With mayors uncertain yesterday whether to delay any decision about cancelling a two-year property-tax increase for TransLink or to go through with cancelling it instantly, Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson swooped in with what’s being called a compromise motion.
The motion, which got enough votes to pass thanks to co-operation from Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts, warns the province that if its officials don’t sit down with TransLink and work out a long-term deal by Feb. 28, 2012, the mayors will cancel the property tax.
But the motion also says they’re going to cancel it no matter what. So I’m not sure exactly how this puts Transportation Minister Mary Polak’s feet to the fire, except to keep the issue at a full boil until just weeks before the election. But since NDP Leader Adrian Dix has declined, despite much prodding, to say what the NDP’s plan for TransLink funding is, hard to see how this is much of a wedge issue.
Anyway, there is probably some deep political strategy here that I’m totally missing. In the meantime, Robertson’s full motion is attached below here.
That the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation:
1. Request that the Translink Board develop by March 31, 2013 a 2013 Supplemental Plan that meets the following conditions:
a. No service reductions for transit routes;
b. No liquidation of capital assets to fund operations;
c. No inclusion of the time-limited property tax. A new funding model must be agreed upon with the BC government by February 28, 2013;
d. Any operating gap is closed with funds from Translink’s reserves.
2. The Mayors’ Council bring forward a framework for a long-term funding plan by January 31, 2013
3. The Mayors Council write to the Minister of Transportation requesting we create a joint working group immediately to develop solutions and that a deadline of February 28, 2013 be set for the BC Government and Translink Mayors’ Council to reach an agreement on a long-term funding model.
4. That in the event that a new funding model is not confirmed by February 28, 2013, a new supplement be prepared at that time.
57 responses so far ↓
1 Brian // Oct 19, 2012 at 10:22 am
Typo check:
“work out a long-term deal by Feb. 28, 2012, the mayors will cancel the property tax.”
Do you mean Feb. 28, 2013?
2 boohoo // Oct 19, 2012 at 10:49 am
Not much of an ultimatum. ‘Give us what we want or else you’ll be stuck doing the nothing you’re doing now’.
I don’t know if the NDP will do things differently, but short of doing absolutely nothing differently, they can’t do worse. The liberals are comically uninvolved in leadership on this issue. This whole discussion is a moot point until there is a leadership/party change at the provincial level, that much is clear.
3 Mark // Oct 19, 2012 at 11:06 am
I don’t believe the members of the provincial government have much interest at all at this point in doing any actual governing.
With the end so close in sight, I suspect they are all focusing on preparing for their next career moves.
Maybe sneak in a quick sell off to industry friends if they can find the time. Grab a few handfuls of coins from the piggy bank on their way out the door.
4 MB // Oct 19, 2012 at 12:21 pm
@ boohoo 2:
This whole discussion is a moot point until there is a leadership/party change at the provincial level, that much is clear.
May I add at the federal level as well?
In the spirit that our cities are the economic engines of Canada (arguably as important if not more so than resources), a national transit plan is several generations overdue.
5 teririch // Oct 19, 2012 at 12:24 pm
With Translink struggling for $$ and the everyday Joe having to foot the bill on increases, one way or another, it was tough to read this ontop of losses from SkyTrain fare evasion:
Translink is losing millions of dollars to fare evasion, on buses alone
VANCOUVER/CKNW (AM980)
Janet Brown | Email news tips to Janet
10/17/2012
The numbers are staggering.
CKNW news has learned there were several million people riding the Metro Vancouver bus system for free last year.
On board Coast Mountain buses is a button drivers are to push if someone gets on and refuses to pay.
Last year drivers pushed that button 2.1 million times.
If you multiply that number with the minimum bus fare of two-dollars-50 cents for one zone that’s 5.2-million-dollars that Translink’s losing out on.
And that does not include fare jumping on Skytrain.
The Vancouver transit centre reported the highest ‘fares not paid’ of 1.2-million.
Even worse many bus drivers off the record say they don’t even bother to push that button anymore because there are so many freeloaders on board.
Jordan Bateman with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation says he’s shocked.
