This just in from The Sun:
B.C.’s minister responsible for TransLink says a pitch by Metro Vancouver mayors to toll all local bridges or charge a fee per distance travelled to fund transportation projects is “worthy of a look.”
But Peter Fassbender said while the so-called “mobility pricing” should be considered in terms of cause and effect and how long it would take to be implemented, it should not be done in isolation.
“Funding is an issue, there’s no question,” Fassbender said Thursday during a luncheon speech hosted by the Urban Development Institute. “We clearly said to the mayors that we, as government, are prepared to work with them and look at options but we’re not prepared to suggest one magic solution to funding. We need an integration of funding sources.”
The Province has at various times eliminated vehicle levys, new parking taxes, carbon taxes current or new, tolls on existing infrastructure, don’t even talk about income taxes, and any tax that might have a negative effect on families. And then you set up a referendum on a sales tax pretty much doomed to fail. So, Minister, do go on about funding sources you have in mind that could be integrated. And be specific.
.
Then there’s this:
Fassbender said while the public rejected the sales tax, he believes that decision was based more on a high level of distrust for TransLink rather than the mayors’ plan for transit projects. But he refused a call by mayors to restructure the TransLink board, saying he didn’t believe this would help to boost public confidence in the transportation authority.
Do we have this right: The Province will require another referendum for any tax increase, which failed the last time because of distrust of TransLink. And we will go into the next one with no changes to TransLink.
.
Yeah, that should work.
The solution is obvious. The Province funds half. The Feds fund the other half. The Province used to fund 100% so this is a good deal for them. Worked for Expo and Millenium Lines.
Complex problem solved by simple solution. You do realize why this is only obvious to you, right? No? Oh.
In Expo time, household debt was something like 70% of income. During Millenium, it climbed over 100%. Now, it’s something like 160%.
As our Finance Minister reminds, there is only one funding source; people who pay taxes.
There are MANY funding sources for public projects, such as a new subway or LRT. Here almost 20 .. and there are probably a few more:
a) new debt
b) income taxes
c) property taxes
d) user fees, i.e. higher transit fees
e) private sector co-ownership
f) PST
g) GST
h) corporate taxes
i) road tolls
j) reduced spending (usually overlooked by anyone left of center as they like unions and excessively paid public sector workers to buy votes, such as “Vision” Vancouver, NDP, Federal Liberals, Ontario Liberals, ..)
k) gasoline taxes
m) carbon taxes
o) higher import taxes / tariffs
p) land transfer taxes
q) capital gains taxes
r) bike levies
s) vehicle levies, say by engine size
As such, it is hard to say which source or which mix in what % is the proper formula, and much depends on your worldview, where you live, what you use today for transportation and what taxes you pay already !
Personally I prefer a combination of a, c, d, i and especially j
Last time I looked taxpayers are not responsible for families and individuals who overextend themselves on cheap mortgages and deep vats of credit.
Unlike for over-extended governments where the tax payers, whether they like it or not, WILL be responsbible for the debt payments. Also see NDP election in Alberta, numerous re-election of Ontario Liberals and/or Federal Liberal election in Canada with vast trails of red ink to follow for generations !
Two pro-business, anti-excessive-debt governments remain in Canada: in SK and here in BC !
The Alberta government is not overextended. In fact, the low prices for their one-trick export economy will cause them to go into deficit for the first time in more than a decade. It’s far better to diversify into green energy which creates more jobs and advances technology.
On the other hand, the BC government has all kinds of red ink spilling from the government and crown corporation books. The total BC debt is expected to top $70 billion after 2018. If you are so concerned about overextended governments then why do you keep proposing tens of billions in road and subway projects? At least transit has a measureable return, but roads are a burden that is clearly financially and environmentally unsustainable at current levels.
The above article appeared in the Sun secondary to a headline story on the province and the mayor calling for a larger federal share of transit funding than the standard 1/3rd, which is a legacy from the early 90s when Chretien / Martin cut back to fight deficits. Previous to that it was what Richard iterated above, or a much smaller municipal share, so more senior government funding now would not set a precedent.
What the province is not saying is that increasing the federal share doesn’t translate to the province following suit.
Robertson called for a 10% municipal share, and the new federal minister of infrastructure is open to the idea. The mayor said this dovetails with what cities get from the gas tax (actually it’s less at 8%) and is a more appropriate share considering the downloading to cities that occurred over the last 15 years, not to mention the provincial manipulation of local governance.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/vancouver+ottawa+pick+bigger+share+transit+projects/11530687/story.html
Greater senior government funding of infrastructure and an elected regional government with taxation powers are two important steps to take now.
Fassbender discredited himself once again by saying: “It’s not about moving people. It’s about moving goods and services.” The same justification was used for the massively over-engineered debt monster called the Port Mann where over 70% of its traffic consisted of cars with a single-occupant suburban voter behind the wheel.
It is most definitely about moving people because that act alone will address a lot of problems regarding congestion (hence movement of goods), environment, humane urbanism and overdrawn public finances. But that will require what Stephen Rees calls joined-up thinking.
Careful with the selected listening button, MB (why do people insist on anonymity in these discussions??).
The correct quote is: “It’s not just about moving people, it’s about moving goods and services.”
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/vancouver+ottawa+pick+bigger+share+transit+projects/11530687/story.html#ixzz3s3ZpQJAJ
Still, the emphasis is on moving goods and services when in fact the political impetus to building the freeway system and grossly overblown bridge designs (and avoid expenditures on public transit) was to please the suburban political base of the BC Liberals, the vast majority of whom commute great distances by car. This is the speech-making record of Kevin Falcon, which is being maintained by the current politicos with a public debt tally that probably popped through the $10 billion ceiling with the Massey Bridge project. The next step would be to open up the ALR piece by piece to development that would please Kevin’s real estate pals and political donors.
Anonymity does not preclude relevant commentary, nor should it. When I have a public platform of my own I will never preclude anonymous commenters or call them on their (often very justified) reasons and circumstances to remain so. Anonymity should be embraced as a vehicle of democracy, while recognizing it comes with responsibilities.
Anonymity cannot be embraced as a vehicle of democracy because it is lacking in authenticity, it is lacking in the courage required of spoken opinion.
So says “jolson,” which is clearly at least a psuedonym.
And to judge or discount comments by their author’s handle alone ignores the originality of their content.
Fassbener is right: many sources need to be considered, i.e. property taxes, parking fees, PST, road tolls, vehicle levies, user fees, land transfer taxes .. and as argued elsewhere by me income taxes should rather be lowered and property taxes and consumption taxes be raised.
I’ve also called MB out about his choice of anonymity before on another urban blog, to no avail. It is tiresome, no doubt.
You’re right, it’s a choice. For now.
Anonymity is quite literally the cornerstone of democracy. You are entitled to it every time you give your opinion at the ballot box. But, and this is the crucial point, if you choose anonymity you mustn’t use others’ decision to use their own names in the interest of clarity as a blunt instrument; attempting to silence others by bringing in aspects of their professional or personal life as fodder for debate.
In the long run what counts is the strength of the argument. Nothing else.