Let’s get Political – B.Nat will get us going…
Usually on this blog we talk about how our bodies move…but what about how we move around our region? As many of you know, I do enjoy a good political argument (though I dedicate this one to Clyde), so I’m jumping in:
Yes or No?
That’s all the say you get (don’t forget that) in the transportation and transit (yes, transportation and transit – not just transit) plebiscite that’s happening now through the next few weeks. Now, I’m not allowed to be long-winded on here (TBear Rules), so I’ll let other, more beautifully-researched peeps do most of the talking for me, via a creative website called Moving Forward.
Therein you’ll find a plethora of the best information I have come across that will NOT shove a YES or NO vote down your throat. These guys simply crunched the numbers. If, like I do, you enjoy quantitative research and cute infographics possibly even more than political arguments, you’ll find it just gorgeous. Even if you don’t, it’s worth a look.
Note, for example, this slideshow that puts the budgetary numbers of transportation in comparison. Moving people costs a lot of money, apparently: Check this link out
I will, however, add a couple of thoughts. To me, a YES vote says: “We need money to maintain and improve transportation systems in the region. Period. If we vote no, we won’t get the chance to act again before it’s too late. I can express my views about how much Translink sucks during the next provincial election by voting against the BC Liberals…or starting a movement against the corporation…or…anything other than thinking that voting NO to this will make the government/corporation reconsider how its funds are managed. It won’t.”
And a NO vote says, “I hate taxes! I don’t even want new roads or bridges to drive my non-government-funded-autonomous car on! Free market!”
(Speaking of which, I happen to think libertarianism is on par with communism as the most naive of all political views (more naive, even, than anarchism), so I don’t buy the “no taxes” thing. Nobody loves giving up their money, but many realize that it only makes sense (I invite you to consider this view on it)).
Happy Voting,
Your Friendly Neighbourhood Baby Nat
Warm-up
Squat to Stand Drill x 20, Squat and reach, x-band side steps and a few john wayne’sStrength and Drills:
A1 4×5 back squat (55,65,80,80%)
A2 4×5 glute ham raisesConditioning: (classes may go over b/c of our limited rowers but we’ll stage best we can)
For time:
2000m Row
50 Burpeescompare to jan 30th
EVENTS AND WORKSHOPS
-
What Weakness 101 is all about!
As a CrossFit athlete and coach, I know its hard to master all the things that come along with CrossFit. Classes are awesome, they build community like no other fitness regime out there, plus they are
Archives
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
19 Comments:
By Clyde 23 Mar 2015
*drops mic. walks away.*
Ha ha thanks for the dedication, B-Noney!
My only question to those voting No is: how else do you think we should deal with traffic congestion, forecast to worsen ten fold in the coming years, if not through taxation? (And again, spare us the anti tax rhetoric; just provide plausible alternatives that will cost me less.)
*spoiler alert*
There are none.
By Anon 23 Mar 2015
Maybe if the congestion gets so bad. People will stop loving here and maybe this place will be more affordable? lol
By Afghan 23 Mar 2015
Interesting link: Moving Forward. Be interesting to see when they fill in all the “coming soon” elements.
By Reto 24 Mar 2015
Ah crap, after reading this a yes vote makes a lot of sense, but I just mailed in my no vote. Do you think if I call Gregor personally I can change my vote??
By Derek 24 Mar 2015
Off topic rant time. Why do identical WODs get renamed on the leaderboard (Rowing Burpees vs Rowpees)? The date of the previous WOD is even included in today’s post, so whoever posted must have been able to check its original name. This frequent renaming ends up in ridiculousness like having to check Back Squat 1RM, 1RM Back Squat, 1 Rep Max Back Squat, etc. to find your most recent score. It makes tracking harder than it should be.
By Dash 24 Mar 2015
Thats my bad Panda! Sorry.
This workout was not in the new system that we have so I just named it something else as I didn’t see a name on the post for the WOD.
Sorry. I will make sure we are more diligent in the future.
By CB 24 Mar 2015
One way or another, the needed improvements will be paid for. By you. Through a combination of property tax, fuel tax, income tax, sales tax, BC Hydro surcharge, transit fares, road tolls, and as-yet-undreamed of mechanisms. There is not a lot of point quibbling about which mechanism is preferred. I personally think a regional sales tax makes sense to partially fund regional transportation improvements. A “Yes” vote also gives the Province and the Feds social licence to pony up their 2/3 share of all the capital projects the new tax is dedicated to. (Note that the provincial money, and the federal money, is also your money). A “Yes” vote should speed things up. A “No” vote just unnecessarily delays progress.