“fare evasion is a serious problem we’ve all been talking about this for months now but it seems like every few weeks we get a little bit more dipper glimpse into just exactly how deep the problem runs and 2.1 million times the driver pushed the botton on fare evasion it’s a shocking number it’s a disgusting number no wonder so many of these drivers are demoralized about what’s going on with the system.”
6 Dan Cooper // Oct 19, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Two thoughts:
a) The last year or so, I have been feeling sorrier and sorrier for the staff people at Translink. Well, and the rest of us who use transit and roads of course. But trying to propose something that those with the actual authority will accept must be a real brain-buster.
b) OMG! just in the last hour I lost more than 30,000 cells from my skin! What shall I do? How shall I live? (What’s that? You say I have about 1.6 trillion skin cells total? Why that puts it in a different light…)
‘Translink’s 2011 Year in Review’ notes: “From January through October, 2011, the number of revenue rides was 192.1 million – an increase of 5 percent over the same period in 2010, which includes the extraordinary increase associated with the Winter Olympics. ”
Extending this to a full year gives us an estimate of about 230 million PAID rides. That means 2.1 million UNPAID rides, even if doubled to 4.2 million, would still be less than 2% of total rides. I strongly suspect that stamping out the Horrible Terrible Scourge(tm) of this small fraction would cost more in time and effort than would be gained financially or in any other sense – setting aside, that is, the eliminate-all-government objectives of organizations like the CTF.
7 MB // Oct 19, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Stephen Rees has posted some excellent professional commentary on this topic on his blog. He also posted a cool video of the public transit service throughout the Lower Mainland in one average day, derived from the GPS locations of transit vehicles.
http://stephenrees.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/translink-audit-complete/
Some excerpts:
For those of you who are new to this (is there anyone who fits that description?) Translink, the Region’s Mayors and the province have been arguing about how to pay for much needed transit expansion in the region. In fact this discussion has been going on for many years – at least the last 20 years, probably longer. Vancouver and its suburbs constitutes the only major metropolitan area in BC. There really is no other major city. Its needs are therefore different to places like Kelowna or Kamloops. It is not just a matter of scale, its a different kind of place, with a different kind of economy and quite different patterns of movement. The growth of population alone poses a challenge – but at the same time most of the region is the typical large North America suburban agglomeration. “Zurich surrounded by Phoenix”.
[...]
So the present Minister has been saying that she cannot even discuss a new funding source until an audit has been conducted – ignoring all the previous audits and studies. Now that audit has been completed – and it turns out that she has already been sharing its results with Translink, and many of its proposals have already been implemented. So despite the claim that “significant savings” have been found they only amount to $41m – compared to the $98m already identified. And anyway are nowhere near enough – “still not enough to meet the future transit expansion needs of Metro Vancouver.” So basically the point of the audit was to delay and prevaricate. And the “next steps” are to delay and prevaricate some more.
>>[Quote]Once the long-term regional vision has been developed, the mayors and TransLink will be in a position to go back to the public to discuss cost and how to pay for it.<>[Quote] Government needs a clear sense of the regional vision and priorities over the coming decades, what kind of transportation system will be needed in the future and how much residents are prepared to pay for it. A practical discussion can then be held about possible funding tools.<<
In other words, we can put this off until after the election which has to be held in May 2013, which we are almost certainly going to lose, and then its someone else’s problem. In the meantime, the staff at Translink and the Mayors will take the heat for the increasing inconvenience and disruption on a transit system that is unable to meet the demands placed on it.
Rees took the time to read the TransLnik audit and found it to be a “complete waste of time … the only savings are further service cuts.”
Further:
None of this performance is anything to do with “long term vision”. It is all about short term, political expediency. There always was enough for the plans that the region agreed to. It was just that the province
chose to spend on highway expansions instead. We are stuck with the widened Highway #1, the South Fraser Perimeter Road and the widened Sea to Sky Highway. All of these are already contributing to an ever wider spread of suburban sprawl. “Expertise in land-use planning” has never been in short supply. We have had lots of regional plans and all our Official Community Plans have been crafted to fit into that framework – and much good has it done us (that’s irony, by the way). Port Moody, for instance, built a whole city centre around the idea of Transit Oriented Development. The Evergreen Line will now be built, many years after that development was halted, due to lack of transit service. Surrey has been asking for light rapid transit for years – and it might see a truncated BRT, if the other Mayors swallow their indignation at being treated so shabbily.
