That's approximately what I summed up in my very first post of this thread! Add in communism in this economic system and there'll be improvement!
VOTE NO to Tran$Link tax
- Thread starter vancouverman
- Start date
MAYORS of the GVRD is part of Translink. So, they are family members! You gotta learn what the big picture is when talking about managing a city or a place with thousands of people involved!
It doesn't matter!! My reference was towards other alternative revenue sources and..... the Inevitable end result. That's my point
:doh:These P.O.S people need to start looking into the mirror rather than ALWAYS squeezing the tax payers! The middle people ALWAYS seem to get the shit end of the stick!!
I am amazed at the naivete of people who plan to vote Yes and think that's the end of it.
It's just the beginning. The tax will never go away. Translink will always be begging for more money, it's likely the tax rate will go up, most of the planned improvements either won't happen or will cost much more than they're saying and you will see not a single second removed from any commute or wait for bus, train or boat. This is a con game, played with our money to extract yet more tax money.
The following link is just a little of the back room stuff we know about now. Wait until after the vote and see what crawls out from behind the curtains.
http://bobmackin.ca/?p=2437
It's just the beginning. The tax will never go away. Translink will always be begging for more money, it's likely the tax rate will go up, most of the planned improvements either won't happen or will cost much more than they're saying and you will see not a single second removed from any commute or wait for bus, train or boat. This is a con game, played with our money to extract yet more tax money.
The following link is just a little of the back room stuff we know about now. Wait until after the vote and see what crawls out from behind the curtains.
http://bobmackin.ca/?p=2437
I see what you mean. But either way, the current economic system won't maximize our needed profits. it'll only maximize our deficits! so why do you want the government to give you more shit if you know it's all politics instead of looking at the economic system, the source?!It doesn't matter!! My reference was towards other alternative revenue sources and..... the Inevitable end result. That's my point
These P.O.S people need to start looking into the mirror rather than ALWAYS squeezing the tax payers! The middle people ALWAYS seem to get the shit end of the stick!!
There are many issues involved here. We have a mess of Chinese(and other immigrant) folks moving here, no reportable income, think it is stupid not to grab welfare, GIS, OAS, whatever they qualify for, even though they just put out $3m for a third house. Gov't didn't have the balls to make the decision themselves because they don't want to be pulled away from the pig trough that sustains them quite nicely thank you.
I'm a yesser, but thinking about the current waste, especially the security around skytrain stations, and the inability to make the turnstyles work. Throw the lot of the out. A no vote means what? That people are pissed, and want a better run entity.
Someone came on CBC and said compared to the ROW we're not getting bad service. That's not good enough. We need inspired leadership with world attention grabbing noteworthy performance. Jimmy is great, but it's time for someone else to grab the torch. Any millenials around who want to step up?
I'm a yesser, but thinking about the current waste, especially the security around skytrain stations, and the inability to make the turnstyles work. Throw the lot of the out. A no vote means what? That people are pissed, and want a better run entity.
Someone came on CBC and said compared to the ROW we're not getting bad service. That's not good enough. We need inspired leadership with world attention grabbing noteworthy performance. Jimmy is great, but it's time for someone else to grab the torch. Any millenials around who want to step up?
This is the interesting part.
Almost every "YES" person that I have talked to is voting "YES" despite the misgivings about how the transit system is run. But they are "plugging their noses" and voting "YES". I think this is a soft "YES" and may be convinced to vote otherwise.
Every "NO" person that I have talked is voting "NO" with conviction. They are MAD and intent to tell the government to go fuck themselves in no uncertain terms.
Now before all you "YESSERS" just all over me, all of us who are voting "NO" do realize that this is not a referendum on Translink but because they are not an elected body who are spending our tax dollars this is the ONLY way to convey our displeasure to the government.
Yes I also know we can deal with the mayors and councils in the next election but there are many other issues that will come up in the next election and this will be forgotten. BTW my mayor and his dimwit council already know of my displeasure in no uncertain terms. Everyone who is voting "NO" should express their displeasure at the mayors also.
Oh and while we are at it I am Christy and Todd I am sure are laughing at all this ............. they have played this perfectly. Let's not leave them out of this.
