Jeremy Deutsch reports in TriCities Now:
.
Stone sounds off on Evergreen, transit tax
Transportation and Infrastructure Minister Todd Stone urged people not to count out the Yes side during a speech …
“It’s really a good plan,” he said, noting the province stands ready to invest one-third of the funding for rapid transit projects in the Lower Mainland.
“This plebiscite is really all about the residents of the Lower Mainland deciding how they’re going to pay their one-third. Bottom line is it’s up to the region.”
.
Let’s repeat that: “… it’s up to the region.”
So, Mr. Minister, if we decided on a vehicle levy or a parking tax, as allowed in the TransLink legislation, that would by fine with you?
How about a carbon tax? Road user fee?
All good with your government?
.
Or this: “This plebiscite is really all about the residents of the Lower Mainland deciding how they’re going to pay their one-third.”
Why wouldn’t the Minister then just provide a list of provincially acceptable options so the people of Metro Vancouver could choose one? Not if, but how, since not paying the one-third would not be an option – just like the funding for major roads and bridges: not paying is not an option.
.
Then further in the article, this:
And when asked what will happen if the No side wins, he said it will be up to the region’s mayors to come up with a new solution.
“If the region determines it’s not prepared to support a 0.5 per cent sales tax… the Mayors’ Council and region will have to decide what source of funding they’d like to proceed with,” Stone told the Tri-Cities NOW.
“If it’s not the sales tax, it’s going to have to be something else and that something else will have to be determined by the Mayors’ Council. Certainly the province will be there as a partner.”
Oh, come on. The province is not a partner; it’s a parent. Stern and dictatorial when necessary. The Minister knows it, the mayoral siblings know it, and the rest is pretense.
This provincial government ‘parent’ is bullying and abusive. And there is no social services agency to call in. It is up to us to stand up.
“If it’s not the sales tax, it’s going to have to be something else and that something else will have to be determined by the Mayors’ Council. Certainly the province will be there as a partner.”
That factual statement makes total sense.
The MetroVan Mayors have many options here, in lieu of a 0.5% tax:
a) property tax increases (somewhat likely)
b) parking fee increases (the most impactful if one is honestly interested in curbing congestion i.e. wants less cars, but unlikely to happen)
c) reduced spending by curtailing unionized civil servants’ wages and their excessive benefits and pensions (extremely unlikely, but the best for citizens in a $5B+ budget in MetroVan)
d) lowered increases in spending by curtailing unionized civil servants’ wages’ growth and their excessive benefits and pensions (somewhat likely, but the best for citizens, and easily doable over 10 years, say 1% instead of 2% annual increases would yield 100’s of millions annually)
e) reduced spending by outsourcing (somewhat likely, and the best for citizens)
f) increased user fees for transit use (somewhat likely)
g) TransLink efficiencies (see d and d)
h) road tolls – with Provincial permission (that also would make the most sense but is somewhat unlikely as common sense is not so common on both the MetroVan and provincial level as it relates to transit and congestion)
i) higher development levies (somewhat likely)
j) higher gasoline fees, higher car registration fees (unknown what rights Metrovan has here .. a discourse on Vancouver charter and other charters might be useful, i.e. what power do MetroVan municipalities have without provincial authority)
k) come up with a new transit plan that actually reduces congestion, i.e. more RAPID transit and higher car use fee (road tolls, parking fees, registration fees, gasoline charges ..)
l) do it alone strategy, i.e. Surrey builds its own line to Langley, Vancouver funds its Broadway subway with each city using a) to j) as funding options
k) makes the most sense to me in cooperation between MetroVan and province !
Quoting from this article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/home-and-garden/real-estate/in-vancouver-developers-plans-hinge-on-plebiscite-results/article24111357/
“UBC adjunct planning professor Andy Yan says close to 60 per cent of transit users with mortgages are under the age of 40. That would make sense since incomes are relatively low compared to the rest of Canada, and property prices are sky high.”
So how exactly does “curtailing unionized civil servants’ wages’ growth and their excessive benefits and pensions” make Vancouver more affordable, or a better place to live, if in general, incomes are ALREADY relatively low here compared to the rest of Canada?
Also, you forget that TransLink is limited in the amount of money it can raise from fares, gas taxes and parking levies – they all have to be proportional ( an approximate ratio of 1/3 of revenue from fuel taxes, 1/3 of revenue from property taxes, and 1/3 of revenue from other non-government sources (e.g., fares, advertising, property development)) and any fare increase has to be approved by the Regional Transportation Commissioner.
And don’t forget, the low paid workers you want us all to become will become more reliant on transit, but less able to cover the cost of using it.
Wages are a function of the market, i.e. what does the market pay. So if a Safeway worker makes $16/h and a BC Liquor Store employee $22 PLUS far more benefits and pensions that that makes no sense to me.
If a cafeteria worker makes $15/h and one that works the cafeteria at BC Ferries at $25/h PLUS far more benefits and pensions that that makes no sense to me.
Ditto with TransLink bus drivers ($30/h plus benefits/pensions for a total pay over $80,000/year) or TransLink security cops (many over $100,000/year) or Parks Board garbage pickers at 2x the going rate for similarly skilled jobs.
The waste in the public sector on wages & benefits/pensions is HUGE. More here, for example: http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/english/article/6069-government-wages.html which shows that public sector workers make 18-37% MORE than comparable private sector jobs.
Wages are low here because the rents are high, as many employers compete in the market and the total cost of housing an employee has to be considered (except, of course, the public sector workers that can always squeeze their monopoly employer more) and enough people show up to work for $15/h or $60,000/year of a certain category. Why pay $22/h if enough qualified folks at $15/h show up ? Why pay $75,000/year if enough folks with the appropriate qualifications show up for $60,000/year ? [hat is why the minimum wage debate is so ridiculous, as most folks would not work for minimum wage]
I agree that our transit system is not good enough. Far too bus based. We need far more rapid transit indeed. As outlined, many funding options exist, and the biggest at the mayors options are property tax hikes, parking fees and efficient spending in their $5B+ annual budget across 25+ municipalities.