8 boohoo // Oct 19, 2012 at 1:05 pm
@3
Yes, one can only dream of a leadership Federally….
@6
Yes, context is everything.
9 Chris Keam // Oct 19, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Well said Dan.
What Translink really needs to fear more than fare evaders is the people paying their share and not getting the service they’ve shelled out for:
http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/815
A no seat, no fare campaign is long overdue in Vancouver. Link follows in next post:
10 Chris Keam // Oct 19, 2012 at 1:10 pm
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23263953
11 brilliant // Oct 19, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Too bad so sad. Go to the well of the drivers’ pocketbook once too often and you end up with plunging revenues and very happy gas station owners in Whatcom County.
12 Chris Keam // Oct 19, 2012 at 2:54 pm
“Too bad so sad.”
I’ve never quite understood how people can’t connect a good transit system with less congestion and fewer delays for those who must drive, such as contractors and commercial vehicle operators, not to mention the savings we enjoy collectively as a region, when good and services aren’t hampered by congestion.
13 Glissando Remmy // Oct 19, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Thought Of The Day
“My Advice to Both Translink Board & Mayor Council is … ‘Oh Behave, Yeah Baby, Yeah!’”
Two groups so close together, so intermingled, so common goal oriented, that could make Fagin say only this:
“In this life, one thing counts
In the bank, large amounts
I’m afraid these don’t grow on trees,
You’ve got to pick-a-pocket or two
Large amounts don’t grow on trees.
You’ve got to pick-a-pocket or two.
Why should we break our backs
Stupidly paying tax?
Better get some untaxed income
Better to pick-a-pocket or two.
Why should we all break our backs?
Better pick-a-pocket or two.
Robin Hood, what a crook!
Gave away, what he took.
Charity’s fine, subscribe to mine.
Get out and pick-a-pocket or two
You’ve got to pick-a-pocket or two, boys
You’ve got to pick-a-pocket or two.
Robin Hood was far too good
He had to pick-a-pocket or two.
Take a tip from Bill Sikes
He can whip what he likes.
I recall, he started small
He had to pick-a-pocket or two.
You’ve got to pick-a-pocket or two, boys
You’ve got to pick-a-pocket or two.
We can be like old Bill Sikes
If we pick-a-pocket or two.
Dear old gent passing by
Something nice takes his eye
Everything’s clear, attack the rear
Get in and pick-a-pocket or two.
You’ve got to pick-a-pocket or two, boys
You’ve got to pick-a-pocket or two.
Have no fear, attack the rear
Get in and pick-a-pocket or two.
When I see someone rich,
Both my thumbs start to itch
Only to find some peace of mind
We have to pick-a-pocket or two.
Just to find some peace of mind
We have to pick-a-pocket or two!
You’ve got to pick-a-pocket or two, boys,
You’ve got to pick-a-pocket or twooooo…”
Good ‘ol Fagin, having a good laugh with the boys, eh!?
Regardless of what you make out of all this taxpayer pickpocketing, I want to leave you with a hidden camera recording of the last joint Translink Board/ Mayors Council meeting, and let you decide for yourselves .
Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7edeOEuXdMU
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
PS.
Frances, I may have submitted this post twice. Keep this one please. Thanks.
14 Bill // Oct 19, 2012 at 3:18 pm
@MB #4
“a national transit plan is several generations overdue.”
I understand how involving another level of government in transit appeals to your statist tendencies but given the problems that two levels of government are having getting things done I’m not sure how adding the Feds is going to fix the problem.
@boohoo #8
Our current leadership at the Federal level is the best in several generations although I can understand why you might find Justin Trudeau appealing.
15 boohoo // Oct 19, 2012 at 3:22 pm
@12.