I'm probably one of the few on this board to vote YES.
my mode of transportation varies. I use public transit, a car-sharing program (ie: modo),
urban cycling (just replaced my trusted Brody of 15 plus years and bought a Riddley from MEC)
and good ol reliable walking.
of the three, I must say Skytrain has served me well over the years. when I need to go to a
meeting (mostly within Vancouver), the Skytrain is the most efficient (give and take delays).
now, when I use a car and need to go downtown, it is excruciatingly irritating. traffic between 9 and 5
is just absurd in this small city of ours. add to that, the painful process of finding parking, pay ridiculous
amount for parking and contend with morons who can't fucking drive…now I understand why some would
pull out an automatic and fire at will. don't even get me started about driving on the Broadway corridor.
on my Riddley, I have the option to use the dedicated bike lanes. personally, I can do without it either way
as I'm a confident cyclist (honed my road skill living in New York). having said that, I still have to contend
with 'shit for brain' motorists who choose to drive distracted by texting, reading, talking, eating, putting
on make-up, the list goes on at the stupidity of people.
all the plus aside, I just want a newly elected body of competent managers to run the show moving forward
(even if the NO side wins).
if YES wins, start by cleaning house and get experienced and competent problem solvers on that board.
run it like you would a successful brand such as apple. put out a good product / service and make it beneficial to everyone.
my mode of transportation varies. I use public transit, a car-sharing program (ie: modo),
urban cycling (just replaced my trusted Brody of 15 plus years and bought a Riddley from MEC)
and good ol reliable walking.
of the three, I must say Skytrain has served me well over the years. when I need to go to a
meeting (mostly within Vancouver), the Skytrain is the most efficient (give and take delays).
now, when I use a car and need to go downtown, it is excruciatingly irritating. traffic between 9 and 5
is just absurd in this small city of ours. add to that, the painful process of finding parking, pay ridiculous
amount for parking and contend with morons who can't fucking drive…now I understand why some would
pull out an automatic and fire at will. don't even get me started about driving on the Broadway corridor.
on my Riddley, I have the option to use the dedicated bike lanes. personally, I can do without it either way
as I'm a confident cyclist (honed my road skill living in New York). having said that, I still have to contend
with 'shit for brain' motorists who choose to drive distracted by texting, reading, talking, eating, putting
on make-up, the list goes on at the stupidity of people.
all the plus aside, I just want a newly elected body of competent managers to run the show moving forward
(even if the NO side wins).
if YES wins, start by cleaning house and get experienced and competent problem solvers on that board.
run it like you would a successful brand such as apple. put out a good product / service and make it beneficial to everyone.
if the yes wins there will be clearing of anything because they will think you voted for them as much as their ideas! Give them, Translink, what they so deservingly deserve a big "NO" vote and maybe someone will take notice and kick the driftwood to the curb. I have no problem with the idea of an extra .05% tax but not for these morons. They have proven their networth and it is zero.....
I had my job 10 years before the bridges were put in with their tolls. Is not like I decided to move west of the bridges after they were put in with their tolls, if that were true then you would have a somewhat valid argument.
The expansion of the port Mann was hardly necessary. There was no appreciable congestion. And their idea that it should be built ahead of the anticipated rise in congestion due to the expanding population should have solved the funding problem right there with municipal taxes instead of requiring a toll which is really just another tax. It shows how wasteful Translink is, and it's not just the top salaries but the wages at every level and how they do things in general.
If it's a given 1 million more people are moving here (and aren't developers salivating over that?), then transit is the least of our worries.
We already have water restrictions all summer and creeping closer to spring and fall each way, our crime rate now will look like nothing and the pollution will be unbearable because most of those people won't be able to afford Vancouver - they'll be in Langley, Abbotsford and Chilliwack. And most will be driving, despite what the pushers of this tax are saying.
Controlling growth would be a better approach than just expanding eastward forever.
We already have water restrictions all summer and creeping closer to spring and fall each way, our crime rate now will look like nothing and the pollution will be unbearable because most of those people won't be able to afford Vancouver - they'll be in Langley, Abbotsford and Chilliwack. And most will be driving, despite what the pushers of this tax are saying.
Controlling growth would be a better approach than just expanding eastward forever.
