2015 Metro Vancouver Transportation and Transit Plebiscite - Result In - 62% NO

[RWMc1]

Life isn't full of guarantees, deal with it.

So who is the troller here? I did deal with it already. I dealt with it by voting no. Thanks for the advice.

[inane]

So who is the troller here? I did deal with it already. I dealt with it by voting no. Thanks for the advice.

So why were you pretending to care about where funding was coming from if you've already voted?

[RWMc1]

So why were you pretending to care about where funding was coming from if you've already voted?

You've obviously made up your mind to support the Yes side long ago. Why are you lurking on here? Hypocrite!

[inane]

You've obviously made up your mind to support the Yes side long ago. Why are you lurking on here? Hypocrite!

No answer then?

[RWMc1]

So why were you pretending to care about where funding was coming from if you've already voted?

No answer then?

Unlike you, I am willing to answer questions honestly without deflecting.

I'm not pretending. There's your answer.

[inane]

Unlike you, I am willing to answer questions honestly without deflecting.

I'm not pretending. There's your answer.

So you admittedly voted without knowing the things you needed to know to make an informed vote. Ok.

[RWMc1]

So you admittedly voted without knowing the things you needed to know to make an informed vote. Ok.

Blinders much? You are commenting on your own assumptions. You have made assumptions about pretty much every person who has disagreed with you. You then comment on your own assumptions while avoiding their points. You are inane. Get a life. Lurking on here will affect your mental stability. Just ask EOTM.

I'm out for a while. I'll get back to your response later. Have fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[inane]

Blinders much? You are commenting on your own assumptions. You have made assumptions about pretty much every person who has disagreed with you. You then comment on your own assumptions while avoiding their points. You are inane. Get a life. Lurking on here will affect your mental stability. Just ask EOTM.

I'm out for a while. I'll get back to your response later. Have fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pot. Kettle.

If you're going to vote based on your gut, fine. Just own up to it and stop pretending.

[Hosswolf]

http://mayorscouncil...nt-Mar-2015.pdf There are no guarantees in here. There is no legislation which would ensure that new monies would not be replacing old monies and old monies be used for other purposes. It leaves the door open for misuse.

Personally I found this 'proposal' quite hilarious. In the 'A Message from the Mayors Council' section they actually say:

"The Mayors’ Council is calling on the Provincial Government, once again, to make additional amendments to the TransLink governance structure. The changes made to the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority do not go far enough to instil public confidence in the operation of TransLink. It has always been, and continues to be, the Mayors’ Council request that the Provincial Government amend the legislation to provide our Council with oversight of TransLink’s operating budget. If this does not occur, we are not at all confident that our Vision or Investment Plan will be realized."

So we're supposed to support this proposal, vote Yes to increase Translink funding, and be confident that a Yes vote will foster positive building when the Mayors Council doesn't even have confidence in Translink to actually implement these changes? Come again? Doesn't anyone see the problem with this?

Have the BC government fix the problems with Translink first and then come to us for money (if it's needed).

I grew up in Surrey, and work there now. I'm aware of the issues.

But you clearly didn't even read the plan. It includes new bus routes in Surrey along with the lrt and b lines. Voting no cause service sucks just guarantees service is going to not only continue to suck, but get worse.

Of all the people who should be voting yes it's those in Surrey. Almost half the funding in the plan goes to support that city.

When you say they botched everything in Surrey, what does that mean?

Where did you grow up in Surrey? And do you drive or bus into Surrey right now? Where are you coming from now? If the Yes vote succeeds and they decide to throw Surrey a bone by providing more buses, would you honestly switch from using your car to taking a skytrain/bus, if you do drive?

Show me a comprehensive plan about what route service increases they plan/promise to bring it to Surrey. I've yet to see one, other than promises of more B-Line buses and LRT (which, by the way, would be god-awful if they run it down 104th Avenue like they're talking about. It is one of the most congested streets in Surrey; I can't imagine them taking a lane away from this street... havoc would ensue).

I would continue to argue that for the actual resident that lives in a suburb of Surrey (not just the extreme north part of the city) the issue still remains - making connections to the major routes will continue to be a challenge even when these so-called positive changes are implemented. Like all politicians, the Mayors are great about making promises that our lives will be greatly improved by just giving them a little bit more money. The trouble is, they'll come back for more and more as costs and budgets increase. It would be naive to think they'll stop at a 0.5 percent increase, it's an open-ended tax with no termination and no promise that it won't be increased.

I simply don't see enough solid plans for me to change to my mind to vote Yes. All I see in this proposal are promises from a Mayors Council that don't even trust the transportation authority that is ultimately in charge of the spending. NO thanks.