I know it’s odd. People don’t want to spend more money on transit (that gets people off the road) but they want to spend more money on roads, that get more people on the roads. I don’t know how that makes sense.
More people on transit/cycling makes more room for others who have to drive. It’s a win win.
Part of me thinks there’s just a certain cross section of society that wants everyone to suffer because they have or choose to.
16 boohoo // Oct 19, 2012 at 3:24 pm
@14
It certainly is the best for some. I’m more interested in having a government that works for all.
What I can’t understand is why people make such massive and frankly stupid assumptions like yours.
17 MB // Oct 19, 2012 at 3:27 pm
@ brilliant 11:
…very happy gas station owners in Whatcom County.
You lose all your savings just getting there and back, unless you live in White Rock.
18 MB // Oct 19, 2012 at 3:41 pm
@ Bill 14, the feds are already involved but to an exceedingly minimal extent in our cities.
Our current leadership at the Federal level is the best in several generations …
Only if you want to drive Canada to be an economic vassal of the largest totalitarian state on the planet, among other things.
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/10/16/China-Investment-Treaty/
“When I get through with Canada you won’t recognize it.” (1997, Stephen Harper speech to a US right wing think tank.)
Indeed.
19 Chris Keam // Oct 19, 2012 at 3:45 pm
“Our current leadership at the Federal level is the best in several generations ”
If we take generation to mean at least 30 years, and several to mean at least 7… then it’s hard to imagine anyone would consider Stephen Harper’s government the best example of leadership in the past two centuries. His legacy to date is one of scandal, corruption, and worst of all, ignorance (in its proper meaning) at the highest levels.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/canada/Stephen+Harper+Tories+downplay+climate+knowledge+Environment+Canada/7417986/story.html
20 IanS // Oct 19, 2012 at 3:51 pm
@Chris Keam:
“I’ve never quite understood how people can’t connect a good transit system [various good things]”
I’m not sure that anyone is speaking out against having a good transit system. I stand to be corrected, but the general consensus seems to be in favour of having such a system. The dispute seems to be how best to pay for it. (Or, perhaps more accurately, who takes the political hit for raising the funds to pay for it.)
@MB #4:
” a national transit plan is several generations overdue.”
While I do not necessarily share Bill’s (#14) assessment of the abilities of our current Federal gov’t, I do agree with him that involving another level of regulation and government would likely not be a positive step.
If, by “national transit plan” you mean an infusion of Federal money to assist in funding a transit system, I have no objection (though I suspect such a “national system” would just as likely see us funding transportation projects in Quebec).
IMO, the Province and /or the Municipalities should be making the case for transit and, to the extent new funding or new funding models are required (as I expect they will be), taking the political lead in raising those funds. Given the likely outcome of the next provincial election, I’m curious to hear the NDP’s plans in that regard. (AFAIK, they haven’t said.)
21 boohoo // Oct 19, 2012 at 3:53 pm
I would add hypocrisy to that list.
From the left wing rag the National Post.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/03/john-ivison-how-stephen-harper-learned-to-love-omnibus-bills/
22 brilliant // Oct 19, 2012 at 4:08 pm
@MB 18-and yet thousands do every day and they don’t all live in White Rock. The citizenry speaks with their feet, or in this case, tires. Grabbers like Gregor just can’t get it through their thick skulls that people have an option.
23 Chris Keam // Oct 19, 2012 at 4:59 pm
@IanS
You said:
“I’m not sure that anyone is speaking out against having a good transit system.”
I feel you’ve misrepresented my statement Ian. To reiterate, the connection between a good transit system and its positive impact on non-transit users (partic. automobile users) appears to be overlooked by those who feel they are overpaying for their choice to drive.
24 Glissando Remmy // Oct 19, 2012 at 5:46 pm
Afterthought Of The Day
“Some Green City Gurus from our region may want to learn a lesson from the ‘Virgin America’ newest announcement.”
http://www.northweststar.com.au/story/405362/virgin-america-cutting-capacity-and-staff/?cs=9
“They (Virgin) had an assumption that consumers would choose product quality over price and convenience and network carriers responded with force.” – Hunter Keay, Analyst
Essentially this is what happens in the majority of cities… driven by “green” initiatives.
