Two issues with respect to the referendum and its outcome that, though raised, have had little impact on the debate so far – but still need to be addressed.
(1) Precedence
The referendum is obviously unfair: Why only for TransLink? Why only for Metro Vancouver?
But more significantly, is it now a precedent? Will any increase in transit for Metro Vancouver now require a referendum? (And will that requirement be expanded to B.C. Transit so that every part of the province will have to vote for its own expansion of service? In such a case, it’s not inconceivable that in some cases the cost of a referendum would be greater than the revenue raised.)
Because the referendum requirement was a promise made by the Premier during the last election, there was never a serious attempt to question its legitimacy – and its precedent-setting implications. I argued last year, without effect, that the region would be better off mounting a 100-percent No campaign: get everyone to vote no, regardless of position, so that the referendum becomes useless as a way of bypassing the legitimate political process, and, after the first one, would hopefully be never used again.
But win or lose, there still needs to be a debate on whether there will have to be another. If referenda are the new norm for transit approval, then transportation and regional planning processes become largely pointless, our politics turns into a series of culture-war conflicts, and the region turns in on itself.
(2) Inequality
It’s one of those coincidences that would be difficult to believe if planned: At the end of the year, about the same amount of money needed by the region to fund a transportation system essential to its growth and prosperity will, without a vote, be put back into the pockets of the richest two percent of British Columbians. For just over 76,000 residents, that’s on average another $3,000.
I accept the argument that this was a promise made when the top tax rate was raised in 2013 with a sunset clause that expires in January. But it’s still a reflection of our priorities, and it’s the way that inequality occurs in real life. Transit that provides a basic service for us all, notably low-income working people, could be defunded and, with growth, see a reduction in service levels while, yes, the rich get richer – and both could occur simultaneously with almost exactly the same amount of money involved.
There’s been essentially no comment or reaction – certainly no outrage. The two outcomes never come up in the same sentence. Maybe it’s a combination of acceptance, cynicism and fatalism.
Or maybe this is a case where the rich in this region, especially the ones who help fund the governing party, will have to see the connection between their wealth and the region’s health before an alternative will be found to the deliberate dysfunction in which we find ourselves.
Hogwash.
“no new taxes, read my lips” was CC slogan she won on. As such a referendum for a higher tax makes sense. MetroVan has 60%+ of BC’s population. Plan B, without a referendum provides plenty of options.
“inequality” is a given in today’s world, yesterday’s world and tomorrow’s world.
You have the same rights, but not the same outcome. Let’s not confuse inequality of outcome with the inequality of rights.
40% of taxes taken on every $ of income over $80,000 or so , plus then another 12% on the 60% of leftover money you use to buy goods with, plus property taxes, gasoline taxes, various other government fees like healthcare premiums or licensing fees provide AMPLE revenue for cities, province and federal government. Ample, my (young ?) friend, ample !
The core issue is effective use of said $s ! As such, the biggest overlooked issue in this transit debate is civil servants and public sector or quasi-piblic sector wages and benefits which are 20-35% too high and as such provide no more spending room for required homeless shelters, social hosuing, more nurses, more teachers or more public transit !
I accept the argument that this was a promise made when the top tax rate was raised in 2013 with a sunset clause that expires in January.
Actually, no, you don’t – or you wouldn’t keep harping on it, and presenting it as a ‘tax break’ etc.
If you think tax rates aren’t sufficiently progressive, that’s fine – just make the argument. After which, you might reconsider your support for a regressive tax to fund transit.
Touché
Eyebrows are raised because we have a premier that is keeping her word. She campaigned on allowing the mayors to design and plan and how to finance it, promising to match funds. Nobody thinks this is unfair.
The mayors came up with their plan and just one choice. No options. Yes, or No. Their choice. Their gamble, all or nothing, for now.
We then accept the argument of the other promise, to end the temporary surtax. Another promise kept. The dollars needed here and the dollars no longer needed there may be coincidental in number. It is also irrelevant as we can confirm from the announcement and commitment to fund the new hospital with hundreds of millions. The priority of honesty regarding the surtax is to be applauded and welcomed – and it is.
Transit is well funded and will continue to have a very healthy budget. Attempting to convince this generally middle class populace that ultra-rich people are scheming against them, so they should therefore vote to pay more tax, is laughable. Especially considering the well known TransLink palace of the chosen and the massive hundred-and-fifty-grand-a-year-and-up club.
Now, what were you saying about inequality? You might be on to something.
BC Liberals announce today the relocation of St. Pauls hospital after 3 years earlier promising to refurbish the Hospital in its current location. Promise kept.
Building a hospital on a flood plain?
Saint Paul’s is at the top of a hill for a good reason.
Does emergency services know about this?
Who is going to take the big bath when the sea levels rise?
Not the Liberals
Eyebrows are raised because we have a premier who abrogated her responsibility to lead on public transit.
Eyebrows are raised even higher because her referendum promise singles out local transit for a vote and not all transportation province-wide, therein diminishing it and demeaning Metro Vancouver.
Eyebrows are raised abnormally with the lack of a rational provincial transportation planning process for the largest city where one mode gets overfunded (freeways & 10-lane bridges) while another has an extra layer of approval imposed on top of decades of funding anemia.
Eyebrows are so far above the hairline you’d think it was a botched facelift.
Roads are overfunded ? For Canada’s major Pacific ports (there are over 30, btw in the MetroVan area) and 2.5M+ people ?
The discussion on road tolls need to start ASAP, to give an incentive to use less cars, to cross fund RAPID transit and to align road maintenance with wear and tear by trucks, SUVs, tires in general.
This to me is the second major issue overlooked by the Mayors.
The third is lack of taxation of foreign residents or non-income tax paying residents owning real estate yet using social, policing, healthcare and education services.
The fourth is lack of enough RAPID transit.
I wouldn’t start playing the promises kept game. I guarantee you’ll find more broken than kept.
A 100% No campaign to devalue referenda seems like a good idea. Except referenda are legally binding public votes. A plebiscite, which is what is happening now, is not legally binding. So a 100% No campaign could have been an option.
After the vote is over, even if “yes” (unlikely, but a possibility), a far broader debate has to happen on:
1) provincial funding for public transit
2) provincial borrowing for transit
3) property taxes and the impact of non-residents on it
4) why a $1B investment for a subway is different than $1B for a new bridge
5) public sector salaries and benefits on both provincial and municipal level
6) TransLink governance for the 21st century for 60%+ of BC population
7) road tolls, where and phasing
8) parking fees (why can you park as many cars as you want, for essentially free, in already clogged residential streets)
9) transit vs. rapid transit
10) single zone vs. multiple zones
11) overall taxation levels