As for your question about what they have botched in Surrey, well, it's no secret that Surrey has been neglected and ignored for years by the high-brows at Translink and the provincial govt'. The Port Mann bridge should have been replaced 15 years ago, it's been congested since I started driving in the late 90's, and it's a joke that they can build a luxury Sea to Sky highway with no toll while charging south of the Fraser residents $3.00 to cross - each way... It's a joke that the Skytrain ends at King George, it should have been extended years ago. Also, as I've previously explained, it's very difficult to use transit to get anywhere that's not near a Skytrain station or major street. Service has been cut to local neighbourhoods. And now they promise to fix all of this if we just give them a little more money? I think not. From what I've seen, most people in Surrey aren't buying it. We weren't born yesterday. Words are cheap but this new tax won't be. They won't stop at 0.5 percent and they will continue to look into other forms of taxation, including a by-kilometre road pricing scheme, which for me is a complete non-starter. Might be time for a revolution if they bring that into effect.

[Hosswolf]

Is a new tax even needed? Check out Barbara Yaffe's article:

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/Barbara+Yaffe+Find+transit+money+somewhere+else/10939212/story.html

"The mayors now say they need another $250 million in tax for transit. If we vote No, what then?

Even while confronting a $5-billion budget deficit, Alberta Premier Jim Prentice has rejected introduction of a provincial sales tax.

And Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger nearly lost his job last month because he boosted his province’s sales tax in 2013 to eight per cent.

Now, in B.C., voters in Metro Vancouver appear to be rejecting a 0.5-per-cent PST hike for transit improvements regarded by most people as crucial. What’s going on?

Sales taxes are high profile, smacking taxpayers in the kisser each time they make a purchase.

And in non-HST jurisdictions, like B.C. and Manitoba, companies pay PST on their business inputs, putting them at a competitive disadvantage with companies in HST provinces. Any increase to B.C.’s PST will worsen this problem. It will also increase construction costs for new housing in the region.

Sales taxes are always trouble. Recall, Canada had several political crises after the Mulroney government introduced the GST. Ontario MP Sheila Copps resigned her seat in 1996 over a campaign statement she had made about a Liberal pledge to kill it.

Consumers were thrilled when Stephen Harper later reduced the despised levy by two percentage points.

Of course, there are other taxes that could be hiked besides the PST.

There’s property tax and the property transfer tax, tax on fuel, carbon, medical services, vehicles, imports, alcohol and tobacco. In some instances, we even pay a tax on tax.

That’s a whole lot of tax.

Indeed, Canadians last year paid a total tax equivalent to 41.8 per cent of average family income — down somewhat from a decade ago, but up from 33.5 per cent in 1961, according to Fraser Institute research.

And remember, taxes reflect spending over which most people have little control.

Add in housing, food and clothing costs — consuming another 36 per cent of income — and nearly 80 per cent of a family’s income is spoken for. Probably more than that in Vancouver, due to high housing costs.

Over time, a larger share of income has been gobbled by taxation because governments are providing more services — in response to public demand.

The mayors now say they need another $250 million in tax for transit. If we vote No, what then?

Christy Clark opined in February, “mayors ... have always had the ability to raise money for transit through increasing property taxes, and that would be one of the options available to them.”

But it’s not that simple. Such a solution almost certainly would prompt a tsunami of public fury. Especially since many — with homes that have crept past the $1.1 million mark — are about to lose some or all of their homeowner’s grant.

In any event, the mayors have stated with conviction, property tax increases for transit are not on.

It is a fact, Vancouver homeowners and businesses pay less per $1,000 of tax assessment than their counterparts in many other cities; $3.68 per $1,000 of assessed residential property, compared to $6.10 in Calgary, or $7.23 in Toronto.

But those figures don’t reflect the fact assessed property values tend to be greater in Vancouver.

Also, property taxes in this city are being hiked every year: 2.08 per cent in 2010; 1.88 per cent in 2011; 2.84 per cent in 2012; 1.36 per cent in 2013; 1.62 per cent in 2014; and a proposed 2.4 per cent this year. And the increases all get compounded.

Further, any move to hike property taxes when the Property Transfer Tax remains ridiculously overinflated, is unthinkable.

But all is not lost. Governments collect billions in revenue and have a degree of flexibility in their spending. For example, B.C. lately has reduced its annual rate of spending increases for health care.

B.C. is spending a total of $46 billion this year. Vancouver, just one of 23 municipalities in the Lower Mainland, will spend $1.2 billion.

Armed with sharpened pencils, politicians should be able to identify within existing revenues the $250 million a year for Metro Vancouver’s transportation infrastructure — if it’s as crucial as they claim."

[inane]

Again, you list all the things you want, yet are going to vote no when there is an option to fund them. I don't get it.

[Hosswolf]

Again, you list all the things you want, yet are going to vote no when there is an option to fund them. I don't get it.

