The Metro Vancouver transit referendum begins this month. Despite a long campaign supported by the vast majority of mayors and political parties in the region, the ‘No’ side is leading in the polls.
Why can’t the ‘Yes’ side seem to galvanize public opinion for a mere 0.5 per cent increase in the provincial sales tax to fund transit infrastructure?
First, there’s residual effects of a generation of anti-tax rhetoric. Right-wing parties have managed to frame all efforts to fund a robust public sector as “tax and spend,” as if this were something nefarious rather than the basic function of government. Second, in recent decades, corporate tax rates have been slashed and the share paid by the rich drastically reduced. Just last month, the B.C. Liberals introduced a new budget eliminating another higher income tax bracket.
This upcoming referendum is badly flawed. What we need is a better public transit dialogue. |Photo by Richard Eriksson
All of this has been justified as “tax relief,” even though it’s only been a relief for those who need it least: the rich and super-rich. Everyone else has been saddled with new burdens in the form of user fees like rising MSP premiums. Meanwhile basic public services and infrastructure which poor and middle-income people depend on more, like public transit, have suffered.
This ideological offensive proceeds year after year despite the mounting evidence that these policies lead to more inequality. But, much like the anti-vaxxers who ignore evidence of the public good and necessity of vaccinations, anti-taxxers are not interested in evidence or in the collective well-being of society. Funded by the well-heeled and well connected, anti-taxxers like the right-wing Fraser Institute have been so successful that even many traditional political forces of the left have adapted or caved in. For instance, when the B.C. Liberals brought in a very modest carbon tax, the B.C. NDP responded with the short-sighted and cynical decision to campaign in the 2009 election on a promise to ‘Axe the Gas Tax.’
In the current transit referendum, the anti-taxxers of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation are at the forefront of the ‘No’ campaign. The organization is not representative or democratic at all, and barely has any members. The CTF’s interest in the transit campaign is ideological, opposing taxation for opposing taxation’s sake.
Another reason the ‘Yes’ campaign has struggled is Translink’s richly deserved bad reputation. This points us to a fundamental flaw in this whole debate. To really understand Vancouver’s transit referendum you have to look to Victoria. It was the B.C. Liberal government, after all, that altered Translink’s governance structure back in 2007–2008, bringing in a board who were more amenable to corporate interests and who promptly gave themselves a huge raise. They also refused to hold public meetings. Translink’s dismal reputation is hurting the ‘Yes’ campaign, allowing anti-taxxers to imply that the new transit monies raised will be mismanaged by the corrupt, overpaid suits.
B.C. Premier Christy Clark has stayed conspicuously out of the fray of the transit referendum.
But the referendum is, in reality, the result of the provincial government’s abrogation ofits basic responsibilities. Why is the question of funding transit even going to a referendum? And why is the only proposal to raise the PST? There is no reason the provincial government couldn’t have helped municipalities fund necessary transit expenditures out of general revenue (they just finished boasting about a nearly billion dollar surplus), or through rollbacks of previous tax cuts for corporations and the richest British Columbians.
By devolving responsibility to the mayors of Metro Vancouver, Clark and the B.C. Liberals have managed to create a transit referendum where it’s heads they win, tails we lose. They’ve kept the whole thing absurdly vague. In fact, no one really knows what a ‘No’ vote actually means. It’s really a plebiscite, since it’s non-binding. If the ‘No’ side wins, the Liberals’ preferred right-wing, anti-taxation frame is reinforced and Clark can wash her hands of complaints about congestion and inadequate transit. If the ‘Yes’ side wins, Clark can interpret that as an endorsement of any and all infrastructure projects she’s planning anyway, many of which are about making room for more cars, not improving public transit, like her plan to replace the Massey Tunnel connecting Richmond and Delta with a huge new bridge.
Yes, Metro Vancouver needs better transit. But we also need a much better and thoroughgoing debate.
Transit needs to be accessible to all. If we are at all serious about addressing the emergency of climate change, we should be moving toward free public transit and a massive expansion of buses, light rail and bike lanes. This transit referendum is badly flawed, and it should not be the last word on these matters.
