Frances Bula header image 2

Uber has something to say about the Lower Mainland’s transit referendum

March 19th, 2015 · 37 Comments

https://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.hipchat.com/17604/612116/U7un6JpqqD02N52/Screen%20Shot%202015-03-19%20at%205.51.23%20PM.png

Categories: Uncategorized

  • MichaelHere

    curry in a hurry, ie favor-seeking from the politicians

  • Lewis_N_Villegas

    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.

  • Dan Cooper

    Errr…. Just for the record, Uber isn’t ‘ridesharing.’ If my neighbour and I drive together to work or the store or somewhere such because we both need to go there, that is ridesharing. If my neighbour or I drive around all day picking up strangers and taking them where they want to go, for pay, that is a taxi. Whether you like the way taxis are currently regulated or not, a taxi is a taxi is a taxi.

    That aside, my yes vote is in the mail! Translink’s services are a hell of a lot better than in most big cities (notably Portland, where I used to live, and which now has a pretty pathetic transit system because…they have no money for it and have had to slash and burn their services over the last few years). And Translink is what it is and the vote is being held as it is being held because the Provincial government decided to do it that way, and the people of BC decided to elect, re-elect, and re-re-elect that government after it had already made things that way and promised to double down on it. You want it to change, pray for the Liberals to be defeated next time, and feel free to hold your breath while you’re at it! Voting no will achieve nothing except give the ultra-right-wingers at the Fraser Institute and Canadian Taxpayers’ “Federation” a chance to do their happy dance.

  • Dan Cooper

    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

  • Mark Notfler

    There are numerous reasons for voting no, and taxation without representation is a very good one.

    Add to that my ongoing disdain for Christie Clark’s habit of government by referendum, thereby deflecting any criticism for bad decisions “You all voted for a tax to get better transit–it’s not my fault the tax you voted for didn’t work!” is certain to be heard in the future.

    Why is it that we have the stupidest family day in the country, making life difficult for companies that operate nationally? Oh yeah–you idiots voted for it. Lead goddamit. Lead. You can’t trust people to make the right decisions.

    Top it with the ongoing assessment of new taxes for agencies that are ALREADY FUNDED BY MULTIPLE TAXES and you’ve got a stinker on your hands here.

  • Dan Cooper

    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….

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    The TransLink Board of Directors is composed of nine individuals
    appointed by the Mayors’ Council, the Mayors’ Council Chair and
    Vice-Chair (at their option), and up to two members appointed by the
    Province.

  • Dan Cooper

    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

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    Thank you. Reducing the nepotism claim to two out of nine is a substantial concession and we are sure you will feel that salvation could be again possible, if magnanimity continues to gush so thoroughly.

    A brief scan of the gang in questions’ bios does not, however, coax us towards a convinced sentiment that they are a typical cabal of arch conservatives. Perhaps they are masquerading behind a mirage of social-liberal membership cards and mail-order phoney CVs and we are duped. I think not.

    http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us/Governance-and-Board/Board-of-Directors/Board-Members.aspx

  • Lewis_N_Villegas

    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.

  • boohoo

    I truly do not understand how you can say that when the province is on record saying that that is not true and will not happen.

  • MB

    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.

  • MB

    Appointments of unelected officials to decision-making officials by elected officials is a convoluted, undemocratic method for the province to maintain control.

  • MB

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

    Evidence please. (Talk about doublespeak.)

  • MB

    Once again, the board is not directly elected.

  • MB

    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).

  • MB

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

  • MB

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

  • MB

    https://darylvsworld.wordpress.com/2015/03/04/referendum-myths-translink-inefficiency/

  • MB

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

  • Mark Notfler

    1) You need to read and understand what taxation without representation means, my intellectually inept friend. I do not get to choose my representatives in this case. I get to choose the tax but I do not get to choose the people who are responsible for spending it.