Just curious.. Do you know who this Jordan Bateman is? Since you're buying his arguments, have you looked into his background, the organisation he works for (Canadian Taxpayers Federation) or any agenda that might influence all of these efforts? You might want to do that. Because even if it doesn't affect your vote in the end, you should still know his deal so you can avoid accepting or repeating his dishonest/misleading 'arguments' - at the very least.
http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/03/09/TransLink-Biggest-Hater/
https://darylvsworld.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/referendum-myths-translink-exec-pay/
https://pricetags.wordpress.com/201...gy-killing-translink-and-the-regional-vision/
http://canspice.org/2015/01/23/thats-pretty-weak/
https://patrickjohnstone.ca/2015/01/fare-evasion-and-jordan-bateman.html
Jordan Bateman is the person who's been the most visible in the media for the No side. Almost everyone who quotes data and most arguments for voting No, come from this guy and his campaign.
The funny thing is that I was going to use the ridiculous 'ethical oil' campaign as a comparison and guess what? I read somewhere that one of those responsible for that campaign is also on the Canadian Taxpayers Federation payroll. Wow. Shocking. (NOT!)
Most if not all of his claims have been debunked yet people have totally latched on to whatever crap he's claimed and completely ignored anything else. Not saying this is all of you but far too many people who should know better have decided to shut off their brain and go with emotions.
The overt No side in the referendum is led by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF). The CTF does not reveal their funding sources. But given their policies it seems reasonable to assume that, like U.S. anti-transit groups, oil interests pay a significant part of their expenses.
The CTF campaigns actively against climate action. In a 2010 interview with the Halifax Media Coop the CTF's then Federal Director Kevin Gaudet, said "we don't believe there's such thing as man-made climate change."
In B.C. the CTF headed by Jordan Bateman tried to kill B.C.'s carbon tax rather than improving it by using the revenue to fund transit and passenger rail.
Another important player in the CTF's No side campaign is Hamish Marshall, creator of the pro-tar sands EthicalOil.org website.
If the Yes side goes down to defeat in Metro Vancouver, and progressive forces run away with their tails between their legs, imposing designed-to-fail transit referendums could become a favoured tactic of right wing governments across Canada.
On the other hand, if the transit referendum results in an effective movement for better transit right wing governments will see the danger of providing such organizing opportunities. A Yes vote and a strong and ongoing pro-transit movement in Metro Vancouver would probably make this made-to-fail referendum the last of its kind.
Big Oil has a clear vision. It involves more freeways to more automobile dependant suburbs with horrible transit service, forcing even lower income families to own multiple cars and purchase large quantities of gasoline. This model, exported to multiple countries, complements big oil's plans for more and expanded pipelines combined with hugely expanded extraction of tar sands bitumen.
http://rabble.ca/news/2015/03/vancouver-transit-referendum-could-put-plug-pipeline-expansion
It amounts to $125 per year (much less for lower income households btw) at most for the average household FFS and will result in everyone benefiting enormously. It's not even about Translink. Anyway, I just don't get the knee jerk reaction and people's eagerness to shoot themselves in the foot, when they will suffer daily for years and years, just because they're angry and so they can feel like they're making a point. And even if you ignore the details of this specific vote, that's really not very rational and it's kind of really stupid IMO.
Anyway, I doubt I'll be in Vancouver long enough to see the results either way but I'll be smh from where ever I am when people are pulling their hair out a decade or two from now, asking wtf were people thinking in refusing to pay that $125 per year to prove a stupid, not even entirely justified point and leaving it to another generation to pay for it in more ways than one - and way more than $125 year. How the hell are people going to justify that (along with the many other problems we will have dumped on them!)?
And if the No wins and it's determined the project must happen regardless, everyone's still going to have to pay for it. Duh. Who else is going to pay for it? Sheesh.
The psychology of ‘no': Vancouver transit vote is case study in why it’s so hard to do what makes us happy
The sad truth is, we can be absolutely awful at making decisions that affect our long-term happiness. Recent work by psychologists has charted a set of predictable cognitive errors that lead us to mistakes like eating too much junk food, or saving too little for retirement. These quirks lead us to make similarly predictable errors when deciding where to live, how to live, how to move, and even how to build our cities.
The Vancouver transit vote is likely to prove psychologists correct again. By most measures, a “No” result in the plebiscite will make the average person poorer, sicker, less free, more frustrated and, yes, less happy in the long run. Yet this is exactly where the polls show the city is headed.
If that’s depressing, at the very least the plebiscite makes for a terrific case study in the psychology of city-building. So let’s drill into it.
What are the actual costs and benefits associated with the mayors’ plan?
The cost: half a percent added to the provincial sales tax. That’s about 3¢ on a beer, or $125/year for the average household.
The benefits?