You need to separate out the governance of Translink – which is a disgrace – with its operational management, which is one of the best in North America. The CTF’s campaign has missed some of the better opportunities to criticise transportation waste in the region. The Golden Ears Bridge (Translink) and the Port Mann Bridge (Province of BC) were both supposed to pay for themselves through tolls – and both are financial basket cases, with taxpayers propping up private sector companies who got their traffic forecasts wrong. Similarly, reorganising HandyDART so that it is now run by a private sector US based corporation has increased costs and reduced service – hitting hard at the mobility of some of the most disadvantaged people in the region. Jordan Bateman prefers to talk about the Main St Poodle – as though public art was not a feature of nearly every transit system – and the CEO’s pay cheque – even though halving the entire administration budget would do little to meet the needs of the expansion essential to coping with 1m more people coming to the region. The slogan “you can’t trust Translink” is meaningless. You can’t just shut it down to save money while you think about what to do next!
“You need to separate out the governance of Translink – which is a
disgrace – with its operational management, which is one of the best in
North America.” Well said!
I find myself at odds with practically everyone I know on whether to vote YES or NO. I’ve listened respectfully to all the arguments in favour of a YES vote and yet I can’t shake off the disquiet I feel about voting YES. I want to vote NO but not for the same reasons that the mainstream NO Campaign is giving. O’Keefe’s article is the first I’ve seen from a left perspective that aligns with a major portion of my thinking that renders me unable to accept a YES vote.
1) I believe that the transit issue in this vote is simply a screen erected by the cynical Christy Clarke government to blind us to the true motives for this plebiscite: increasing a regressive tax, i.e. habituating the citizenry to the acceptance of neoliberalism-inspired measures. These measures accelerate the pauperization of the global majority as well as being bad news for planetary ecosystems. By enhancing the phenomena of neoliberal theory taking on the guise of “common sense,” allowing the Clarke government to sneak in an increase in regressive taxation simply increases the difficulty of addressing the climate change problem adequately. I don’t want to vote for what seems like a sensible way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions—public transit—by voting to strengthen the neoliberal agenda (i.e. increasing regressive taxation) which is what the YES vote is for.
David Suzuki’s promo picture for supporting the YES vote states simply “VOTE Yes for better transit & transportation” featured on the Facebook page “Vote YES for better transit Community.” Many friends and acquaintances have “liked” this page which fails to mention the increased PST. Too many people who want better transit are ignoring what I’m arguing is the real agenda here.
It seems to me that ruling class requires these transit improvements to ensure the economic climate they need to maximize profits whatever we vote for. The ruling class also knows that the electorate will be very supportive and appreciative of these changes. So these campaigns talk only of transit improvements while ignoring the real agenda: To make increases in regressive taxation seem like “common sense.” As “user pay” and “sales taxes” have increasingly become the “common sense” solutions in the minds of so many while the corporations pay less taxes and the rich don’t pay tax on their capital gains. A YES VOTE provides a precedent to increase the regressive sales taxes every time something socially desirable needs to be built, like schools, hospitals, parks, etc.
2.1) I suggest voting “No” while we engage in a strong campaign showing why a free, convenient and comfortable Transit System, paid for out of general revenues, will produce enormous economic savings by reduced spending on (a) transit police, (b) road and bridge construction, and (c) health care expenditure resulting from the reduction in pollution and accident injuries as more people shift from private cars to public transit.
2.1) Concomitantly, we should be calling for a return to progressive taxation and a return to the practice of the rich paying taxes on all of their earnings.
I support “VOTE NO” as part of a massive and focussed campaign that promotes the consciousness of why a FREE TRANSIT is vital in addressing the threats of climate change as well as improving the quality of our lives in general. Supporting “VOTE YES” because these transit improvements are vitally necessary means we forgo the opportunity to expose the cynical nature of the neoliberal agenda that has effectively numbed the perceptions of so many of us to the reality of class war disguised as “common sense” solutions while really serving to increase unbridled class power of the super rich.
3) Once upon a time, the ruling class gave us welfare, public healthcare, and public education etc. because they were concerned that we would support communism. Now with greatly enhanced class power that results from the success of the neoliberal economic and social changes since 1973, they believe they are in a position to control us and eliminate any threats we pose if we make any significant attempt to change the system. Consider what the Harperites are doing right now to control dissidents with Bill 51. Think of G20 in Toronto a few years ago. How can we allow them to get away with fooling us into giving them a victory in the class struggle by supporting an increase in regressive taxation and thus habituating the population/electorate to regressive measures every time they have to provide something that we all need.
Let us vote NO while making it abundantly clear that we are quite distinct from those members of the ruling class who are promoting a NO VOTE.
