Just about to fill my “NO” vote and put it in the mail. Voting by mail…. stay tuned, that one has legs!

The reason for voting “NO” is straightforward: I do not support taxation without representation.

Until Translink and Regional Government are elected our city, and our ‘regional city’ will not be able to make democratically sound decisions.

Portland OR elects their Metro government and they run both their regional growth strategies and direct transit implementation. Last I heard, trolleys or surface transit was going to Tigard, just south of the city center. Metro transit chose Tigard among several candidates based on their proposal.

The city of Tigard will be using the coming of the street transit to re-invent their strip downtown (think King George Highway in Delta/Surrey/White Rock) into a pedestrian oriented, mix-use, neighbourhood spine.

The long and the short of it is that we cannot get good governance without that hanging promise that every three or four years, if they do not deliver on the wishes of the people, we’ll throw the bums out.

As I note above, Trimet (Portland region transit) board has nothing at all to do with the Portland Metro government. Trimet’s board is entirely appointed by the Oregon Governor and there is no equivalent of the Mayor’s Council or mayoral representatives on the board. So, it is actually even less democratic than the Translink Board.

http://trimet.org/about/governance.htm

So, you say that: 1) The public voting whether to have this tax or not is, “taxation without representation.” Actually, by definition it is the very opposite. 2) You don’t want Clark to put things up for a vote, so you’re going to vote no on every referendum she sets, regardless of whether what is being voted on is good or bad, or she gives a hoot whether it passes or not, believing that voting no will somehow change her. While we’re at it, let’s throw our food on the floor so that the tooth fairy will bring us ice cream later; the logic and likelihood are the same. 3) You hate the ‘family day’ Clark brought in without a vote of the people, but demand that she lead without people voting because the people who voted for her were idiots for doing so. More and more incoherent. 4) You feel that it makes a difference whether the money used or necessary for some governmental action comes from a single tax increased as needed, or several different taxes, even if it’s the same amount of money overall. Well, whatever floats your boat, I guess….

The Mayor’s Council ‘appoints’ members of the Translink Board in the same way the Queen ‘appoints’ the Governor General: They (and she) appoint exactly whom they are told to by someone else, in this case: “a five-member screening committee — consisting of representatives from the mayors’ council, the provincial government, Vancouver Board of Trade, Chartered Professional Accountants of B.C. and Greater Vancouver Gateway Council.” Further, “even if the mayors’ council rejects the candidates, the screening committee still has the power to appoint them. The TransLink board also includes two spots for MLAs and
two members of the mayors’ council.”

So it is true, I was indeed incorrect and foolishly flippant to say that Clark herself appoints all the members. It is still true however that under the current legislation she directly appoints two members and has massive power over appointment of the rest through her member on the screening committee and influence on the three members from huge (*cough* BC Liberal supporters *cough*) politically conservative business organizations and her ability to threaten, veto or withhold funding options, as she frequently has over the last years. Primarily, however – as with most things – if Clark and the Liberals decide they don’t like something that is happening, it only takes about a week to tweak or replace the law and change it so it does what they want. And since this was the legislation in place at the last election, and Clark promised to continue it AND hold a referendum, and Clark could be voted out and her government put in a different legislation/governance model at the next election….

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/TransLink+board+fired/10809633/story.html#ixzz3VHSPFjtL

1) The public voting whether to have this tax or not is “taxation without representation”.

That is NOT correct

“Taxation without representation” is assigning public money to be spent by a body (Translink and Metro Vancouver) THAT IS NOT ELECTED.

So, a NO vote in this referendum is a YES vote for regional, elected, governance.

In 2007 Kevin Falcon, as BC Transportation Minister removed the elected representatives (mayors and councilors) from their
decision-making and representative taxation positions in favour of an appointed board. The elected officials were demoted by Falcon to the Mayors Council, which reduced representative democracy decision-making to mere advice giving. They have since been given the authority — again by the province — to appoint several board members.

Three steps backward, one step forward.

Before that TransLink had its proposed car levy funding source cancelled by the province. After that there have been many, many missives directed at TransLink by the province, which chose to not kybosh TransLink because it makes a good whipping boy and absorbs the punches that would otherwise be directed at the province, similar
to the restructuring of BC Ferries. It works well to manipulate and publicly criticize these organizations at whim while keeping them propped up at arm’s length, like a row of shields.

