Vancouver Ecosocialists discussion on Vancouver transit plebiscite

07/05/15

Vancouver Ecosocialists discussion on Vancouver transit plebiscite

Introduction:

Below is the text of an email exchange among some members of the Vancouver Ecosocialist Group between February and April 2015 regarding the Metro Vancouver transit plebiscite.

As was the case among socialists and other progressive activists more broadly, opinion within the VESG on what approach to take on this issue was divided. When it became apparent no position with large majority support would be reached, the VESG decided to share the debate in the hope that others might find it useful and to promote clarity through broader discussion.

The contributions appear in reverse order of posting. They usually respond to the message that is next on the page but sometimes to one further below. It should be borne in mind they were written as part of an informal, internal discussion. Rather than this exchange being edited it simply compiles the text of the messages posted on this topic.

Roger:

I don't agree with Bill that capitalist reason and Skytrain technology has led to less sprawl in the Lower Mainland. The region has received exactly the right balance of sprawl as conceived and implemented by the capitalists. There is a geographic as well as aesthetic limit to the sprawl that is possible. The capitalists have pushed this to the limit, and beyond, even. Think of the ghastly paving over of important sections of the ALR in Delta, Surrey, Langley and other locations, and the vastly expanded road and bridge networks that has been built at a cost of billions to accommodate the sprawl.

In the case of Skytrain, the strategy to build it, as we are seeing played out at UBC for example, is to build the sprawl and then reach into the public purse and transit riders pockets to pay for the transit to serve the sprawl. The capitalists would never approach the matter by announcing, "We want to spend billions on a Skyrain line so we can extend urban sprawl into Coquitlam, the Fraser Valley and the UBC Endowment Lands". Instead, they build the sprawl and then appeal to the public: "Oh my God, too many cars on the roads. We need to spend billions on Skytrain." It's brilliant. They do so in the name of "densification" and "creating a livable region". Ha, ha, this could be a script on the John Stewart Show.

The sprawl has proceeded beautifully and seamlessly. Region planners win international accolades for their adeptness in facilitating capitalist expansionism, winning for Vancouver a totally undeserved image and reputation as a 'green' city. It's a brilliant display of green capitalist marketing and stealth planning. Then to cap it all off, they rush people to the polling booths to inadvertently endorse it all through a feeble transit referendum. Again, brilliant.

'Less sprawl' thanks to transit is, frankly, a totally unconvincing argument in favour of the 'more of the same' plebiscite. It reminds me of the arguments that the election of Barack Obama in 2008 would lead to less war, less violence against Blacks and less of all kinds of other social evils. Smoke and mirrors. For us to appear to endorse all of this by a lame endorsement of the referendum is not very ecosocialist.

Bill:

Yes, transit generally concentrates land use, and roads and bridges generally promote sprawl. The former was advanced by the GVRD's (now Metro Vancouver) Livable Region Plan. That approach was then largely overturned by the Liberal's Gateway Program. Little wonder that the biggest campaign contributor to Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon was the Auto Dealers of BC.

The effort to guide development with transit and associated planning regulations is a hopelessly inadequate reform to the 'naturally' sprawling process of capitalist metropolitanism. But Roger discounts how this reform has resulted in less sprawl than would otherwise have occurred. The Lower Mainland is less sprawled due to SkyTrain-facilitatated nodes and corridors, and less sprawled than comparative metros lacking equivalent transit infastructure. Sprawl is not the only bad, and the concentration is done badly. But I don't think ecosocialists should be indifferent to less sprawl, to less bad.

If recognizing that transit means less sprawl than would otherwise be the case turns into an acceptance of and acquiescence to the overall process of capitalist urbanization then Roger is exactly right. This danger exists for all reform movements, notably when they are too weak to prevent cooptatation of the reforms by capital. It is possible that I have sipped too much of the reformist coolaid served up by the urban planning professionals. And Lawrence may be right on the weight of the regressive taxation issue, and Alicia that "Yes" on a plebiscite means political support for capitalist politics.

