Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Mayors willing to entertain new local taxes to pay for Evergreen after rejecting them last year

September 16th, 2010 · 57 Comments

Local mayors kicked up a sh*tstorm last year with the province by campaigning aggressively to get new mechanisms to pay for transit than they have now. (What they have now: property tax, fuel tax, fares, so-far-unused vehicle tax)

When the province wouldn’t entertain using the carbon tax or allowing new road-pricing schemes, the mayors voted for a TransLink budget that contained no money to pay for the Evergreen Line.

That fighting prompted the provincial government to order a review of their finances. Subsequently both CEO Tom Prendergast dumped Vancouver to go back to New York and Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts abruptly decided to give up the chairmanship of the mayors’ council.

A year later, Langley Mayor Peter Fassbender is leading the charge for a new supplement (as they call increased packages of tax/fee revenues for TransLink) in December that would raise money for the Evergreen and all kinds of all expansions/improvements. Some say it’s a necessary compromise to get the provincial government to soften its position. Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan says Fassbender’s dreaming in technicolour. More details here.

Categories: Uncategorized

←  Older Comments
 →
  • Roger Kemble

    http://members.shaw.ca/rogerkemble/4.down.town/down.town/down.town.html

  • Joe Just Joe

    Gordon Price had an entry last week about an area in New York that recently lost a line. The owners have now found it hard to find renters and that their property values have dropped. As we know the inverse is also true. Why not have these home owners share in paying for said transit. What I was thinking would be only for Capital funding of improvements. Much like the city of Vancouver makes property owners pay a portion of new lanes/sidewalks over a 6 yr period (for a total of 25-50%) because they get additional value out of them, the same could be done for Transit. Say everyone within ~100m pays a certain amount, ~200m a bit less and so on until a certain distance perhaps ~500m. Some owners would of course complain about paying a few grand each over the duration (5-6yrs) but they would be able to charge additional rent to make up for it, or sell for a nice premium. Even if they live in their homes and have no plans to move they still benifit have having transit close at hand.

  • Robert in Calgary

    10 cent fuel tax increase – $200 million potential

    Transit Improvement Fee (on vehicles) – $150 million potential

    Bridge Tolls – $500 million – based on $1.50 toll

    Carbon Tax – $400 million potential (after 2012)

    Transfer from BC Lotteries – $100 million potential (redirected from general revenues)

    Transit Infrastructure Bond – $150 million potential (Ontario 2010 OSB sales $1.1B)

    Current prov. budget – 1% equals about $400 million.

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    Precisely Roger. A small teaser…

  • MB

    @ JJJ:

    I think public oversight and accountability are key, so outright public ownership of transit assets is, in my view, best for the common good, as would be elected Metro Vancouver and TransLink boards.

    Nonetheless, there is potential for long term stable transit financing from adjacent real estate developments. I would favour a reasonable levy based on the floor area ratio and distance, as you put forth ($ per square metre over distance from transit stations per year). Keeping it reasonable is crucial. Social housing, subsidized care facilities, medical and educational institutions, etc. etc. would need to be exempt.

    Alternatively, TransLink could form a real estate development arm and put the profits from development near stations toward transit. There would be discomfiture in some quarters about who it will answer to (cities or its regional government parent?), what form said development would take (pushing density even further?), and “socializing” privately-sold development.

    This is next generation stuff. Sadly, we’re still immersed in the last generation’s attitudes.

  • Michael Geller

    Thanks for sharing the funding ideas MB and the info on Playtime TOTB; it’s one of my all time favourite movies and I’ll try to take it in again. Good discussion everyone. Hopefully some decision makers are reading.

  • Roger Kemble

    As you say, “While many people will say they don’t want DENSITY . . . : and, I conjecture, people would not object it were expressed thus:

    http://members.shaw.ca/rogerkemble/2.kerrisdale/neighbourhood.html

    of which you played a positive part

    But let us avoid more of link in 51

    Glory be . . .

←  Older Comments
 →