The plan includes a mind-numbing project list including road improvements, bike lanes, a new bridge over the Fraser River and massive investments in rail and bus transit across the region. However, what really matters to urban happiness is not infrastructure per se, but what’s called the “system effect” on our lives.
System effects are not immediately obvious but they really matter to our health and happiness. For example, studies show a direct correlation between commute times and life satisfaction. System effect: the mayor’s plan will shorten commute times on Vancouver’s most congested roads by 20-30 minutes per day, while transit riders will save up to half an hour. So just about everyone gets more time with family and friends — a key driver of happiness.
A “Yes” vote will make people more free. In many modern suburban neighbourhoods, children and teenagers are totally dependent on their parents to get them to sports, recreation, culture and even friends. This steals their freedom and forces parents into the bondage of endless chauffeuring. (Up to 15% of trips in sprawling American cities are people driving non-drivers around.) More mobility options equals freedom for both drivers and the driven.
A “Yes” vote will also make residents richer because the mayors’ plan will put seven of 10 households within a short walk of a frequent transit line, so many will not need a second car, saving up to $10,000 a year. A report by HDR Consulting found that, even after the sales tax, the average family can expect to save about $360/year.
So the mayors’ plan will make most voters richer, healthier and happier. And on this, a stunning array of long-time adversaries now agree. The tree-huggers and the truck drivers, the students and the suits, the unions and the boards of trade are all on board. Even the premier has returned to the coalition of the willing. Yet a majority of voters plan to vote against their own interests. Why would reasonable people do such a thing? One factor is that our brains lay out all kinds of cognitive traps for us when considering complex decisions.
There is what psychologists call the focus illusion. We put all our attention on one glaring element and ignore details that are harder to grasp or remember. So most people remember the annual tax they’ll have to pay, and place less value on the thousands of moments where their life will become easier.
Most of us have trouble putting fair value on future benefits. If you were stuck in traffic right now and I offered to get you moving for 35¢ (the average daily cost of the new sales tax) you would probably pay up. But the plebiscite choice feels more remote: You are asked to pay a tax now for benefits that will take years to take shape, so those benefits disappear in the haze of distance.
Another error: We assume the future will look a lot like the present. Most residents find it hard to imagine a future with a million extra people living in Metro Vancouver by 2041. But those people are coming, and they will be competing for road space. Picture this: Without a switch to transit, Vancouver would need 26 new freeway lanes just to handle the extra traffic, and an area half the size of Richmond for the extra parking.
Humans have always relied on simplification, metaphor and story to make sense of our world. This was great when we were hunter-gatherers, but has been a disaster in city planning — just ask the residents of such cities as Brasilia, which was planned in the shape of a giant bird. It looks interesting from space but is totally disorienting for people on the ground.
We are more attracted to stories than spreadsheets — the simpler and more mythical, the more compelling. We crave identifiable heroes and villains. The “No” campaign has supplied that story, painting local transit authority executives as a corrupt, wasteful band of thieves.
It doesn’t matter that their assertions are inaccurate. (Translink is arguably one of the most efficient and reliable big-city transit agencies in North America.) It doesn’t matter that the plebiscite is not actually about Translink, or that the results will affect the public much more than Translink leaders. The emotionally charged story feels truer than numbers.
So for many voters, the plebiscite is reduced to an opportunity to express anger about their commute, or engage in a symbolic struggle against a cartoon-like enemy. But this will actually harm voters’ own interests in the long run.
...
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/bl...-a-decision-that-will-corrode-their-happiness
So....you're successfully arguing the desperate need for these improvements? Hm. Thanks! LOL
Hands down best post. Thanks for the links, although I'm sure not many bothered to read any of it, like they won't bother to read the ones I share.
I have a couple more things to add but will have to do it later...
The Port Mann expansion was a provincial government idea, nothing to do with Translink. If Translink is really that wasteful then how come the examples listed on the No website are pretty weak? I will admit the Compass card rollout has been a total distaster but they aren't the only transit system having problems.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tra...-of-over-budget-spadina-subway-extension.html
The one on the website complaining about free rides for employees is stupid. Every employer has perks or incentives for their employees.
Just wondering if you acknowledge who currently is paying the majority of the freight for you to ride your bike on bike lanes and use the Sky Train from what you have described in your post?