But think of other, more familiar examples of the dialectic that Roger cites. Do we oppose a higher minimum wage because wages never meet needs and are spent on consumerist shlock? Lower emissions standards for cars, because private cars should be eliminated? More schools because the bourgeois education system is designed to indoctrinate youth? Better health care because of rampant profiteering by health capitalists? No, we demand more, to be more universal, more democratic, more integrated with other social questions, less commodified, and to not accept too little when our movement is in a position to win more. In doing so we are guided by our own interests and not the current posturing of capitalists.

Bracketing out Lawrence's focus on regressive taxation, I don't think this transit issue is very different. Transit is generally good for both red and green reasons, and under capitalism, socialism and the semi-barbaric transition that will probably prevail in between. The mass movement that will progressively reinforce this redgreen nature of transit and oppose its cooptation by capital is embryonic. But it will only develop by struggling for modest improvements like in this "relatively innocuous" plan. I agree that a 'Yes' result would yield little more than "more of the same", i.e., less bad. But in order to build support for more ambitious measures we need to be part of this embryonic movement, flying our red-green flag and learning how to turn the struggle for reform measures into transitional demands.

Lawrence:

We are running out of time to get rid of capitalism. We can't wait for capitalism to implode as it inevitably will over the next 30 to 50 years in my opinion. If my understanding is accurate, another 30 years of global capitalist plutocracy, irrespective of what happens with transit, will produce such powerful feedback mechanisms operating at the planetary level that all the subsequent socialist governments will be able to do is find ways of making the most out of a totally disastrous climate situation and the material and social consequences this will entail. We have a very serious problem, if we want to avoid warming in excess of anything that has happened for the past million years, of finding a way to rid the world of capitalism within the next decade. Even another ten years of capitalism might shot us way past the tipping points that will make mitigation impossible.

Adaptation will be all that is left for us to attend to after that. So we really do have a massive problem of trying to overthrow the most powerful oligarchy the world has ever seen and we don't have the usual historical time to do this. The situation could not be more serious. Sectarian battles are no longer affordable. We have to find a way of bringing our combined minds to focus on getting rid of capitalism ASAP.

Solidarity can no longer be a thoughtless slogan tossed about lightly. The planet can only be saved by the democratic efforts of humanity to take back the planet (take back the commons) from the ruling class in the next few years. I cannot see any alternative.

Roger:

Bill writes, "the only way to not pave all the farmland in the Lower Mainland is to concentrate homes, services and jobs in *regional-scale* 'nodes' and the transit corridors that connect them". But this is precisely where public transit planning has taken us for the past several decades--building a large number of 'regional nodes' (Metrotown, Brentwood, Surrey Central, #3 Road in Richmond, now Oakridge and Marine Drive, Tswassen (!), etc. while simultaneously leaving open the floodgates of urban sprawl and paving of farmland. It's called capitalism.

The failure to see the dialectical interconnection in this capitalist complex is the undoing of the progressive, such as it is, argument for the 'yes'. 'Yes' will mean 'yes to more of the same'. That's why all the big capitalists of the region are saying 'yes'. As to the provincial and federal governments, their interest and priority is road and bridge building. The outcome of the referendum matters little to them. Its 'Pacific Gateway' overall plan for Vancouver region, conceived by successive Liberal and Conservative governments, will proceed with or without the relatively innocuous outcome of the referendum. And of course, they reserve the right to decide that a 'yes' outcome in the referendum means 'no' to more transit projects.

_________________________________________________________________

Larry:

I’ve been following most of the back-and-forth regarding the position that the Ecosocialists should take on the plebiscite. I’m impressed with how both sides have respectfully maintained a complicated debate.

I’d like to substantially agree with what Bill just wrote. The vote is not on capitalism per se. It is about an option within the capitalist framework and therefore is fraught with many contradictions for socialists.

However, I’d like to add a few things that I haven’t seen in the debate so far. They are quite practical things that have been generated through my discussions at work:

For most folk who take public transit, without an improvement in service, there’s likely to be more time in line-ups, more standing in buses or skytrains, getting home later, etc. The work day is significantly lengthened and made worse by the amount of time in transit. Most people who take public transit are going to consider these issues first in making up their minds.