So People, tend to move where housing is more abundant, cheaper, and the units are , oh my, god forbid, larger and liveable!
“Greenest city by 2020″ bull can only get the sales pitch of a snake oil juice salesman like Gregor only that far.
What we have right now in Vancouver is No Affordable Housing, Undersized Overpriced Condos, Shitty But More Expensive Transit, Business Moving Out of the City, More Homelessness.
But you ask the city for $11 Million
on a Food Scrap Program… sure thing, there’s lots to spend.
People are like that.
They have their priorities mixed up.
There used to be more expensive housing in the city, but that was ok because the transit was so good and affordable, so the people made that extra effort. Now we have expensive housing and expensive transit, and worst of all is… they both suck. What’s not to love?
But would these “green gurus” ever learn from Virgin America? IMHO? Not a chance, as they could not care less what you and I think!
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
25 waltyss // Oct 20, 2012 at 12:11 am
Your attempt at an analogy got scrambled somewhere along the way. Glissy, methinks it’s because the pipe overfloweth.
Somehow you attempt to make a connection because more consumers prefer to sit crammed into small spaces on Jet Blue over comfort on Virgin Air (I know, I have flown both) to Vancouver.
You have your obligatory (and frankly boring) namecalling of the mayor, except tonight, probably because of too many tokes, you exchanged profanity for wit.
And of course, as always, Glissy, thoughtful constructive commentary.
It may surprise you (although I doubt you care) that the scraps programme over time will actually save money.
“There used to be more expensive housing in the city, but that was ok because the transit was so good and affordable, so the people made that extra effort.” Say what? I’d ask but I understand. The nurse will be by in a few minutes, Glissy, and soon all will be fine.
26 brilliant // Oct 20, 2012 at 9:25 am
@Chris Keam-or they could let transit users pay the full cost. I had to laugh reading of Gregor and others pushing for road metering as a solution. They obviously learned nothing from the HST blowback.
27 Chris Keam // Oct 20, 2012 at 10:00 am
@Brilliant:
That type of thinking might get good play in Galt’s Gulch, but in the real world we apply collective solutions to collective problems and bear the cost… collectively. My personal feeling is that we’ve tried ‘your way’ enough times to see that it doesn’t work effectively, and in many cases brings about needless suffering and expense in a world with misplaced surpluses in almost every sphere.
28 Mira // Oct 20, 2012 at 10:51 am
Waltyss #25,
Say what? Food scrap program profitable? When ?
10-20 years from now? LOL! This Vision bunch will long be gone from Vancouver politics but Vancouver will be still paying for their wet dreams!
As for your stale by now attacks at Glissy, they are so passe, man, I don’t know how you can press that submit button at ease.
Better have a wake up call.
Robertson , Meggs, Reimer, Jang… Clark, Vision the BC Liberals, NDP Dix… are “public figures” (or so they pretend to be) that are in it for the taking. Their decisions affect the lives of the people in this city/ province. If they can’t take criticism in any form not only they are in the wrong profession, but they are the wrong people for the jobs… plenty of thick skin on them.
Oh and BTW, FWIW, Glissando made a very good point in his analogy, Vancouverites that live in the super-expensive condos they “can” afford, not really, unless they make huge sacrifices, they are reduced to buying their furnishings from IKEA DIY, shop in bulk at Walmart, Superstore and Costco, and take their vacations around their communal park. Not everyone lives in a house in Dunbar, and watches the latest flicks on his Apple TV programming on his 40″ screen, Waltyss!
Like the Mayor you are a hypocrite.
The Hollywood Theatre and Church on Broadway advertised an opening yesterdqay, they are looking for stand up comedians to entertain the crowds during the cookie -tea breaks. I’d say , go for it!