By Sheppy 24 Mar 2015
Great post.
I am voting NO.
This isn’t because I hate taxes. Canada’s and BC’s tax system by and large affords the public many great services and programs. Most of us have it so good we don’t even know it.
I DO think it is just way too much money. Especially going to an organization with a much less than reputable or even acceptable record for performance and accountability. How about the $35k a month going to ex CEO Ian Jarvis until June 2016 for staying on in an advisory role? Don’t forget the $35k a month they are also paying his replacement. How can there be golden parachutes for Crown Corporations? Ridiculous.
I had a boss many years ago that would not let you complain unless you offered a solution. So here is mine…
Instead of bundling all the transportation projects into 1 vote they should split them up. Whatever project goes first will be an excellent opportunity for Translink to prove it is trustworthy to do a good job (in reference to their “Trust Us Again” campaign going on right now).
If they get the go ahead and do a good job then most likely they would get another chance to do another enormous project.
If they don’t do a good job and go way over budget and so on then the electorate would have the the proof it needs to make the appropriate choice about how to spend their tax dollars.
Perhaps the “Yes” people are going to say it would be a waste of money to have that many plebiscites. Surely the cost of these votes would be better than another Government spending disaster like Glen Clark’s Fast Ferries quagmire. Just a little recap – The budget was $210 million but the project finished up at $460 million. Over double – AND the ferries didn’t even work for us. Now think about if this plebiscite vote comes out at double budget. We’ve gone from $8 billion to $16 billion. If you are wondering why BCers aren’t stoked on the “Yes” vote I’d look to the Fast Ferry hangover as a major reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Ferry_Scandal)
A “No” result will send a message to the government that BCers are discerning and rational and need accountability on Government spending.
Just my two cents in the $8 billion pot.
By Squad 24 Mar 2015
I’ve been reading up on this–thanks to a circle question and some great rants and vids from JB.
Basically, I think that passing on this ‘vote’ to the public is the major scam here. What do we elect representatives for if they can’t make a decision on something that is as essential as roads and transit?
Are they afraid of backlash? Possibly losing their positions? Of course.
But is this reason enough to shirk responsibilities that they signed up for? Making the hard decisions FOR the public is their responsibility. Passing the unfavourable buck to average people who don’t fully understand government finances or taxation is irresponsible.
Should translink be held accountable for the funds — and not by a billionaire consultant — absolutely.
Sorry JB, my vote is still leaning towards yes.
By Clyde 24 Mar 2015
You are SO RIGHT, Aud Squad. Shame on our provincial government. SHAME!!
Just wanted to flag a small error in Sheppy’s comment: Translink is NOT a Crown Corporation anymore. Thanks to our friendly Provincial Government for disposing of democracy back in 2007/08 and replacing the elected Board of Mayors and Councillors, with unelected appointees vetted by…you guessed it…the Province.
This is now a Private Board that refuses to hold its meetings in public despite repeated requests by the Mayor’s Council to do so. Elected Mayors no longer have any significant impact on how Translink makes its decisions.
There’s no political connection to the governance of the organization, so there is little to no accountability.
By Nerdiebird 24 Mar 2015
I agree with a lot of people here. A few thoughts.
1 – Aud is right that the plebiscite is bullshit policy. Tax policy shouldn’t be set by referendum, or nothing will ever get accomplished. It just opens the doors to people punishing the decision makers with a no vote. The success of the no campaign echos what happened with the HST. The HST was good tax policy. It was brought about the worst way. Putting it to a referendum opened the door to people voting based on anger and emotion, and did away with a good policy that would have brought the government desperately needed revenue. This is another instance of Premier Clark shirking her duty to make the tough decisions on our behalf.
2 – BUT– the way to voice anger at the referendum policy is at the ballot box, NOT on the referendum paper. Otherwise you lose out on the good tax policy. By way of the plebiscite, the government has delegated to us their public duty to carefully consider and evaluate the policy on its merits. Let’s step up and do that.