With very few exceptions (and to the best of my knowledge) the people who drive to work are against it while the people who take transit are for it.

The conversations I’ve had indicate that, to have an effect, it is important to take up the various constituents of the issue rather than simply having a position. In short, it’s much more important for people to understand that the plebiscite has a very narrow context, that a more democratic process would broaden the issues and that both “sides” are not advocating a real debate.

Roger:

In my view, VESG should write its own statement on the referendum. Then, only then, should it load up our website with others' views. If we can't write a statement, then let's just join the rest of the citizen spectators to this referendum process.

Alicia's statement is difficult to read. And I don't think our website should appear to endorse her credentials to speak on the issue by publishing her statement. I have many, many issues with her past efforts to join the NDP crew in the provincial legislature.

______________________________________________________

Kathryn:

Well said Bill.

CJ:

bill.....very well said!!!!

Bill:

Yes, we should post it. Like Derrick's and Lawrence's contributions it voices opposition to capitalist rule.

I don't agree with the conclusion about how to vote, though that is a secondary, tactical question about how to best advance a mass movement for socially- and ecologically-sustainable cities, which is a discussion we need.

I see no evidence for why a plebiscite "Yes" is a vote of confidence in the Liberals and Vision. I think the at best-muted support for more transit expressed in this statement reveals that Sister Alecia interprets the issue of confidence within the wrong framework. But if I am wrong on this politically-central issue, someone please point out why. Tell me how Sister Alicia is right in imagining that a "No" note will be a step towards turfing them out of office, because I anticipate the opposite.

The other axis of opposition in Sister Alicia's statement is the Broadway Skytrain. This is the wrong basis for a position on this plebiscite. First, as the Stefan Kipfer article in the Socialist Project pamphlet suggests, we should avoid taking sides on the basis of this or that transit mode, e.g., bus vs. LRT vs. 'Skytrain'. We should instead focus on the big picture of winning better transit overall.

Second, Alicia's position ignores the cardinal issue about transit in the Lower Mainland. Like Prof. Patrick Condon, her idea of transit is about servicing neighbourhood-scale 'nodes' *within* Vancouver. It ignores the social and ecological need for regional-scale transit. Working class immigrants and their kids in the suburbs need to travel to VGH and UBC for work and school and services, and the only way to not pave all the farmland in the Lower Mainland is to concentrate homes, services and jobs in *regional-scale* 'nodes' and the transit corridors that connect them.

Third, Alicia's focus on Skytrain ignores other transit offerings, notably LRT in Surrey and Langley, and 25% more bus service, including essential night buses and HandiDart. The Skytrain tail is wagging her transit dog!

[We should, of course, be skeptical of the promises on bus service, etc. And Alicia could have added to the complaints about what the plebiscite that there is no assurance of the provincial and and federal share to fund the Mayor's Plan, and we should note they did not commit themselves to the mode for either Broadway or Surrey. BTW, I found this account of some of the details of financing, etc. in the 'Mayor's Plan' useful: http://www.mariaharris.ca/Plebiscite_FAQs.shtml ]

The final issue connected to Skytrain is that, while Alicia is completely right to link transit and patterns of land use, she is wrong to equate Skytrain (modal technology) and highrises (building technology). Skytrain does facilitate this pattern of development, as do all high-capacity modes of transportation. And yes, low-rise 'densification' is preferable to concrete and glass towers (though they also have their place), and must be linked to affordable housing and neighbourhood amenities, etc. But the central problem here is not Skytrain instead of LRT, etc., it is capitalist urbanization and planning that does not challenge capitalist profiteering. Cities can limit the height and style of buildings around transit stations. (And, given that Alicia advocates financing transit by developers it is somewhat ironic that this is easiest to do on the basis of high rise development and so that is exactly what they are doing.)

I don't think it is obvious whether Broadway transit should be LRT or Skytrain. Arguments can go both ways; in a plebiscite we should support either over neither. Ditto with LRT in Surrey. I have personally been more impressed with the technical studies that favour Skytrain over the exited blather from the cabal of LRT enthusiasts.

