that expensive restaurant we have the fish and we both get sick. Next week they are featuring chicken, so we’re going back and taking all our friends too.”
I wouldn’t call the SeaBus, SkyTrain, the Canada Line and the lowly bus — and the effective high ridership they have generated by direct comparison to other cities of similar size on this continent — lemons.
How interesting that use GM products for argument purposes.
If the plebiscite is made into a vote on TransLink, then it is in reality a vote on its parent, the BC government which has beaten the kid almost to death, then blames it for being somehow flawed.
Great strategy! Compass Cards years delay; BC Govt fault! Fare Gates years delay; BC Govt fault! Fat Cats Galore (Doublemint CEOs), BC Govt fault! SkyTrain Breakdowns; BC Govt Fault!
Bounce that off your buddies and see if this makes them vote Yes.
Compass cards: how was TransLink supposed to know that the experienced winning bidder (a friend the BC government) wasn’t going to be able to deliver a working system?
Fare gates: pushed upon TransLink by the BC government, they’re unnecessary, will never recover their maintenance costs and will give only the illusion of increased security. In reality the money needed to keep the gates operating will lead to reduced staff at stations which will make it easier to get away with crimes.
SkyTrain breakdowns are only news because they’re so rare.
TransLink has democracy issues, but the last audit found that the only place to save significant money was to reduce service.
What I’d like to see in the next two weeks is this statement from the Minister:
“We’ve heard the very loud concerns about TransLink’s governance and accountability, particularly given that this plebiscite will authorize an additional $7.5 billion of funds. I am stating today that, if the plebiscite results in a Yes vote, I will launch an immediate review of TransLink’s governance model, with a goal towards greater representation, transparency and accountability. This new model will be in place prior to the implementation of the 0.5% Regional PST on in April 2016”.
Given both YVR and Port Metro Vancouver are involved in very public spats about varous matters with municipal governments and the public, not sure that is a long-term good model to follow (although I am certain that they get lots done in the short term