29 Bill // Oct 20, 2012 at 11:12 am
@MB #18
I’m not surprised that you would rely on the Tyee but you should take five minutes and take a look at all the other FIPA’s we are already party to (including Russia) and you would see these agreements do not reduce our sovereignty (specifically they do not supercede any of our laws including our Investment Canada Act) and have less impact than the various Free Trade agreements we have signed or negotiating.
30 Bill // Oct 20, 2012 at 11:22 am
@IanS #20
I would go further to say we need less involvement of the Federal government in all areas where they do not have primary jurisdiction such as Health and Education. The reduced spending could then be reflected in lower Federal taxation freeing up room for the Province to tax and direct the spending as they see fit.
You are absolutely right about transfers. At best we get back our own tax dollars less the cost of administering the programs and at worse our tax dollars end up elsewhere such as funding the corruption in Quebec.
I don’t agree with every action of the Federal Government but if they deal with the flaws in Equalization Payments then they should have the support of everyone in British Columbia regardless of political leanings.
31 Chris Keam // Oct 20, 2012 at 11:31 am
“If they can’t take criticism in any form not only they are in the wrong profession, but they are the wrong people for the jobs”
Perfect recipe to discourage good people from running for office. Politicians need to be accountable and accessible. They don’t deserve the schoolyard taunts of grown-ups who should know better, but hide behind a psuedonym so they can’t be held to the same standard they demand of their elected officials regarding accountability.
32 waltyss // Oct 20, 2012 at 1:50 pm
@Chris Keam #31 Mira, a grown up? I don’t think Mira ever got past the school yard name calling phase. All the current talk about bullies is about people like her, what someone on another thread called anonymous jackasses.
I don’t hear the Mayor, or councillors complaining about the name calling of Glissy, Mira or their fellow travellers. You are right in that respect: they can take it. However, as Chris Keam points out, the braying of people like you discourages many many good people from running for office.
And no-one is suggesting that constructive criticism should be discouraged. We can all learn from it. Unfortunately, I for one am still waiting for something beyond name calling from you or your friend Glissy (I could name others but you know you are.) Glissy, at least, tries to be humourous.
And not that I care what your ilk think, but just for the fun of it. Yes, I live in Dunbar in a house my wife and I own, and yes, I own a 40 inch TV with an Apple TV device. That makes me a hypocrite how? Or is it just an anonymous jackass braying?
33 Higgins // Oct 20, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Waltyss @32
FYI the expression “anonymous jackasses” was penned and premiered by your pal Chris Keam in one of his recent “columns” on this blog at:
(Vancouver’s bike-lane-friendly council gets support from Point Grey Road residents who want traffic chaos reduced)
“#68 Chris Keam // Oct 5, 2012 at 8:03 am
GR:
Don’t give a fig what Cohen said. It’s anonymous jackasses that throw out vitriolic comments that are erroneous that chap my hide, esp. when the facts are easily obtained. But I can understand why you wouldn’t want online accountability to become a trend given the tone and nature of most of your ‘contributions’.
CK”
And guess what, it was addressed to… GR. Do read GR’s previous post and then reread CK’s response.
… I rest my case.
I also noticed you used the term two or three times already, while playing the damsel in distress. (BTW doesn’t the name “Waltyss” sound a bit anonymous to you?)
Simply pathetic.
You both should not be the judge of anyone on this blog, you pretend to be immaculate and fair. Far from it. I’m no innocent either… and neither are you!
34 Julia // Oct 20, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Chris #12 Have you read the latest version of the 2040 transportation plan. Adding in cyclists and enhanced pedestrian walkways is not going to reduce congestion. Our existing road width will be reallocated for wider sidewalks and bike lanes. Add in a few more buses, and the 130,000 new residents that need to get to the projected 90,000 new jobs.
So, are we thinking those 130,000 new residents are all going to walk or perhaps 30% of them will own a car – an electric car than needs to be plugged in somewhere. Oh yes, one other detail, the report says in the next 30 years residents of Vancouver aged 60 and over will double.
Sorry, this is almost as tough to decipher as Romney math.
35 IanS // Oct 20, 2012 at 6:26 pm
@Chris Keam #27:
“but in the real world we apply collective solutions to collective problems and bear the cost… collectively. ”
Or not.