4) There are many issues around ensuring a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions like enlightened urban planning that reduces the need to travel or reduces the distance travelled to meet our daily needs while promoting community cohesion. The provision of public transit is but one spoke of the wheel.
We need to use this plebiscite as well as the forthcoming federal election to present the big picture, the context, of the transportation issue. A holistic solution to global warming is the only one that makes sense and neoliberalism is a brake on the type of changes that need to be decided on democratically by an informed citizenry. This is an opportunity to promote the idea that an informed citizenry deciding democratically on the way society is to be organized makes very good sense in trying to save our planet from the consequences of the destructive economic practices of the past 200 years. Neoliberalism has undermined democracy by giving more power to global corporations and the super rich. Increasing a regressive tax while reducing the taxes that the rich pay gives more power to the über-class—and that is not a smart move in terms of ensuring our planet is able to nurture life as we know it.
5) Finally, all solutions have to take into account the Jevons Paradox because as long as capitalism is unchecked, market forces will ensure that efficiencies will always be rendered useless as they allow an increase in consumption. Capitalism cannot be healthy if the economy is not continually expanding. This quintessentially-defining characteristic of capitalism is what drives the Jevons effect.
However, continuous economic expansion is bad for the planet in terms of climate change, pollution, and the consequent breakdown of the ecological integrity of the natural systems that make life possible on our planet. We cannot solve any of these monumental problems unless we can make democratic, informed decisions about how to order our lives in a solid state economy that meets the material, emotional and spiritual needs of everyone. That is to say we have to escape from the class tyranny that the neoliberal agenda has been fashioning in placing all the power in the global economy in the hands of an international elite who answer to no-one eliminating the power of the working class that we last saw in the late 60s and early 70s.
Conclusion:
Neoliberalism is a game-changer that we have ignored for too long. It is not an economic theory, but rather an ideology masquerading as science. In fact, it is nothing more than an ethical system where the arbiter of right and wrong is simply the bottom line. If it’s good for the bottom line, its good; if its bad for the bottom line, its bad. That is why it is dangerous and why we cannot strengthen it by imagining that we are voting for better transit.
thelasource:
Please delete my comment above as I was intending it as a response to Derrick O’Keefe’s article and not as a response to Stephen Rees’ comment. I have reentered this response under the main article where I really intended it..
I find myself at odds with practically everyone I know on whether to vote YES or NO. I’ve listened respectfully to all the arguments in favour of a YES vote and yet I can’t shake off the disquiet I feel about voting YES. I want to vote NO but not for the same reasons that the mainstream NO Campaign is giving. O’Keefe’s article is the first I’ve seen from a left perspective that aligns with a major portion of my thinking that renders me unable to accept a YES vote.
1) I believe that the transit issue in this vote is simply a screen erected by the cynical Christy Clarke government to blind us to the true motives for this plebiscite: increasing a regressive tax, i.e. habituating the citizenry to the acceptance of neoliberalism-inspired measures. These measures accelerate the pauperization of the global majority as well as being bad news for planetary ecosystems. By enhancing the phenomena of neoliberal theory taking on the guise of “common sense,” allowing the Clarke government to sneak in an increase in regressive taxation simply increases the difficulty of addressing the climate change problem adequately. I don’t want to vote for what seems like a sensible way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions—public transit—by voting to strengthen the neoliberal agenda (i.e. increasing regressive taxation) which is what the YES vote is for.
David Suzuki’s promo picture for supporting the YES vote states simply “VOTE Yes for better transit & transportation” featured on the Facebook page “Vote YES for better transit Community.” Many friends and acquaintances have “liked” this page which fails to mention the increased PST. Too many people who want better transit are ignoring what I’m arguing is the real agenda here.
It seems to me that ruling class requires these transit improvements to ensure the economic climate they need to maximize profits whatever we vote for. The ruling class also knows that the electorate will be very supportive and appreciative of these changes. So these campaigns talk only of transit improvements while ignoring the real agenda: To make increases in regressive taxation seem like “common sense.” As “user pay” and “sales taxes” have increasingly become the “common sense” solutions in the minds of so many while the corporations pay less taxes and the rich don’t pay tax on their capital gains. A YES VOTE provides a precedent to increase the regressive sales taxes every time something socially desirable needs to be built, like schools, hospitals, parks, etc.
