6 replies »

  1. I think that the BC government, TransLink and our regional politico's (not including Derek Corrigan and a few others) are completely out of touch with the electorate.

    Civic politicians have treated their little domains as fiefdoms and now with four year tenures, they are beginning to treat those living in the fiefdoms as serfs, nobody's, to pay more taxes and then shut up about it.

    Think not and I smell pitchfork time with this vote, as TransLink is being shown for what it is, a vile cesspool of highly paid, incestuous consultants, political hanger-on's, a grossly incompetent CEO and transit board member and arrogant and slow-witted bureaucrats, who need seven figured consultants to spin the truth.

    Yet the mayor's council have turned a blind eye to this possibly criminal organization and continue to bang the drum for a $0.5% tax hike for a wish list of transit projects that will have a nebulous impact on transit in the region.

    More and more the YES side of this debate seem to have a financial interest as if the plebiscite passes, billions will be spent on consultants, engineering firms (SNC for sure) the cement manufacturers, the trucking industry, and Bombardier Inc. which will supply cars from their near extinct ART/SkyTrain production line. A YES vote will ensure massive profits for land developers, who are already assembling properties along Broadway in anticipation of a $3 billion Broadway subway (and who also happen to be big supporters of Vancouver Mayor Moonbeam). The transit unions will also see a massive increase in membership, to operate questionable bus services on questionable routes.

    TransLink is the epitome of the “Land of the Lotus Eaters”, which overflowing bureaucrats live in an ennui of 6 figure salaries and ever compliant rube 9oops I mean taxpayers) who put up with this nonsense.

    The YES has disturbed me greatly as they are so insecure that they have quashed free speech to such an extent that they have resorted to censorship and having closed town hall meetings where only the selected can attend.

    The NDP should be embarrassed by all this, but no, the YES side has infiltrated the NDP to such an extent, that it seems Geoff Meggs is the premier and Horgan is the monkey. Where the public sorely needed an official opposition, we get the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the YES side telling us to vote YES; “because it is good for you” and “trust us”. Sorry no.

    I am voting NO because this transit plan will not reduce congestion, nor will it reduce pollution, but it will enrich thousands of people with scarce transit tax dollars, who will use highly paid spin doctors to spin the truth that the transit plan will work, even when it isn't.

    Voting No has never been made so easy, by the likes of Greg Moore, Greggor Robinson, the Suzuki Foundation, TransLink, and a host of U-Pass cheap fare card holding teenage bloggers who are very good at manipulating figures but have not yet begun to manipulate history (though they are trying) to try to make 2+2 =5.


  2. If the population grows at 7% per year, it will double in 10 years.
    Growth at 10% per year, the population will double in 7 years.
    Growth at 15% per year, the population will double in 5 years.


  3. I think people on the no side are just jealous that they're not getting a share of the millions that Translink spreads around the community. Can't you at least give them credit for treating their friends well? TransLink is doing that with efficiency. It's a form of wealth redistribution.


  4. If TransLink gains $250 million in the first year from a new sales tax, that represents $258 from each of the nearly one million households in Metro Vancouver. Dr. Carsley's math suggests an impact of 35 cents a day, or $127 a year.

    If he is correct, then the extra sales tax must immediately rise to 1% if $250 million is to be gained.

    Some of the sales tax impact will fall directly, like when we buy clothing, a tool, an appliance, a computer, or tires. Some will fall indirectly, when the merchants charge more for goods and services to cover their increased costs. Economists have long known that increased costs put upward pressure on prices, particularly if those costs are shared equally by all suppliers. (The reverse is not necessarily true since, in the words of my first economics professor, “Prices have tendency to move upwards easily, but are sticky downwards.”


Leave a reply but be on topic and civil.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s