    2) Basically, yes. Also: I did not vote for Christy Clark, though I do think she’s kind of hot. I was particularly fond of this photo the Globe and Mail ran:
    http://images.scribblelive.com/2013/4/20/1ce56273-bbb2-4f53-af24-9c98177d7710.jpg
    which is, in fact, the contact image I have assigned to the cell phone number I have for her.

    3) Yes, I find the general populace of British Columbia to be idiots. How is that incoherent? I scored top 10 percentile on intelligence tests. That basically means 90% of you are dumber than me. Sucks to be you. Really really sucks to be you. Sorry man.

    4) No, I do not agree with this point. The problem in this case is it’s not the same amount. If the non-binding plebiscite question were “Reduce the regional gas tax by 1% and implement a regional PST surcharge of 0.5%” I might be OK with it. If the non-binding plebiscite question was “Screw you car driver, I don’t care that you’re already paying two specific gas taxes and, indirectly, the Carbon Tax which which should really be used to pay for transit but isn’t and I want to impose a 0.5% surcharge on 95% of your expenses” I might even vote for it in the spirit of honesty.

    As it is:

    – You’re adding to my tax burden
    – There’s no one I can vote out of office for screwing up my tax dollars
    – You’re assuming I’m an idiot or outright lying to me with this tax

    I am neither an idiot nor do I respect being lied to.

  • Richard Campbell

    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.

  • Mark Notfler

    “I was incorrect and foolishly flippant to say that Clark herself appoints all the members.”

    well, you were just an idiot really.

  • MB

    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.

  • Chris Keam

    “Board of Directors
    TriMet is governed by a seven-member board of directors, appointed by the Governor of Oregon.”

    Literally, the first lines of the first result for the google search ‘Trimet Board’

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

    Were Lewis’ remarks misinterpreted, or are just dead wrong? It’s the kind of error that can crush someone’s credibility if they are laying claim to expertise in municipal governance and transportation issues. Any response Lewis?

  • Dan Cooper

    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.

  • Dan Cooper

    Oh, undoubtedly an idiot. 🙂

  • Chris Keam

    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.

  • Lewis_N_Villegas

    My sources for discussing Portland is just one… a conversation I had several years ago with a visiting ‘Metro’ councillor at Langley City Hall. Not really bullet proof. But she hit the right points. The decision on the “Next Transit Line” in that region was made after the Mayors were invited to join in a “beauty contest” for which municipality would use the scarce funding better. The elected ‘councillors’ then selected Tigard as the best scheme.

    That’s democracy.

    It is also democracy because if people don’t like the ‘Metro’ decision, then they can choose to vote the councillors out. En masse, or just a few at a time.

    I would like to have the opportunity to vote for the ‘councillors’ that are making the Translink and Metro Vancouver decisions. I would like to have transparency and accountability at that (regional) level of government.

    In many jurisdictions this is done. In my experience in the Portland area Tigard is a poster-child (a fair comparison with the King George Hwy) for the opportunity that building a transit line—equals 11 lanes of traffic—would mean to the social, economic and environmental functioning of the communities ‘heart’, ‘main street’, ‘highway strip’ (today), or ‘urban spine’ of tomorrow.

    I don’t see it happening unless the voting public can decide.

  • Chris Keam

    ‘Not really bullet proof?”

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

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    So Gregor Robertson was appointed by Christy Clark?

    Who appointed Marcella?

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    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?

  • Chris Keam

    Your error-laden musings pretty much disqualify you from offering comment. Thanks for playing.

  • Mark Notfler

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

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

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    I heard a rumour that Tommy Mulcair is flying in to host a tofu-burger BBQ on the CBC plaza for the Yes team. Fred Lee is going to be wearing new body-cling unisex bike garb made from recycled Happy Planet containers, from a hipster East Van designer, and handing out maps of the thousands of planned bike lanes. Don’t get too excited yet, it’s just a rumour.

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

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

  • Norman12

    Amazing. Vancouverites say no to bike routes, freeways, SkyTrain expansion and bridges, but complain about transit and aren’t willing to pay for improvements. Someone always has a better idea; it’s just that all the better ideas are different.