Straight editor Charlie Smith starts it off in this commentary:
.
Are selfish old people going to deprive students and the young of better transit?
.
Earlier today, a caller to the Straight informed me that his two elderly parents are both voting no.
These seniors have a car and don’t need to use buses or SkyTrain to visit their doctor.
Then I canvassed a half-dozen young people. They told me that most young people support a 0.5 percent increase in the sales tax to fund $7.5 billion in transportation and transit improvements in the Lower Mainland over the next decade. …
Many older people, on the other hand, already own their homes. After they retire, they spend much of their time in their neighbourhoods, babysitting grandchildren, or going on exotic vacations. They couldn’t give a hoot about an expansion to rapid transit.
Let’s be really blunt: some of them aren’t going to live long enough to get on one of these trains.
This older generation has already turned the atmosphere into a garbage dump, ensuring that future generations will pay a high cost in the form of extreme weather events, droughts, and food shortages.
This generation has consistently supported tax cuts, which have made postsecondary education more expensive and sharply increased child poverty.
Now, selfish oldtimers just might vote down improvements to the transit system that would help their grandchildren deal with the mess that they’ve left behind.
.
Sandy James responds:
The unfortunate article of March 9 is unfair in deeming that seniors drive everywhere, and will be unlikely to vote “yes” for the Transportation Referendum. It is this type of misinformation that is inflammatory and incorrect. There are many seniors living below the poverty line who require and rely on transit for all of their transportation needs. Seniors also will benefit from less congested buses, more frequent service, and in the case of an emergency, be able to access a hospital by ambulance 30 per cent faster due to less traffic.
In Metro Vancouver a decision will be made that will impact the development of the region now and for many years to come. Indeed, the successful outcome of the Transportation referendum will result in a, 0.5 per cent increase on sales tax in the Metro Vancouver for road upgrades, enhance the quick “B” line transit service out to Surrey and to Langley, provide another 220 train cars for the rapid transit system, and will allow for a full five lines of light rail transit to serve the growing metro population. …
To call the population of seniors selfish based on a friend’s anecdote about his parents’ voting is not acceptable. Please help seniors make an informed decision that will support livability in Metro Vancouver for the next generation.
This article is so easily demolished (thanks, Sandy) that I can’t help wondering if it is a bit of mischievous voter activation by Mr. Smith. In other words, an attempt to get youth voters upset enough to vote YES. Truly, getting a group mad by pitting them against another group is straight out of yellow journalism 101, and likely well-known to Mr. Smith.
But all in a good cause.
My thoughts from another venue: “Charlie Smith in the Straight wonders in words whether there are enough car-loving, youth-indifferent seniors to be able to scuttle the transit referendum. I’m not so sure that such seniors have the numbers, or that all seniors are so callous. After all, many seniors, like me, have young family members who will benefit from transit improvements, along with everyone else. And many seniors fully understand the long-term implications of a YES and also of a NO result. “
I think there is a bit of confusion here regarding the terms ‘older’ / ‘old’ vs ‘seniors’. My impression is that Charlie is probably including all boomers in the category ‘old’ – so 50 plus equals old. The boomers are after all the great car loving generation, a very old fashioned idea by today’s standards.
Fair enough, old fashioned ideas like thinking muscle cars are cool. But that is not the same as seniors.
Thanks for this, Sandy. A nasty piece of work, that article is.
I’m afraid ageism has replaced almost all other forms of prejudice as being acceptable to some people today. I find that very sad and discouraging.
In terms of our regional transit system, what generation(s) put that system in place, anyhow? We all agree that it is an effective and efficient system, yet one in dire need of expansion. The question before us is who pays for that expansion? For a lot of people – not only seniors – who are already burdened by higher and rising costs and user fees for everything from housing to property taxes to health care to parking to ferry fares to the shrinking Canadian dollar to yada yada, yet another tax grab is not only unacceptable, they are increasingly angry about it. These people feel that higher levels of government should be doing more to build the infrastructure Canadian cities need, but aren’t. Shirking their responsibilities as a matter of fact.
Personally, I intend to vote yes. Either that or abstain, if there was any real point to doing so. If the Yes side loses, we will have been snookered and used by a very cynical provincial government that should be leading the charge for better transit. They should be ashamed for their role in creating this sorry state of affairs that seems to be pitting one generation against another.
Excellent comment, Frank, especially the point that Boomers planned and built the majority of the current transit system and made the key decisions around allowing more walkable density downtown and at rapid transit stations.