2.1) I suggest voting “No” while we engage in a strong campaign showing why a free, convenient and comfortable Transit System, paid for out of general revenues, will produce enormous economic savings by reduced spending on (a) transit police, (b) road and bridge construction, and (c) health care expenditure resulting from the reduction in pollution and accident injuries as more people shift from private cars to public transit.
2.1) Concomitantly, we should be calling for a return to progressive taxation and a return to the practice of the rich paying taxes on all of their earnings.
I support “VOTE NO” as part of a massive and focussed campaign that promotes the consciousness of why a FREE TRANSIT is vital in addressing the threats of climate change as well as improving the quality of our lives in general. Supporting “VOTE YES” because these transit improvements are vitally necessary means we forgo the opportunity to expose the cynical nature of the neoliberal agenda that has effectively numbed the perceptions of so many of us to the reality of class war disguised as “common sense” solutions while really serving to increase unbridled class power of the super rich.
3) Once upon a time, the ruling class gave us welfare, public healthcare, and public education etc. because they were concerned that we would support communism. Now with greatly enhanced class power that results from the success of the neoliberal economic and social changes since 1973, they believe they are in a position to control us and eliminate any threats we pose if we make any significant attempt to change the system. Consider what the Harperites are doing right now to control dissidents with Bill 51. Think of G20 in Toronto a few years ago. How can we allow them to get away with fooling us into giving them a victory in the class struggle by supporting an increase in regressive taxation and thus habituating the population/electorate to regressive measures every time they have to provide something that we all need.
Let us vote NO while making it abundantly clear that we are quite distinct from those members of the ruling class who are promoting a NO VOTE.
4) There are many issues around ensuring a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions like enlightened urban planning that reduces the need to travel or reduces the distance travelled to meet our daily needs while promoting community cohesion. The provision of public transit is but one spoke of the wheel.
We need to use this plebiscite as well as the forthcoming federal election to present the big picture, the context, of the transportation issue. A holistic solution to global warming is the only one that makes sense and neoliberalism is a brake on the type of changes that need to be decided on democratically by an informed citizenry. This is an opportunity to promote the idea that an informed citizenry deciding democratically on the way society is to be organized makes very good sense in trying to save our planet from the consequences of the destructive economic practices of the past 200 years. Neoliberalism has undermined democracy by giving more power to global corporations and the super rich. Increasing a regressive tax while reducing the taxes that the rich pay gives more power to the über-class—and that is not a smart move in terms of ensuring our planet is able to nurture life as we know it.
5) Finally, all solutions have to take into account the Jevons Paradox because as long as capitalism is unchecked, market forces will ensure that efficiencies will always be rendered useless as they allow an increase in consumption. Capitalism cannot be healthy if the economy is not continually expanding. This quintessentially-defining characteristic of capitalism is what drives the Jevons effect.
However, continuous economic expansion is bad for the planet in terms of climate change, pollution, and the consequent breakdown of the ecological integrity of the natural systems that make life possible on our planet. We cannot solve any of these monumental problems unless we can make democratic, informed decisions about how to order our lives in a solid state economy that meets the material, emotional and spiritual needs of everyone. That is to say we have to escape from the class tyranny that the neoliberal agenda has been fashioning in placing all the power in the global economy in the hands of an international elite who answer to no-one eliminating the power of the working class that we last saw in the late 60s and early 70s.
Conclusion:
Neoliberalism is a game-changer that we have ignored for too long. It is not an economic theory, but rather an ideology masquerading as science. In fact, it is nothing more than an ethical system where the arbiter of right and wrong is simply the bottom line. If it’s good for the bottom line, its good; if its bad for the bottom line, its bad. That is why it is dangerous and why we cannot strengthen it by imagining that we are voting for better transit.
Pingback: TEA & TWO SLICES | On Canada's Tea Party And Being Deathly Afraid Of Sony Walkmans | Scout Magazine
Excellent piece. Hard to understand how the naysayers and Clark, (I know what she says publicly), can be doing what they are doing with a straight face. We can look forward to one helluva mess if ‘they’ win.
Seems like everything in this country now is seriously ‘us’ and ‘them.’
Please consider reading and signing this petition about the referendum, regardless of how you choose (or have chosen) to vote. This referendum is a precedent in governance we can’t afford to set if we want affordable living.
http://you.leadnow.ca/petitions/disapprove-the-politically-motivated-metro-vancouver-transit-referendum-regardless-of-how-you-vote