My personal view is that we need a mix of approaches, including both user fees (bus fares) and public subsidy. However, given that we are discussing the real world, what happens if “we” collectively decide that we don’t want to fund more transit? Based on the record of all levels of gov’t to date, that seems like a real possibility, albeit not a happy one IMO.
36 MB // Oct 21, 2012 at 12:16 am
@Bill 29, public consultation is not one of Harper’s strongest attributes. This treaty takes us to another place. With the FTA and NAFTA we had months of public discussion and elections.
I put credence in the law profs analysis despite it being published in the Tyee.
37 Roger Kemble // Oct 21, 2012 at 8:59 am
Have fun with your esoteric deliberations folks ‘cos we’re . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJYRtOPUonA
38 Bill // Oct 21, 2012 at 10:36 am
@MB #36
This is not a FTA or a NAFTA – look at how many FIPA’s we have in effect going back to 1990 and tell me how many had the same public scrutinty as a FTA.
http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/index.aspx?lang=eng&view=d
Try reading them for yourself – they are not that long – instead of relying on one law prof’s analysis just because it confirms your bias. You will discover there is a tremendous difference between a trade agreement and an investment protection agreement.
39 Chris Keam // Oct 21, 2012 at 10:59 am
@Julia:
My comment #12 made no reference to the transportation plan or cycling/walking. Please take another look at what I wrote.
I will say however, that an aging population needs better buses, cycling, and walking facilities, because you can use all three long after the gov’t takes away your license to drive. Spoke with a gentleman just this summer who was using an electric trike to get around after a mild stroke meant he couldn’t drive a regular automobile anymore. I think we can expect to see lots more folks like him, who want personal mobility and are willing to adjust their expectations to get it. Not providing a safe space for those folks to travel (including overcrowded buses where seats aren’t available) isn’t fiscally sensible and a great way to negatively impact their quality of life
40 Chris Keam // Oct 21, 2012 at 11:11 am
@Ian
you said:
“what happens if “we” collectively decide that we don’t want to fund more transit? Based on the record of all levels of gov’t to date, that seems like a real possibility, albeit not a happy one IMO.”
I wouldn’t worry too much about that. Based upon my anecdotal experiences with people under the age of 40, the generations about to take the reins of power don’t suffer from the same misapprehensions regarding transportation with which that people my age (coming up fast on the half-century mark) and older have been indoctrinated.
Of course, if we allow character assassination to remain the lingua franca of online political discussion we’ll lose the best and brightest to less abusive arenas and who would blame them? Then we will have a real problem, because the political landscape will be even more dominated by the doctrinaire power-seekers.
41 Julia // Oct 21, 2012 at 11:15 am
Crhis, #39 you were pointing to ‘less congestion’. The notion that we are going to solve the ‘less congestion’ issue with more transit funding is delusional. We need a transit plan and sustainable transit funding but we should be clear what the end result is going to look like – regardless of how much money we spend. The stage has been set and I see nothing being done at the planning level that is going to alleviate that. 2040 is 28 years away – 130,000 extra people needing to get somewhere – one way or another.
42 Chris Keam // Oct 21, 2012 at 11:19 am
‘with which that people my age’ should read
‘with which people my age’
43 Chris Keam // Oct 21, 2012 at 11:31 am
@Julia:
How much money we spend is the biggest factor in what the end result will look like. How we allocate it is the second most important variable.
By your numbers we have a generation to figure out how to address the issues. This is so within our reach that it’s almost embarrassing that we haven’t fixed it already.
44 Michelle // Oct 21, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Right on Julia @41
That’s because all these planners and “urban designers” do is “yak, yak, blah, blah, yada, yada…” , at home and then they attend ‘City building/making’ conferences where they meet with each other… Btw 99% men… And discuss some more. Take former Vancouver director of planning for example . Since he was fired he circumnavigated the world by plane … Twice… But if you check he is tweeter feed… LOL … He’s a big carbon tax fan, biker and walker… You see he is green! Sometime I think that by firing him Vision Vancouver actually advanced their agenda even more! there was a planning ball in Banff Alberta just recently. So I’m asking you, who’s minding the … Planning in this city? Nobody!