I write a comprehensive response to your questions, and this is the response I get? I can see why others are getting frustrated by your replies as well. You didn't answer any of my questions.

Like most people on the No side, I am not saying that we shouldn't be funding transit. I think some of the main factors for me voting No to the Mayor's initiative are as follows:

1) The Mayors Council, as previously shown, and much of the Lower Mainland does not trust Translink, or at least their ability to manage their money properly. Yet we should give them more and this is a solution to our woes? Overhaul the inept system first, make them accountable to the Public and then come back to us for money.

2) New projects and transportation initiatives such as cycling infrastructure are great. However, do we need to have 3 or 4 megaprojects going on at once? If they're talking about 1 million more people coming to Metro Vancouver by 2040, why do we have to have all of the infrastructure in place by 2025-2027? They're talking 10-12 years to get most of this stuff on the ground, no?

3) The Yes campaign's argument is built on fear and hyperbole. I don't appreciate the robocalls, the threatening ads, and the sheer arrogance from many on this side of the fence. They act as if nothing can be done if we vote No. This simply isn't the case. I think many people will be discouraged from voting Yes simply by the nature of their campaigning. It certainly has rubbed me the wrong way. And spending 6 million on a failing campaign is yet another example of waste!

However, having said all this I think you and I can agree to disagree on this issue. I highly doubt any of this is going to sway you to the No side and you will not be able to sway me to the Yes side. So I'll cast my ballot as I please and I encourage you to do the same. I do appreciate the fact that we get a say in this, and it is my hope that something good will come of all this. Such as overhauling Translink and starting fresh.

[vancouvercanucks2010]

...

Just ignore Inane. He seems to be doing a great job convincing people to vote no so far.

[inane]

I'm on my phone, can't quote and reply to all, but I will address it all. Certainly I've heard all the arguments, and did vote yes. I'm not looking to sway your vote one way or another, I'm just an anonymous person on the internet. But I will argue with those I don't agree with! ;-)

[hsedin33]

I agree, but that's why this is different. Normally they make promises without any clue how they'll do it, or it's vague, based on if's and maybe's. This plan has specific projects, and specific funding. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than the usual empty promises one gets.

Spoken like a true politician trying to get more money.

[hsedin33]

That is not the only reason I am voting no. I know a long time translink employee who has told me more than enough reasons to leave me shaking my head in disbelief for hours to vote no..

I've had the same experience with a Translink bus driver I talk to at the local recreational facility. Every time I speak to him I get to find out how poorly the system is running.

[inane]

Spoken like a true politician trying to get more money.

Lol passive aggressive much?

[trek]

Lol passive aggressive much?

like you of all people posting in this thread should be calling out someone for being passive aggressive

[inane]

like you of all people posting in this thread should be calling out someone for being passive aggressive

Notice how it's about the messenger and not the message?

[inane]

I write a comprehensive response to your questions, and this is the response I get? I can see why others are getting frustrated by your replies as well. You didn't answer any of my questions.

Like most people on the No side, I am not saying that we shouldn't be funding transit. I think some of the main factors for me voting No to the Mayor's initiative are as follows:

1) The Mayors Council, as previously shown, and much of the Lower Mainland does not trust Translink, or at least their ability to manage their money properly. Yet we should give them more and this is a solution to our woes? Overhaul the inept system first, make them accountable to the Public and then come back to us for money.

2) New projects and transportation initiatives such as cycling infrastructure are great. However, do we need to have 3 or 4 megaprojects going on at once? If they're talking about 1 million more people coming to Metro Vancouver by 2040, why do we have to have all of the infrastructure in place by 2025-2027? They're talking 10-12 years to get most of this stuff on the ground, no?

3) The Yes campaign's argument is built on fear and hyperbole. I don't appreciate the robocalls, the threatening ads, and the sheer arrogance from many on this side of the fence. They act as if nothing can be done if we vote No. This simply isn't the case. I think many people will be discouraged from voting Yes simply by the nature of their campaigning. It certainly has rubbed me the wrong way. And spending 6 million on a failing campaign is yet another example of waste!

However, having said all this I think you and I can agree to disagree on this issue. I highly doubt any of this is going to sway you to the No side and you will not be able to sway me to the Yes side. So I'll cast my ballot as I please and I encourage you to do the same. I do appreciate the fact that we get a say in this, and it is my hope that something good will come of all this. Such as overhauling Translink and starting fresh.

First, the mayor's council thing said if. If they don't get the legislation changed regarding funding, then they aren't sure it can work. That's a big difference than what you're saying.

Second, we need those projects now, and the majority of the plan isn't big ticket items, it's more buses, late night buses, more trains on the existing lines etc. The subway and lrt lines get all the press, but they are just a piece of the whole thing.

Third, yeah, the campaign has been bad, no doubt. But it's the message, not the messenger we should be focusing on.