It would be very interesting if completely predictable to see how the vote results fall between traditional dividing lines (younger vs older generations, urban vs suburban, lower vs higher income groups, etc.), then to compare them to the changes brought about by fuel price volatility and housing affordability indexes over the next five or ten years. My conclusion is that a No result will be greatly lamented in future even by a portion of remorseful No voters if transit continues to fall behind demographics, demand and potential paradigm-shifts in the economy.
The real crime here in my view is the irresponsible lack of leadership performed by our premier by downloading decision-making to a referendum/plebiscite on a local issue where the anti-tax/TransLink/politician/public sector propaganda can very well persuade a simple majority of people (likely out of a dismal total vote) to shoot themselves in the foot.
I have never been impressed by Charlie Smith’s work and feel it has always lacked sufficient rigour to adequately meet the responsibilities for wide public broadcast. That is, his biases seem to take precedence regardless of whether they are defendable and evidence-based or not, and with this editorial seem to become ever more consumer-driven trash-journalism where controversy is contrived to generate Website hits and justify jacking the ad rates.
Why blame (only) the Premier of BC ?
Why is it the province job to meddle in local transit ? Why should Kelowna or Prince George tax payers pay for MetroVan density and transit issues ?
Is it not the mayors’ job to inform voters of the various options to fund transit ? They chose the PST increase of 0.5%. There are many many other options, not divulged or discussed publicly. There is also expense savings, not discussed at all, specifically less spending growth is a growing region.
Many options exist in the mayor’s tool box they chose to not (yet) use:
a) cut spending (for example: through outsourcing, cutting staffing or reducing the generous civil servants’ salaries and cushy benefits or rather, increase them less or not at all over the next 2 decades to bring them in line with private sector norm),
b) borrow money,
c) tax properties,
d) levy developments more,
e) tax land transfer,
f) tax parking,
g) charge transit users more,
h) shift spending
So, if the referendum fails – and it may not- I’d expect the mayors to use a) to h) to build more transit anyway, while still demanding more cash from feds and province. Likely they will not do a) though .. but b) to h) .. and because they will not do a) THAT is the reason why the province forced a referendum on them ! Don’t people understand that ?
Despite my general dislike for the CTF, I must give them some credit for posting Translink’s analysis of revenue sources. (http://tinyurl.com/nav2xaa). Perhaps this is why you say that other options are “not divulged or discussed publicly.” Among the options explored: fare increases, parking tax, development cost charges, property tax.
Yeah well, Charlie Smith is a dick. Boomer on boomer violence, what’re you gonna do.
Here is the data. 57% of those 55+ polled say they will vote no verses 47% 35 and under.
http://www.insightswest.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/PlebisciteMar_Tables.pdf
A few weeks ago, support from those 35 and under was solidly yes. Unfortunately, the nonsense from CTF has mislead people into voting against their best interest.
Charlie’s article was written rather poorly.
I will say that us in older generations should put our personal views behind and help those younger create the world they want or at the very least, get out of the way. The younger a person is, the longer they will be paying for it and the more they will end up paying. Yet, in spite of that, they are more likely to vote yes.
Well that can’t be right everyone else here is saying boomers would never selfishly vote no to something! /s
ZING!
The CTF effect has been minimal. The stampede to stab TransLink by just about all the Yes proponents is remarkable. Heck, TransLink themselves changed executives right up front.Even Gregor prefaces his comments by telling everyone that TransLink needs to be better managed. Now they’ve brought in Jim Pattison, who will be well into his 90s before any accounting would be even thinkable.
Thanks for the numbers, Richard. Not that a great distance between these two cohorts after all, despite Andrew’s and other’s polarizing opinions to the contrary. Any number for the Gen X group in between?
I am 70 and I am voting yes out of pride for Vancouver as a livable city and my hope that the transit plan will keep Vancouver as one of the greenest cities in North America. Elders appreciate that our grandchildren must have a sustainable future and I say YES to that.
A 67-year-old friend of mine who drives everywhere is voting Yes. She told me it’s because the day is inevitably coming when she won’t be able to drive and she wants to a good transit system in place so she’ll be able to get around when that day comes.
I think that shows a more than typical amount of self-awareness on her part as opposed to a normal view held by most boomers, unfortunately.
Let’s stop blaming boomers. Heck, let’s stop blaming voters, if for no other reason than that it’s a losing strategy.
Look, I’m Gen X. I have held resentment of boomers ever since I learned who they were. I have spoken to other people (some Millennials) who share that sentiment. We blame them for screwing up the planet, democracy and the economy.