3 – My evaluation of the merits:
a – On the one hand, a sales tax is a regressive tax. The extra $35/month isn’t going to hurt me that much. For a single mother on welfare working minimum wage, living paycheck to paycheck, the sales tax will have a disproportionately large impact. It means the difference between feeding children or not. Yes, I know that the people who the tax will disproportionately impact are more likely to use transit. However, this isn’t just about transit– it’s about roads and bridges, which benefits everybody who uses a car (and even those who don’t).
b – On the other hand, a sales tax will tax visitors to the city. I tend to like that.
c – The point about Translink CEOs making “huge compensation” is SUCH a red herring. It’s an example of people expressing anger at the “policy-maker” (or implementer in this case) rather than considering the merits of the tax. By all accounts, translink is a well-oiled machine compared to any other transit/transportation provider in North America. Also, it costs money to hire high-level officials. Period. Plus, even if you tally the salaries, that won’t even begin to cover the massive cost of the improvements we need to make.
Which brings me to d – As everyone else has illustrated, we desperately need these funds. This policy isn’t perfect. But if you hold out for perfect, you will miss out on the beauty in the good enough.
This is a policy that got broad-based agreement across municipalities. It will provide the resources we desperately need. It honestly makes more sense than a property tax. Good enough for me.
TL:DR: Vote based on the merits of the tax, not your anger. And whatever you do, don’t pass on the good in favour of the perfect, because perfection doesn’t exist.
By Eunice 24 Mar 2015
I dumped my big fat NO vote in the old mailbox yesterday. Here’s why:
I would consider myself pro-small to medium-sized business. And it’s an administrative nightmare for businesses to change their tax structure for the third time in 2.5 years! When he went from the GST to the HST, back to the GST, it was a serious pain in the ass. I know this one wouldn’t affect our business as we don’t charge PST, but my heart goes out to all the administrative headaches many others go through. I admit that’s a short-sighted reason.
Here’s my solution, Wendy.
We taxpayers need to push for a city that doesn’t run on a 9-5 work day. So so so so many jobs don’t need to be 9 am to 5 pm and so many people would rather work 6 am until 2 pm, or 5 pm until midnight, or from home even! I know I will NEVER take a 9 to 5 job. Sometimes this means I am working at 10 pm. And I often work weekends. But GOD DAMNIT I avoid rush hour! ALWAYS! I know that’s not a luxury everyone has, but I think we’d be a happier place if those whose jobs didn’t demand they be there from 9 until 5 or 8 until 4 had the opportunity to work when best suited them. My dream is to live in a society that runs on the concept of, “As long as the work gets done, who the fuck cares when you do it and how long it takes you.” Instead, so many people I know put in face time and wait for the bell to ring like they’re in Grade 2, and then hit traffic with the rest of the face timers. So in the name of human happiness and road congestion, let’s push for a world where we’re free to get our work done as we see fit.
By dw 24 Mar 2015
Voted “YES”
By Wendy 24 Mar 2015
Eunice, I will happily address your first point. As for your ability to shit unicorns and rainbows to achieve your proposed solution, well I am simply in awe.
The Vancouver Board of Trade; the BC Chamber of Commerce; Unifor, Canada’s newest and largest private sector union; Tourism Vancouver; the Downtown Surrey Business Improvement Association; and the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council all supported the yes vote! Businesses love the idea of better transit and less traffic congestion because the cost of doing nothing is billions in lost revenue and productivity.
If the No vote prevails. Rest assured, as CV says above, the money will be found. It will just cost us more than this 0.5% sales tax. And it won’t matter what time of day you drive, a tolled road will charge you for using it 24hrs/day 7 days/week.
By Wendy 24 Mar 2015
To paraphrase something Eunice said at our recent town hall meeting: You don’t know what you need. To vote NO is to say you only want to do GRINDERS and MET CONS 7 days per week.
And Reto.
Dear Reto.
I literally cried in my scrambled eggs this morning after I read your comment. Please tell me you’re joking. This is serious. World-view-free-radical-destroying-shit right here and I don’t know if I can handle it.
By cube 24 Mar 2015
calm yourself clyde. i filled in his ballot for him.
By Bob B. 24 Mar 2015
Just want to remind people that there are people out there that struggle just to get by and I’m not talking the DTES. When I voted yes, I truly was thinking about the person that will never afford a car, but works daily to feed themselves and pay their rent…many with HUGE barriers to ‘succeeding’ in life. This population of people needs reliable and affordable public transportation. Besides, 10yrs from now it will all be forgotten, just like the Olympic construction chaos, Cambie skytrain problems etc etc…buck up now and enjoy later.
By Derek 25 Mar 2015
A major sticking point for most No voters is TransLink’s wastefulness. Actual numbers show they may not be a bottomless money pit.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/transit-referendum-is-translink-really-wasting-taxpayers-money-1.2998233
By CB 25 Mar 2015
Hey, look above, some intelligent discourse being conducted on the interwebs!