Ecosocialists should NOT identify with Alicia's complaint about not being asked whether we want another million people to join us in the Lower Mainland by 2040. It will be a miracle is there are not more capitalist-crisis and climate refugees than this.

The best part of Alicia's statement is the call to take over the city and linking transit to other key issues of social justice and urban livability. We need to promote this discussion and contribute our ideas on these points. The plebiscite provided an opening to do this, but unfortunately we have not been able to take advantage of it because of our lack of agreement and clarity.

Our particular contribution should have been insisting on the radical, red-green perspective that has been almost totally absent from the discussion. However, I still think that in order to play that role we need to identify with rather than set ourselves apart from those who understand that better transit is better than worse transit, i.e., with the "Yes" side.

________________________________________________________________________

Gene:

For those who don't know Alicia, she is a long-time leftist both in Peru and here and a community activist. She was--11-12 years ago--a shoe-in for the NDP nomination in the provincial riding of Vancouver Kingsway, until the Adrian Dix machine literally bused in a whole bunch of new members, took over the nomination meeting, changed the rules of order, etc. and stole the nomination.

We've posted other views on the plebiscite on our website. This should go up too.

From: Alicia Barsallo

Subject: Vote NO and take back the city!

We are NOT being asked whether increasing public transit should mean more skytrain stations surrounded by mega developments, or whether it should mean light rail or street car transportation leading to small-node type development throughout the city.

We are NOT being asked whether densification should be conditioned to the necessary provision of social housing and amenities, nor are we being asked whether we want to have one million additional residents in the Lower Mainland by 2040.

We are NOT being asked whether we think the price of public transit fares is fair, nor who should be taxed to improve public transit.

This plebiscite is NOT consultation. It is a political move.

This take-it-or-leave-it proposition corners us into voting not only for a regressive tax to fund heavy transit and heavy development in some areas of the city. It also exacts political approval for the overall for-profit densification that is congesting and polluting our city.

Our provincial and city governments' pro-corporate agenda requires that transit be placed where it benefits corporate interests the most and this will happen with or without our approval. The big gain they are poised to make through this plebiscite is to pressure us into legitimizing with a YES vote what these governments have done so far and what they will continue to do to further the interests of their powerful financial backers.

A YES vote, given the current context and the mighty propaganda machine, will be interpreted as a vote of confidence in the provincial and city governments, the very politicians who are pledging all our resources, our environment, and the natural beauty of our city to densification for profit.

And that vote of confidence cannot be given.

The provincial and municipal governments could be implementing the type of densification that depends on meaningful neighbourhood consultation. They could be getting the wealthy developer and construction corporations to pay for more transit and for more amenities so that the erection of each monster building does not mean many fewer spaces at community facilities and more congestion on our streets. But they are not doing this.

They could be implementing the type of densification that does not treat financially-needy citizens as chattel that can be sent packing every time a builder gets the go-ahead. But they are not doing this.

These governments could have restructured TRANSLINK to make it more accountable to city residents. But they haven't done this.

Instead, they have continued with the token consultation the NPA used to do and have disrespected our neighbourhoods. They have continued to put the tax burden on ordinary citizens and given wealthy corporations a sweet ride. They have shown us just how expensive they can make public transit for the very people who need it the most.

They cannot be trusted to look after the interests of ordinary residents.

Mayor Robertson says: “The alternative [to the YES non-binding vote] is crippling traffic congestion, more air pollution, cuts to transit and lost economic opportunity. The future of our region’s economy and environment is at stake.”

WRONG. The alternative is community-oriented development which spreads the wealth, improves the lot of those of us who have less, and does not lower our standard of living. The alternative is progressive taxation and more and better and affordable public transit designed to meet the needs of all residents.

Let's vote NO and then turf them out of office.

Let's turf out the BC Liberals famous for their cuts to health care, public education and social services; for putting profit before the environment; and for their enormous handouts to the corporate wealthy.

Let's turf out Vision Vancouver and the other municipal parties and any and all elected officials who endorse the corporate agenda of densification for profit.