When I set my emotions aside, it seems childish. I can see how irrational it is. My generation and those succeeding appear to have been no better, and I have serious doubts about the generations that came before. I have met boomers who have walked the walk and young people who never even bothered to care. “Boomers” are not some unified group; they’re as diverse as any other. We project on to them a bad stereotype, applying it to all with a broad brush.
Blaming the category of “boomers” alienates allies while giving a pass to the systemic problems that have promoted a selfish culture in the first place. It’s blaming the symptom, not the disease. (If it were true, it would also be blaming the victim: being all about “me” is hardly a way to live a life.)
It’s the mirror image of disrespect for the young by the old. Every generation screws up. Every young person blames those who came before; every old person criticizes those who come after. The real problem is substituting individual blame for others for the hard work of taking collective responsibility and action. Channelling blame is precisely what Jordan Bateman has done so successfully.
I always figured the boomers were the ones that turned the culture around so that things like environmentalism became common knowledge.
When next I see you Peter I’ll tell you I’m voting Yes, if you ask.
I won’t defend that incendiary piece by Charlie, but to play devil’s advocate somewhat, I would encourage a read of a rather light piece by Frischmann on the topic of “Inter-generational Equity”. It is slightly more elegant in discussion of the opposing forces of immediate self gratification against investment for the future.
http://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1223&context=luclj
Just for context, Smith types out filler-drivel, in a no-cost, entertainment weekly which (by page volume) averages 93% advertising, including 3 pages of sex for hire.
What does that have to do with anything? There are plenty of newspapers that are free because of advertising revenue. For trolling head over to CBC online.
Ya get for whut ya pay.
The point is credibility; this blog should be a place for high quality argument for its chosen yes bias. It has been desperately throwing up ~anything~ on that side. Even goofy graphics. Come on.
Desperation could cause irrational behaviour, even among yes men.
Exactly.
However, Dan Wood wrote a highly informative piece in the Straight a week or two back on the planners at TransLink who have it all worked out after a Yes success to start implementing a Frequent Transit Network, something you don’t read much about anywhere. Perhaps that was a tiny one-off amidst all the dead trees.
The vote has yet to begin but I’m already taking in a deep breath, ready to sing amen in unison because the choir seems about to. It seems upside down.
It’s not about the old vs. the young. It’s about people who care about the greater good vs. those who care only about themselves.
If you are 20 and not a socialist you have no heart.
If you are 40 and still a socialist you have no brain.
…and if you are 60, and look in the eyes of your grandchildren and not put their social well being ahead of your own… what are you?
I’m hoping Smith’s piece is tongue in cheek, if not, my opinion of him dropped several miles. It is worth remembering the baby boomer pushed to get environmental regulations put in place in the Western World. It’s not their fault that multinationals and the 1% decided to circumvent those rules by taking manufacturing and its decent paying jobs offshore to places like China that had little environmental oversight. Millennials with their need for cheap smartphones and disposable fashion made possible by offshore sweatshops are in no position to be sanctimonious.
Furthermore, it is very easy to be in favour of throwing money at a problem, when ypur demographic pays little in the way of taxes.
“Furthermore, it is very easy to be in favour of throwing money at a problem, when ypur demographic pays little in the way of taxes.”
That’s a little rich isn’t it, when the strongest level of support to pay higher taxes for service is coming from the generation that will ultimately pay it for the longest period of time?
Recalling my own youth and early career days, with low incomes: paying taxes or public policy was not on my mind as it is today when I pay far more taxes. Taxation is not usually on young folks minds well until their late 30’s when they actually make some decent coin and all of a sudden see 50% of their paycheque disappear with every $10,000 annual increase !
It is always a good excuse to look at the top 1%, who pay the most taxes already.
What about the bottom 20 or 30% ? They pay hardly any taxes yet get most of the benefits !
Not really. The strongest support is coming from a demographic that isn’t responsible for paying a host of taxes already. That’s not surprising at all.
So both of your positions are that the large cohort of younger people are naive and aren’t considering the future cost of what they are about to vote on and how it will impact their income/quality of life in the coming years?
yes, correct. Young people are VERY naive as none of this is taught in high school, not taxation policies, not oil &gs & other resources as the major source of Canada’s wealth, nor financing techniques for houses or major capital projects nor the excess power of public sector unions nor the excessive salaries of public servants vs. private sector workers with high risk of layoffs nor the impact of defined benefit pensions on an aging population with routine ages of 90+ nor how democracy really works nor the enormous taxes we pay once one adds GST, PST, CPP, EI, income taxes, corporate taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes .. yes very very naive .. until perhaps mid 30’s or often later !