Now a highly selective plebiscite singularly focused on Metro transit is imposed with a scant four months for the mayors to pull together a plan, let alone defend it. Meanwhile, $10 billion has been spent or is on the books for freeways and ridiculously over-designed bridges, this before debt servicing is factored in, and with not a hint of a vote. Autotopia
is rolling over the landscape.

This process is seriously flawed.

Given the above evidence, how can you possibly believe that Christy et al will respond to a No vote by allowing TransLink to have more power?

Based on past evidence, I suggest the government will do nothing for transit after a No vote (which is essentially allowing it to wither) while diverting enormous quantities of debt-saturated public funds into roads and dams to power LNG plants.

“… a NO vote in this referendum is a YES vote for regional, elected, governance.”

Evidence please. (Talk about doublespeak.)

Bravo Dan for doing the research!

This dovetails very well with the recent research and postings by Todd Litman, Stephen Rees and Daryl Dela Cruz, all of whom bothered to check the facts and found that TransLink, even with its current undemocratic board structure, is actually one of the most efficient and well-managed organizations despite the propagnda of the anti-taxers and the direct impositions on them by the province (e.g. Compass Cards).

https://stephenrees.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/jordan-bateman-calls-yes-campaign-vicious-and-personal/

https://darylvsworld.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/referendum-myths-translink-exec-pay/

I’ve entered your reason in Geller’s most inane reason for voting No contest. Good luck!

You could also get a prize for the largest abuse of a revolutionary war slogan. With the elected Provincial government having absolute authority over TransLink and the democratically elected mayors building, agreeing to and approving the plan and voters being asked to approve the funding source, the claim that it is taxation without representation is absurd and an insult to those who have suffered under and fought against non democratic governments.

Clearly, Mark, your intellectual prowess has instilled
in you a deep understanding of the history of democracy and transportation in this province. And economics too. I had a light bulb moment while reading your above comments: paying a nickel for transit on my next sock purchase will thoroughly bankrupt me. I’m just a plebe
and I don’t wanna be broke, my smart friend, so thanks for that illuminating piece of wisdom.

Pssst. Christy is single. Perhaps you could leap forward from the crowd brandishing that mobile photo of her next time she’s out gladhanding. Oh, she’ll be suitably impressed with your admiration and learned condescension. Hearts may be set aflutter. A word of caution though: she excels at talk. Any talk. Including pillow talk. The speed of her jaw is her most noteworthy physical attribute next to her ability to hold an ear-to-ear grin for days. She would win the gold in a grinning and jawing Olympic event.

If you want a chance with her, Mr. Self Aggrandizer, then my best advice is to start chewing several sticks of Double Bubble at once while practicing inane elocution. And if you succeed with her, then never under any circumstances pretend to apply something stupid like long-range planning to a policy framework when grinning and chatter and one-line homilies about resource extraction and freeway-building will do.

Okay, I’ve read through that page again. Setting aside the two mayors, which of the board members are the non-conservatives and flaming social-liberals of whom you are speaking: The high level executive from Canada Pacific, the high level credit union executive, the investment fund partner, the other investment fund owner/Federal Crown corporation chair, the international accounting firm partner, the senior Provincial government executive currently in charge of building a massive sewage treatment project, or the senior corporate lawyer for an international mining company? None of them exactly strike me in even the vaguest way as what you are suggesting.

Lewis:

You’ve managed to mangle both the original meaning of the phrase and the modern spirit of it. Arguably you should have been barracking for permanent residents to have a ballot in this non-binding plebiscite if this was an important issue to you.

‘Not really bullet proof?”

No side in a nutshell I’m afraid. Bad information poorly applied. The taxpayers deserve better.

In all fairness the Yes side is mainly fantasy, clinging to a vague possibility that the federal government will automatically fund 33% of whatever they want.

What if Trudeau gets in and decides that he will only fund trains, SkyTrains, and not light-rail or diesel buses?

I am well aware of Ms. Clark’s marital status.

The nickel is not the point. It’s a (continuing) slippery slope argument.

As I said, not a cabal of arch-conservatives.