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

[inane]

I don't get it because there is no oversight to make sure it is happening. It's not going to a pot that can only be sent on these projects, it will be a number that is calculated and the value will be earmarked fr the projects. The money itself will not actually be separated. It doesn't work like that. The Municipalities are not collecting the tax. If you want an example of how the collection and spending can go awry, look no further than the current scandal with the BC Auditor General. There's always a loophole.

I also believe that projects are going through regardless because they have to. There is no option but to fix this. The BC Prov. Gov. are the ones that should have already started the building of transit infrastructure. They have downloaded the problem to the Mayors, which is completely unfair. If the projections of the population of the lower mainland are indeed correct, and we are getting a million or so people over the next 15 years, what other option is there other than fixing the problem. This is not a fix, it's a new problem. The Prov Libs need to step up and lead....but there isn't an election for years, so they're not going to rush into it.

As for picking my poison, I'll pick the tax structure that makes sense over the one that makes no sense whatsoever 10 times out of 10. We will end up paying more under this plan.

To your second point, then why bother with the referendum? If they 'have to', then why aren't they?

[inane]

It all starts with the people.

People have to have the courage to not vote for the major parties. People need to educate themselves on things like transit, environment, farming, economics etc so their not ignorant as to who they're electing and what they're electing them to do. People need to hold those they elect to the results of their actions.

People need to stop being so ignorant and apathetic.

I agree, but I said a realistic option. Short of some kind of calamity, that kind of systematic change isn't happening.

And the issues like transit need solving now, yesterday. Not in some potential what if future scenario.

[-DLC-]

I am unconvinced that they WILL BE (solved now). That is the potential "what if" scenario. Just because it's promised that something will happen a certain way, doesn't it mean it will.

Just look at any pre election speech in comparison to post election victory to see how promises aren't always kept.

So many who are teetering over to the no side (my household is split) are simply saying we don't have confidence that anything will be solved. Because it starts at the root and that's where the massive failures are taking place.

Their track record speaks volumes.

[WillyFox]

Yay for higher taxes!

[aGENT]

I agree, but I said a realistic option. Short of some kind of calamity, that kind of systematic change isn't happening.

And the issues like transit need solving now, yesterday. Not in some potential what if future scenario.

It's extremely realistic. We even have past historical evidence of similar events happening many times over throughout human history. Hopefully we've progressed to a point that we can use intelligence to create change rather than violence.

It's just not likely...not until people get a whole lot more pissed off and a whole lot less ignorant and apathetic anyway.

[inane]

I am unconvinced that they WILL BE (solved now). That is the potential "what if" scenario. Just because it's promised that something will happen a certain way, doesn't it mean it will.

Just look at any pre election speech in comparison to post election victory to see how promises aren't always kept.

So many who are teetering over to the no side (my household is split) are simply saying we don't have confidence that anything will be solved. Because it starts at the root and that's where the massive failures are taking place.

Again, that's why this is different. It's earmarked for specific projects, general elections aren't like that. Could the Liberals just take that money for something else? I guess, but with the annual audits they'd have a lot of explaining to do.

edit: this is directly from the election bc pamphlet.

http://www.elections.bc.ca/plebiscite/files/EBC_Householder.pdf

As for the 'massive failures', I don't know what you're referring to.

[inane]

It's extremely realistic. We even have past historical evidence of similar events happening many times over throughout human history. Hopefully we've progressed to a point that we can use intelligence to create change rather than violence.

It's just not likely...not until people get a whole lot more pissed off and a whole lot less ignorant and apathetic anyway.

Come on... what you're suggesting is basically revolution. All parties are basically the same thing now, so whether you have the NDP or Libs or whoever else, the structure is going to be the same.

[Dazzle]

Terrible asset management.

I could've managed this better and I'm terrible at math.

[aGENT]

Come on... what you're suggesting is basically revolution. All parties are basically the same thing now, so whether you have the NDP or Libs or whoever else, the structure is going to be the same.