__________________________________________________________________________

Lawrence:

I agree with what Roger is saying here and the points he raises should be of dire concern to us and I agree particularly with his call for a broadening of the focus of this ecosocialist group.

However, on a minor point, I am not sure that Roger is correct. I think Broadway between Commercial and Arbutus is high enough to be safe from the projected sea level rise so the promised underground should be safe. However further west between MacDonald and Alma Broadway dips down into an old marshland that stretches from Jericho Beach to roughly around Prince of Wales School and Quilcena Park. (I wonder if this is why they plan to take the underground only as far as Arbutus.) Anyway, that still leaves a big chunk of Kitsilano and the low area stretching as far as 32nd threatened by rising sea levels. To this must be added all the residential areas around False creek and that part of town between False Creek and Crab Park (including the Chinese Cultural Centre) plus Gastown and threatened by rising sea levels. That is all in addition to the actual strip of coastline all around Vancouver that is not abutted by cliffs. There are a lot of Condos going up along the Southernmost part of Vancouver adjacent to the Fraser River bank that will also be flooded by rising sea levels. So all in all Vancouver is going to be significantly impacted.

Back to the "transit vote": As I've pointed out frequently, the increase in PST for transit is likely to set the precedent for an increase in PST to deal with the seismic upgrades in schools. That will in turn make it easier to increase PST to fund dyke building projects when these become essential and all that will really be happening is that the government will be protecting the rich while the working class pays every penny that can be squeezed out of them in order to pay for any services they working class needs for minimal survival.

On a more serious note, however, it's not just about where this city and country are headed, it's about where the whole world is headed. It is also not just about the effects of capitalism on climate change. James Hansen Identified eight other “planetary boundaries” besides climate change, namely, (1) ocean acidification, (2) stratospheric ozone depletion, (3) the nitrogen and the phosphorous cycles, (4) global fresh water use, (5) change in land use, (6) biodiversity loss, (7) atmospheric aerosol loading, and (8) chemical pollution. Climate change and the first two in this list are already reaching tipping points beyond which they become impossible to control. All the others except the last two are heading towards tipping points in the not too distant future and the last two are impossible to judge with our present knowledge. The fact that this alarming situation does not figure in the world of our governments, hell-bent on growing the economy and maximizing profits while bragging that we are “open for business,” can only be described as insanity. As ecosocialists we have to be playing a role in bringing all of this to the public debate as Roger points out. Our big problem is that another of the negative effects of capitalism is what Michael Löwy described as “mental pollution.”

“As capitalism, especially in its current neoliberal and globalized form, seeks to commodify the world, to transform everything existing—earth, water, air, living creatures, the human body, human relationships, love, religion—into commodities, so advertising aims to sell those commodities by forcing living individuals to serve the commercial necessities of capital. Both capitalism as a whole and advertising as a key mechanism of its rule involve fetishization of consumption, the reduction of all values to cash, the unlimited accumulation of goods and of capital, and the mercantile culture of the “consumer society.” The sorts of rationality involved in the advertising system and the capitalist system are intimately linked, and both are intrinsically perverse.

“Advertising pollutes the mental, just like the urban and rural, landscape; it stuffs the skull like it stuffs the mailbox. It holds sway over press, cinema, television, radio. Nothing escapes its decomposing influence: in our time we see that sports, religion, culture, journalism, literature, and politics are ruled by advertising. All are pervaded by advertising’s attitude, its style, its methods, its mode of argument. Meanwhile, we are always and uninterruptedly harassed by advertising: without stop, without truce, unrelentingly and never taking a vacation, advertising persecutes us, pursues us, attacks us in city and countryside, in the street and at home, from morning to evening, from Monday to Sunday, from January to December, from the cradle to the grave.” (Monthly Review Vol. 61 No. 8, Jan 2010. p.21.)

Löwy also warns, after observing that capitalism without advertising “would be like a machine with sand in its gears”: “Let us add, in passing, that while advertising did not exist in the countries whose bureaucratically planned economies vanished after the Berlin Wall fell, there was a mendacious political propaganda that was no less inhuman and repressive. That too must be avoided in any transition to a post-capitalist society.” (Monthly Review Vol. 61 No. 8, Jan 2010. p.22.)