45 Chris Keam // Oct 21, 2012 at 1:23 pm
When you a point a finger….
46 IanS // Oct 21, 2012 at 2:24 pm
@Chris Keam #40,
“I wouldn’t worry too much about that. Based upon my anecdotal experiences with people under the age of 40, the generations about to take the reins of power don’t suffer from the same misapprehensions regarding transportation with which that people my age (coming up fast on the half-century mark) and older have been indoctrinated. ”
Heh. I share neither your premise nor your optimism (if I may call it that). But I guess we’ll see.
47 Bill // Oct 21, 2012 at 3:12 pm
@Chris Keam #40
“I wouldn’t worry too much about that. Based upon my anecdotal experiences with people under the age of 40, the generations about to take the reins of power……. ”
Are they going to take the reins of power before or after they move out of Mom and Dad’s basement?
48 MB // Oct 21, 2012 at 10:58 pm
@ brilliant 22, what proportion of the 2.4 million people who live here are cross border shoppers?
49 MB // Oct 21, 2012 at 11:11 pm
@ Bill 38, I am reassured by the depth of your analysis in proving Prof van Harten’s misgivings are misplaced.
We have it on good authority Sinopec will never sue first nations, Environment Canada or the BC govt for billions for delaying or canceling the export of “their” bitumen.
I’d suggest you take it up directly with the the authority on international investment and trade treaties if it wasn’t so far off topic.
50 Roger Kemble // Oct 22, 2012 at 6:59 am
“ . . . I mean what we are going to do when the major systems we depend on for everyday life begin to wobble and fail.
There is zero cognizance even among the paid kibitzers (and voony and MB and Julia and Stephenet al . . . yunno, thu usuals) that we are near that point.
Rather, a rapture of techno-narcissism holds in thrall even people who ought to know better, and a chatter-stream of infotainment propaganda spreads an hallucinatory fog of national self-esteem-boosting figments ranging from “energy independence” to “green jobs.” ”
James Howard Kunstler
October 22, 2012
(. . . put him on your regular read list: http://kunstler.com/blog/2012/10/snake-garden.html)
Now that is our local TX Blogistas down to the letter . . .
51 Chris Keam // Oct 22, 2012 at 8:31 am
@IanS:
Just to be perfectly clear… you think it’s a real possibility the gov’t might stop funding public transit? Based upon what? I can’t think of any evidence that this is something they would consider.
52 IanS // Oct 22, 2012 at 8:47 am
@Chris Keam #51,
Not stop funding transit, but reduce funding maybe. Or not increase funding fast enough to meet demand.
53 Julia // Oct 22, 2012 at 10:53 am
Roger #50 I am a paid kibitzer? Please let me know where I can pick up my cheque!
54 Roger Kemble // Oct 22, 2012 at 11:02 am
You have cheque mated yourself Julia # @53.
I cannot help you!
55 MB // Oct 22, 2012 at 5:08 pm
@ Roger 50, let me assure you my opinions are free.
56 Oakridge // Oct 22, 2012 at 9:34 pm
How hard is it to just raise my property taxes to pay for all this? Seems simple enough. They’re much lower than I paid in Toronto.
The reason is the regional mayors are scared of the political accountability for raising taxes to pay for regional priorities. This suggests to me that perhaps they know the people aren’t behind it. Oh well that’s democracy. So be it. Seems more fair than a regional competition for one-off gifts from the province or other provincial funding schemes that will end up in higher income taxes for the whole province.
Maybe they should do some polling to figure out what will be supported rather than just crying to mommy for help.
57 MB // Oct 23, 2012 at 10:02 am
@ Oakridge:
Maybe they should do some polling to figure out what will be supported rather than just crying to mommy for help.
Governing by polls? We’ll have Guinness in the taps and the homeless, noisy neighbours, unwed moms and debtors incarcerated in Triangle island before you know it.
Actually, I could live with shipping off my obnoxious neighbours.
Leave a Comment