Geof contributes some of the most thoughtful comments on PT. Hard to choose sometimes which to bring forward – but this one, just added, is worthy of giving prominence:
.
The Yes side’s fatal error is that it allowed Bateman to frame the campaign. We are not losing because we are giving the wrong answers (geeky facts and figures), but because we are asking the wrong questions. Bateman set the questions; everything else followed.
Bateman has been campaigning against Translink for years, so things were difficult from the start. But I think that replacing Ian Jarvis was the key moment when the Yes side acquiesced. The double salary reported in the media was the least of the damage it inflicted.
The first and most important consequence was that the Yes side accepted Bateman’s frame that this was a vote about Translink, not about transit. The only way to win after this is for the Yes side to break that frame – which they themselves had set.
Second, this was a tacit admission that Translink’s leadership was flawed. No political party would change horses during a race, but that’s what Yes did.
Third, he should not have been the horse. The decision placed Translink, and the Translink CEO, in a leadership position. That is the last place Translink should be. They are managers, not communicators; they should have been kept out of the spotlight to let others run the show.
Fourth, it let opponents smell blood. The only thing in politics worse than being seen to be wrong is being seen to be weak. Opponents are emboldened, not satiated, when their demands are met.
Fifth, it resulted in an apparent double salary. But that would not have been a serious problem if the Yes side had successfully framed the campaign.
It was a communication failure so bad I had trouble believing it was happening. To accept Bateman’s framing of a failed vote would only repeat the error. We need to frame the outcome so that this is not a wholesale rejection of transit or of taxes.
I think that this should be a campaign about values. Right now, those values are (often justified) widespread mistrust and anger towards elites. Who is leading the Yes campaign? A laundry list of the region’s elites. Bateman didn’t brainwash people: he tapped into latent sentiment, bringing it to the surface and giving it a target.
How to move past failure? We have two great advantages: 1) the leaders of the region support transit investment, and 2) most people agree (witness the early polls).
I think we need to maintain the coalition of leaders, set it to one side, put ordinary people at the center, and listen. The leaders of this region should not be trying to herd us into a Yes: they should be following the needs of the people who live here. Consider Jessica, who commutes two hours a way each day to a low-paying job. Her story is more truthful than all the facts and figures about congestion 30 years hence, because it is experiences like hers that make the figures matter.
If we listen to ordinary people and share their stories, I think that action on transit will be politically irresistible.
To further speak to Geof’s two great advantages, the province’s 10-Year Transportation Plan included the results of a survey done before the plan was put together. One of the results of the survey was that 87% said expanding and increasing transit services was important. 87%! That’s a huge mandate!
The ‘yes’ side needs to tap into those 87%. There’s a huge upside here for the ‘yes’ side, and I hope that they can do it.
As to the demotion of Ian Jarvis, I have a pet conspiracy theory about that. In April TransLink will release its financial statements for 2014, smack in the middle of the mail-in period. This will include executive compensation numbers. I have a sneaking suspicion that there’s a landmine in there, possibly in regards to bonuses paid out to the CEO (while his long-term incentive plan bonus was cancelled in 2013, his short-term incentive plan bonus could be up to 30% of his salary). It would play right into Bateman’s hands if Ian Jarvis was handed a hefty bonus, and someone up high who had insight into the numbers before-hand forced him out to try to deaden the future blow.
93% in the lower mainland
I especially like that part where any Provincial contributions to the highly demanded transit investment (but nothing else in the report) are so neatly couched in a giant middle finger to…well…everyone.
“Fund one-third of the cost of new rapid transit projects, and the Pattullo Bridge, provided they can be accommodated within the provincial fiscal plan and the investments are supported by a business case…”
You were saying? Todd Stone announces $2.5 B over 10 yrs. for motordom (no referendum); $300M over 3 yrs for transit outside of Metro Vancouver; spare change ($18M over 3 yrs) for cycling.
http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/announces+billion+plan+rehabilitate+bridges+highways+roads/10897181/story.html
“This plan sets out a series of priorities, including almost $2.5 billion in provincial investment over the next three years, focused on moving people and goods safely, growing the economy, and strengthening communities.”