Gas taxes, GST on Gas taxes, BC Govt taxes on road taxes, green taxes and property taxes as an FYI. You say you will vote Yes to a 0.5% PST increase which on a per person basis may be a few hundred per year. The rest is paid by the rest of us.
Sure, I will use bike lanes a few times per year but running three business vehicles takes a fair amount of money which is subsidizing cyclists around the GVRD.
I guess I wouldn't be so jaded towards cyclists if they actually paid to use the facilities on annual basis or some sort of user tax much like vehicles. It's all a great feeling when we can share the same space and even better when we all pay an appropriate share of it's costs.
gee, you make it sound as if my tax dollars doesn't count into paying those necessities you've mentioned.
I don't think I'm that different. I make a living, I pay my taxes every April, I like to poon, etc.
bbb, I'm with you on cyclists PAYING AN ANNUAL FEE just like motorists since we do share
the road. what should it be, I don't have an answer. but it would prob be affordable for all since cyclists
don't use fuel.
and fyi, I'm not anti driving nor hardcore pro cycling. I use the road just like everyone else.
I simply choose to use appropriate modes of getting around be it on car, transit, bike or walk.
as stated earlier, I'm able to afford the .5 % tax and I won't lose sleep over it.
my beef is with management running Translink and that's a separate issue imo.
out of curiosity, have you ever visited NYC, HK or London?
it's incredible how a finely tuned subway infrastructure can move masses within short distances.
there's no way a car can compete on that unless it's of the flying variety.
but, I've said my piece and no need to beat a dead horse.
I wasn't calling you out but it was an example per se.
We all use the roads, most of us use transit at some point and I think universally we all think the Translink board are inept.
I had one of those phone calls from the "Yes" side tonight which was trying to guilt me into voting Yes. When I mentioned I lived on the N Shore and their plan had minimal impact on the N Shore; the caller went on about all the bike lanes, the expansion of Sky Train to the eastern suburbs and the highway upgrades to the southern burbs without mentioning the N Shore. Then I read your post which connects all the dots.
Regarding other transit systems, if you read the whole thread, I mentioned NYC, London England and Hong Kong as having great systems along with Montreal and Chicago.
I am more Libertarian in nature and would like to see the actual users of the infrastructure paying a fair share of the system rather than because I run a small business paying a higher share than someone who rides a bike free of charge.
This 0.5% increase is unwarranted and until the board gets some credibility about fiscal responsibility! there is no way this pig will fly.
Give the employees a discounted ride, not a free ride. Also, only give it to the employee, not the employee and another family member. And only while employed by Translink -- 2 years of service should not get you a lifetime of free rides. Can you imagine if you worked for a gas station for 2 years and were promised free gasoline for you and your spouse for life at taxpayers expense?
Why should a paying customer be forced to stand in a bus (or not even be able to board a bus) if an ex-employee and spouse are free-loading in seats for which we are being asked to contribute even more?
Some workers in the airline industry get cheap fares. But they get them on standby. If the plane is full, they wait for the next plane or pay full fare like everyone else. IF there is an empty seat, they can take it at a steep discount.
Vote No, and maybe some of these perks will finally get reviewed. I'm sure there are millions upon millions of dollars in questionable expenses that can be eliminated to help fund future expansion.
But, if we have a YES on the 0.5%, then the cost does get spread a little wider. I don't own a property, don't own a car (Modo is my friend), don't see much in the way of direct taxation. It seems reasonable to me that as everyone benefits from the public transit infrastructure (yep, less cars on the road benefits those who still drive), the cost should be spread around and the 0.5% PST isn't such a bad way to do that. Otherwise, it will be smaller groups (property owners, car owners) who get to carry more of the inevitable increase in cost.
I understand the sentiment about making the vote a vote on confidence for the Translink governance system, but I'm not sure that is the message that will result in a NO vote.
Thank you Ms. Bijoux for pulling up the research. Doesn't surprise me the oil lobby wants to make sure this fails to ensure their market share continues. And look how all the sheep seem to be falling in line.
I wouldn't count on that. And who gets to decide what are 'questionable expenses.' I've heard complaints about unionized bus drivers being overpaid (as well as the management). But, what does that mean? I think the bus drivers should be well-paid, as should the rest of us. But, it sounds like some people feel that because they aren't paid as much as they would like to me, no one else should be either. The hollowing out of the middle class is an important contributor to the anemic economy. We should all want solid, working class people to be paid good wages, because ultimately they will spend those wages and the economy will be booming.
