It’s only been a few days since the results of the referendum, but already the consequences of that fit of pique are evident. So let’s keep track of the Damage Done.
Not surprisingly, the most vulnerable will be disproportionately affected: Seniors, people with disabilities could be hit hard by stalled funding.
Seniors and people with disabilities could suffer from social isolation and lack of access to medical services due to a continued freeze of HandyDART service hours, according to Beth McKellar, co-coordinator of the HandyDART Riders’ Alliance.
Increased funding for the service was part of the transportation plan put forward by the Mayors’ Council.
Still, it’s hard to sustain interest on the plight of the poor when the political conflicts are so much more bloody, especially when things look like they’re already starting to get nasty, as reported in the Globe by Frances Bula: Surrey mayor mulls taking back gas taxes to finance city’s light rail.
Surrey’s mayor is looking at all options to finance light-rail transit for her city now that voters have rejected a sales tax, including a potentially controversial move to take back Surrey’s hefty share of gas taxes that now go to TransLink.
Take out close to $100 million annually from the TransLink budget, which would have to be made up by savage cuts to existing services (see above), and just imagine relations among the region’s municipalities, especially if majority consent at the region or Mayors’ Council was required to fund the operating deficits of Surrey’s light rail.
Ugh.
But the damage doesn’t stop there. As Frances noted:
Ms. Hepner said her city could also look at tapping into the city’s financial reserves and hiving off contributions from developers who get rezonings, which usually go to other community services.
Ah, “other community services.” I wonder what that really means.
See above.
I wonder why she said during the campaign that the LRT would be built no matter what, which didn’t exactly help the Yes chances. When I heard that, I assumed she actually had a plan in mind. Apparently not.
She did have a plan in mind; to consider funds from other sources. Which she is doing now. (Plebiscite or not.) This was expected to happen and the same can be said about the Broadway line.
I’m reminded of that aphorism: “no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy.”
Every issue has two sides.
Damage to some is a benefit to others. As we see in Greece, or in Ontario, excessive debts due to excessive spending is not what many like, but the majority approves nevertheless, with consequences. Some like the increased taxes and the increased services, the majority did not. Like in Greece, or Ontario, there are consequences, of course. Some call them damages. Some a blessing in disguise. Other funding options will be found. Perhaps even some savings or efficiencies. Since bureaucracies tend to spend all the money they get, and then some (through debt) tax payers in MetroVan have said “stop”. it is now up to politicians, and their bureaucracies to re-allocate spending. Cutting services for the most vulnerable is a choice they can make. They don’t have to.
I have no idea where you see any mention of savings or efficiencies.
Author
Thomas gets one post a day
amen!
If Surrey pulls it’s gas tax revenue, this might be the end of Translink being the region wide transit authority. We may end up with a patchwork of bit players like the Bay area.
My opinion of Ms. Hepner is on it’s way down to Corrigan-like levels.
We need a mational Transit Plan more than ever. Where are the federal parties on this issue during the campaign?
All the Conservatives can come up with is a promise of billions of dollars for transit, as in the last budget.
You think that federal government should control the design of the systems?
Given the massive negotiating power of procurement the feds possess as a single payer for national assets, yes. Very deep discounts on unit prices are more likely under larger federal contracts than for singlular jurisdictions. Public engagement will be essential.
This is all grandstanding by mayors. None of them will leave TransLink. None of them will build something on their own be it Vancouver or Surrey because they cannot afford to. The same thing happened with RCMP contract. Everybody was to establish their own police force. They were all huffing and puffing and beating their own chest and then then they just signed on the dotted line.
Absolutely nothing is going to happen until the next provincial election. So we all may as well find another subject to discuss.
Perhaps a plan for an elected regional government should be developed locally with deep public consultation (i.e. multiple workshops or a citizen’s assembly with Metro residents) with the results widely publicized then put forth as a proposed referendum in the Metro. Though there are some efficiencies to be gained from some smaller cities joining larger ones, the one-side-fits-all amalgamation fiasco of the GTA needs to be avoided. I believe it is possible to propose parallel city and Metro councils on the same ballot where each city is also represented in the Metro council by separate candidates whose numbers are voted for in accordance with population.
This idea has the potential to be well received by local citizens of all stripes and leanings, especially if they were deeply engaged in the process from Day One and the proposal addressed all the concerns expressed in the recent plebiscite campaign, such as accountability. You cannot be any more accountable than if you are elected. There is nothing stopping the mayors and Metro representatives from planning and consulting and developing a viable, well thought out proposal independently from a provincial government that has acted irresponsibly toward Metro Vancouver residents. This is also perhaps the only way forward that can still unite Metro mayors and keep them from going their own way and essentially weakening local democracy by breaking up the team.
Being that municipal governance is a provincial issue under the Constitution, then Christy will have to say yes or no to holding a referendum on local democracy. My hunch is that the province would be deeply afraid of the power of Canada’s third largest city if it gets organized as a competing political entity. However, refusing to allow a referendum counter to the aspirations of Lower Mainlanders who comprise half the population of the province and who feel the need for more accountability on transit and other regional concerns, Victoria would in a delicate situation and possibly an interesting test challenge to the Constitution. Support local democracy or deny it at your peril, so to speak.
Should the idea that Metro residents should develop their own proposal to gain an elected Metro government have wings, then remember, you heard it here first.
So if surrey withholds their Translink money, which is used for operations, does this meant the buses and trains no longer have to travel south of the river?
I don’t believe Surrey even has the legislative authority to withhold “their” share of the gas tax either way. It’s got nothing to do with them whatsoever. Otherwise Vancouver could just randomly decide that we get to keep all the PST charged here, or Vernon could decide that all the federal income tax there goes to the municipal coffers – none of these are even slightly plausible.
From the perspective of Maple Ridge, with its 78 per cent No vote led by our mayor, I would suggest we’re already living in a patchwork transit area. Linda Heppner’s “other services” are, most likely, daily municipal operating costs, which should not be funded from developer cost charges. I would support Surrey, and others, in looking to address their own acute needs until we have a functioning, funded regional system. And Gordon, I have taken your name in vain in a mirthful Fraseropolis.com blurb on the plebiscite result. Cheers, http://bit.ly/1G8v0PH