Why is revolution so far fetched? Eventually the environment will be polluted enough, food scarce, the disparity between the wealthy and poor vast enough etc. that people will be forced to lash out for survival. It's happened before countless times on this planet.

We're not special in that regard and somehow immune from those realities.

Otherwise I agree the parties are all largely different sides to the same coin.

[inane]

Why is revolution so far fetched? Eventually the environment will be polluted enough, food scarce, the disparity between the wealthy and poor vast enough etc. that people will be forced to lash out for survival. It's happened before countless times on this planet.

We're not special in that regard and somehow immune from those realities.

Otherwise I agree the parties are all largely different sides to the same coin.

Sure, eventually. But we're talking about a plan for infrastructure for the next 10 years. To just throw your arms up, vote no and wait for a revolution before taking any action, that's ridiculous.

[sponge62]

Terrible asset management.

Pretty great money laundering though.

[Chalky]

To your second point, then why bother with the referendum? If they 'have to', then why aren't they?

Years of transit neglect on behalf of the Government has made it a daunting task that will not win any political accolades. Not to mention the next election is years away. I'll be honest Inane, I see your points, and accept what you're saying as valid, I just have been involved in politics for many years and this truly an injustice to the people...not to mention is completely unfair to the municipalities.

I can accept that my predictions are an opinion, but they are based on economics and history.

[inane]

Years of transit neglect on behalf of the Government has made it a daunting task that will not win any political accolades. Not to mention the next election is years away. I'll be honest Inane, I see your points, and accept what you're saying as valid, I just have been involved in politics for many years and this truly an injustice to the people...not to mention is completely unfair to the municipalities.

I can accept that my predictions are an opinion, but they are based on economics and history.

Fair enough, I'm not saying I'm positive this or that will happen, but like you, I'm looking at the history of this government and see no reason to believe they'll do anything but continue to starve transit and download costs while building new highways and other pet projects unabated.

[ilduce39]

Again, that's why this is different. It's earmarked for specific projects, general elections aren't like that. Could the Liberals just take that money for something else? I guess, but with the annual audits they'd have a lot of explaining to do.

....just like the auditor?

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Smyth+Premier+Clark+dealing+with+mess+local+government+auditor/10881369/story.html

On-topic, I'm going to vote "yes" because the vote is about additional funding towards transit. Translink's failures get smeared all over the news but at the end of the day on the ground-level we do have a functioning public transportation system, that I would be in-favor of expanding.

Also, the "no" proponents largely come off as spiteful misers who would say "no" to a tax to save babies. Probably because doctors make too much money, nurses get too much overtime and hospitals are poorly run.

[Chalky]

Fair enough, I'm not saying I'm positive this or that will happen, but like you, I'm looking at the history of this government and see no reason to believe they'll do anything but continue to starve transit and download costs while building new highways and other pet projects unabated.

I think when you get past the Yes vs No, there is a lot of common ground. I absolutely share your concern.

[aGENT]

Sure, eventually. But we're talking about a plan for infrastructure for the next 10 years. To just throw your arms up, vote no and wait for a revolution before taking any action, that's ridiculous.

Why should I pay even higher, on top of my already high, taxes for a system that is circling the drain? Good money after bad.

[inane]

Why should I pay even higher, on top of my already high, taxes for a system that is circling the drain? Good money after bad.

You're gonna pay one way or the other. At least this way you pay for a plan that's based on the growth strategy, that's coordinated between municipalities and that has broad benefits for the Metro region. The other way is through ad hoc decision making, based on the whim of the province.

http://www.vtpi.org/VanTransitTax.pdf

[Dazzle]

Pretty great money laundering though.

What a nice job it is to get paid to screw up this badly.

[inane]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Vancouver+mayor+urges+changes+TransLink+governance/10884980/story.html

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson wants Premier Christy Clark to promise to make changes to TransLink’s governance structure in hopes the move would bolster the Yes side in the upcoming transportation plebiscite.