So roads and bridges shouldn’t be maintained across the province? Roads that cross BC are just for “motordom”? There’s nothing else that needs to move around the province? Food, for example? It just magically teleports from the farms to your table? Your bicycle just flew in by itself from the factory where it was made?
Here’s one point where the Yes is seriously losing it – the insufferable moral superiority displayed towards anyone who’s not 100% on board, or who has questions.
So here’s my take on the Yes side failure. I don’t care at all about Jordan Bateman. I don’t particularly think Translink is as good or as bad as either side suggests. I tried to educate myself about the plan.
First thing: We’re promised transparency. But try and find out anything useful from the Mayor’s Council website. I spent quite a bit of time surfing around there trying to find real details about what’s planned, and what it will really cost. Without some tips from Jeff, I would never have found the nitty-gritty, buried in an Appendix in a non-obvious webpage. But there are lots of pretty pictures and big-font fluff all over the place there. So, I’m more than a little suspicious about the promised transparency.
Second thing: Look at the plan, and see that it’s more a wishlist than a plan. None of the big-ticket items are funded by the sales tax increase. Half the other things promised can only happen after year 10 when more funding (from mobility pricing) kicks in. Funding that’s more than what’s going to be raised by the sales tax. Another example – half the B-Lines don’t happen till years 5-10, and who knows if they’ll really happen. Even with the 6 lines that are planned for years 1-5 – which ones will happen when? A lot changes in 5 years… What if the Broadway subway actually goes ahead, and uses way more money than expected now (as it almost certainly will)? What’s going to get cut? What’s the priority for things to get built? It obviously can’t all be done right away. I’m an engineer, and plans that don’t have timelines and schedules and milestones are not plans.
Third thing: I looked today, and finally there’s an updated document outlining the plan. Instead of documents that were dated June 2014 and that promised an update in February. So, the campaign got started, went badly, and it took until now to get the promised info out to the public. Way to engender confidence in the ability to execute on the plan.
Final thing: The mayors could have just raised property taxes and funded whatever they liked. Without having to have the referendum. In my opinion, that’s the fairest way to pay anyway (and way more efficient that this stupid sales tax increment). But that would have taken political courage, and pointed the finger at the local pols. Way easier to stand back and blame the provincial government. And way easier, when the tax has to be raised every few years to meet the shortfall, to continue to hide behind the provincial government. Because I don’t think anyone believes that 0.5% is where it will end.
One extra final thing: If the plan wasn’t so focused on providing better transit for the downtown core, it would be more attractive to the general population. Try commuting with transit east-west across Vancouver; Vancouver to Burnaby; Vancouver to Richmond; Richmond – Burnaby; anywhere south of the Fraser to any non-Vancouver destination. And the sop is a B-Line that runs over the Knight street bridge while doing nothing about the congestion on the bridge?! Ha, that’s really gonna make people feel endeared to this plan.
And before you all jump on me, I live in Vancouver. Yes, I drive a car. I don’t mind paying for transit. I don’t even mind paying for bicycle lanes. I’d use the bus more often if it was at all practical. I’m not your “motordom” fanatic. That’s why I come here and read. But I’m quite put off by the condescension and paternalism and half-baked planning that’s going on right now.
Geofy, if you seriously think that one person truly is the sole cause of the immense No vote throughout the region, then no need for Jimmy and make Jordan CEO of TranSlinky.
If some guy out in Langley can do all that with $30k, against a massive corporation with a pile of Your Worships (and their comm staff) who are armed with $9million ….
I noticed this recent comment from Geof, I was shocked and wonder if he would like to elaborate and clear up a couple of points.
“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.”