Robertson, who made his comments to The Vancouver Sun’s editorial board, said he would like to see a majority of mayors sit on the TransLink board to ensure it is more accountable to the public. Two mayors — Robertson and Surrey’s Linda Hepner — now sit on the board, which includes seven appointed members and two vacant spots for B.C. government appointees.

“We share the concerns about TransLink and the need for change,” Robertson said. “It’s in the province’s court to do something about governance ... certainly the mayors have asked for it.”

TransLink’s governance has been a key plank in the No side’s campaign, which has urged Metro Vancouver residents to reject a proposed 0.5-per-cent sales tax, dubbed the “congestion improvement tax” for transportation expansion because of mismanagement and overspending by the transportation authority. TransLink’s decision to remove its CEO Ian Jarvis to restore public confidence, but keep him on the payroll until 2016, also seems to have solidified the No campaign.

Recent polls by Insights West, for instance, found 82 per cent of No voters lack confidence in TransLink doing a good job to ensure the proposed projects go ahead. And even Yes voters are wavering: While most believe the plebiscite is the best way to deal with the region’s transit problems, the poll found 70 per cent of Yes voters were not satisfied with TransLink’s performance.

Drivers, residents over 55, people who don’t commute during the week, and residents south of the Fraser River are among the strongest No supporters.

Robertson insists that while the plebiscite is “not about TransLink,” such views are hurting the Yes campaign, which seeks to use the sales tax to generate $250 million annually to help fund a raft of projects, including more buses, a subway for Vancouver, light rail for Surrey and improved SeaBus, SkyTrain and West Coast Express services over 10 years. About $36 million is also earmarked for road maintenance and upgrades.

The mayors’ council has not directly approached the premier about the request to restructure TransLink during the plebiscite campaign, Robertson added, but noted it repeatedly asked for changes many times.

In 2013, the mayors’ council hired former regional planner Ken Cameron to research cities — such as Brisbane, Vienna, London and Stockholm — with more “accountable and transparent” transit systems to find a new governance model for TransLink.

The B.C. government responded to the request last year by changing legislation to give the regional mayors more control over TransLink’s plans and priorities but not its budget and operations. Neither Clark nor Transportation Minister Todd Stone were available for comment Thursday but the ministry said in an emailed statement that “the provincial government has no plans to change the current structure” and cited the changes already made as part of the 2013 review.

Port Coquitlam Mayor Greg Moore, spokesman for the mayors’ council, said he is not sure such a request “would help the campaign right now.”

“My focus is on the benefits of the plan and to focus on congestion,” Moore said following the editorial board meeting. “All of the other discussions are distracting from the needs in front of us.”

Jordan Bateman, spokesman for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, agreed a last-minute governance shift would not “immediately restore public confidence” in TransLink.

“TransLink needs to rebuild its social licence with the public,” Bateman said in an email to The Vancouver Sun. “Our elected leaders have promised so many things with TransLink over the years and, given their record, they need to prove they have changed the organizational culture there. That takes time to prove out.” Bateman added while he isn’t opposed to better transit, he believes the mayors’ plan can be affected by earmarking a small portion of future regional revenue growth.

Ballots for the plebiscite should start arriving in 1.5 million Metro Vancouver mailboxes on Monday. Residents have until May 29 to mail in their vote. Those who aren’t registered can do so by contacting Elections BC.

See the line I bolded. The Province is not interested in changing the structure. Wishing a no vote will get that is foolish.

[Columbo]

You're gonna pay one way or the other. At least this way you pay for a plan that's based on the growth strategy, that's coordinated between municipalities and that has broad benefits for the Metro region. The other way is through ad hoc decision making, based on the whim of the province.

http://www.vtpi.org/VanTransitTax.pdf

This 100%. I'd rather pay an extra hundred bucks of tax a year and fund these clearly defined projects decided on by our mayors, rather than let the Province decide a few years down the line that they're going to raise money from me another way (property taxes? higher gas costs?) and use it to do whatever they think is best. I trust the mayors way more than the Province, I think they've outlined a great plan and if we let it pass by we're still going to pay and we're going to probably get a much worse - and less transparent - outcome.