It seems to me that since the boomers gained control the planet has become less screwed. There is less war today than there has been for ever. Democracy? What do you prefer Geof, totalitarianism, anarchy or socialism? As for the economy; is it not true that we have one of the best economies in the world?
I am afraid that you have only quoted part of what I said. I said that: I also said the sentiment is irrational and unfair. It is an example of truthiness: something that feels true regardless of whether it is. I also said that the generations before and after are probably no better. As I recall, I was using my own irrationality to illustrate the need for understanding rather than blame.
As for the planet, I do not think it has become less screwed, as you say. On the contrary, I see environmental degradation, resource exhausting, democratic failure and rising inequality as serious problems. I worry that democracy may have been a gift of fossil fuels. But I am possessed of too much doubt to favor any particular “ism.”
Thank you for the perspective in your first paragraph. That’s reasonable.
The environment and pollution have been of increasing interest since the 19th Century. As have forestry management practices and air quality laws. The word ecology and EPA have only been around since the boomers created them. The air and the water in much of the world is cleaner now than ever before. The exploding growth of the third world is certainly problematic.
I’m not sure I understand what democratic failure is, except on the occasion when my team loses. I don’t know of an appealing replacement.
The poor are getting richer, everywhere. Why is this a bad thing ?
From the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10319946/An-inconvenient-truth-for-Ed-the-poor-are-getting-richer.html
Here at home: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/20/poor-today-rich-tomorrow-permanent-underclass-a-myth-in-canada-study-reveals/
8B+ people obviously have an impact on the planet in terms of garbage creation, heating, driving, eating fish, consuming resources … but: The environment is getting better everywhere except non-democratic states. Clearly wealth creation and democracy equals a cleaner environment i.e. higher standards in US or Canada vs. Mexico or Peru, or Germany vs. Ukraine. Poor and/or autocratic states often don’t have the monetary means and often no real reason to clean up the environment, as it costs money and requires accountability. You get that only from relatively affluent democratic states. What is a better alternative ?
At the moment we cannot afford to feed 8B people with organic food, planted by e-tractors, harvested by e-combines, shipped by e-locomotives or e-trucks to your local grocery store. Only the very affluent top 1% can truly afford their own eco-farm.
The #1 cause to lower population growth downward is educated, more independent, more affluent women. That is happening in many, but not all countries.
Yes, we need more affordable transit, especially time saving RAPID transit, delivered by clean e-trains (also referred to as SkyTrains, LRTs or subways). We also need wage & benefit constraint in the public sector or agencies that deliver those services. Much work to be done here.
The yessers need to widen their frame, and put transit costs (and additional PST charges on every daily purchase made) in a larger context. For example, credibility. We have a pile of Mayors and a reckless-spending TranSlinky assuring us (with old Jimmy’s guidance) of prudent spending “in the future.” The same group responsible for this:
Sept. 2014
A report by Ernst & Young, a global tax and audit firm, documented that salaries for loc gov’t employees rose by nearly 40% from 2001 – 2012, far outstripping inflation and more than doubling raises earned by provincial public sector counterparts during the same time.
The report outlined what it describes as unlimited and unregulated wage gifting within municipalities that led to the enrichment. Municipal compensation is so fragmented and grossly out of control, that the only remedy to stop runaway costs is for a senior gov’t to centralize bargaining and create a new municipal public sector employment strategy.
Bob Mackin is doing some great reporting work but it doesn’t get the play it deserves.
http://bobmackin.ca/?p=2466
http://bobmackin.ca/?p=2437
I mean, the ex board chair at TransLink saying expansion of transit is maybe not such a good idea! There’s tons of other stuff that Bob writes that really needs to be considered – and should be at least known.
I didn’t realize until this referendum that bus drivers get paid a shift premium to work on Sundays! What year is this, 1950? Retail, restaurant or airline employees don’t get paid these “Lord’s Day” premiums. How much could be saved by bringing in practises in line with the private sector and eliminating them.
Another reason that the bus company will never be privatized.