So the power of capitalist propaganda fueled by the wealth they steal from the working class makes our task formidable and yet we have to deal with this because very few people are looking at the whole picture. Critical thinking is useless if it is confined within a myopic perspective. We need each other to help improve the quality of our understanding of the "big picture” in all of its challenging complexity and then we have to find the language to make things clear to as many as we can in spite of the damaging effects of advertising and the propaganda of corporate media that drowns us in ignorance.

___________________________________________________________________________

Roger:

The headline in today's Vancouver Sun reminds us of the real transportation plan for Vancouver region. Transit is decidedly the poor cousin at the table. The Sun article reports on an update report of the provincail government's overall plan for transportation, called 'BC On The Move'. It provides for billions of dollars for more highways and bridges.

How about transit in the plan? An accompanying column by Vaughn Palmer explains:

Other commitments were hedged. The plan repeated the provincial commitment to “fund one-third of the cost of new rapid transit projects and the Patullo Bridge.” But with this caveat: “Provided they can be accommodated within the provincial fiscal plan and the investments are supported by a business case.”

All very iffy, and meant to be so in light of the plebiscite on a regional sales tax to cover the local government third of transportation expansion.

Actually, Vaughn Palmer grossly understates the matter. The overall master plan for Vancouver region is the 'Asia and Pacific Gateway Corridor Initiative' of the federal and provincial governments. It is well on the road to completion and it brings an utter and irrevocable transformation of the Lower Mainland into a haven for the real estate and transportation industries. Vancouver is to become a hyper-capitalist center to serve real estate developers, the frenetic trade of resource and manufactured commodities in and out of the Port of Vancouver with its associated highways and railways, and assorted hangers-on, including the tourism and high-tech industries. So while Vancouver region residents are distracted with the smoke and mirrors of the transit crumbs on offer (maybe) by the region's mayors, the power brokers are on full-steam-ahead mode and feeling very comfortable.

While all the distraction of the transit referendum is taking place, is anyone asking what Vancouver region and the rest of Canada is doing to prepare for the coming climate emergency? Where will we get our food when the oil that brings it to our stores is no longer so available or relatively inexpensive? Or when the places like California that presently grow our food are no longer able to do so? Will there be any farmland left in

Vancouver by then? Maybe this is what Stephen Harper was getting at when he recently stated that its ok for people living in rural areas to get guns so they can shoot intruders. Was he speaking of starving masses from the inner cities foraging for food?

What is Canada doing to prepare for the influx of climate refugees as the world's coastlines are flooded? The flooding is already happening but the onslaught is yet to come. If we don't move on this soon, the new subway line to UBC might be flooded out by rising oceans before construction is completed. Ah well, the bored tunnels can at least serve as emergency shelters for climate refugees. Very costly shelters.

Speaking of imminently rising coastlines, how will Vancouver region pay the estimated $5 billion required to dike the Vancouver region in preparation for rising sea levels? Surely there is a limit to the billions and billions of dollars required for the transportation plan and then the emergency climate mitigation plans presently being ignored? Can those billions appear simply at the snap of a finger? Or will other expenditures have to give way...

Speaking of which, did anyone notice the recent decision of the provincial government to postpone for yet another decade the seismic upgrading of public schools? This decision is criminally negligent. Now the work will not be completed until 2030, or later if another postponement is decided--for example to divert funds to dike building, or maybe to assist with another unforeseen climate disaster in Calgary (flooding) or Toronto (loss of winter heating sources due to ice storms and snowfall).

The provincial government handled the seismic upgrading very well, very much in the spirit of the transit referendum. As pressure on the issue was building, the government announced two years ago that the seismic work would begin and be completed by 2020. Then as pressure and attention shifted, it slipped in the ten-year postponement earlier this month.

The transit referendum is a sideshow to the very big story of where this city and country are headed. The Vancouver Ecosocialists needs to reexamine its purpose if it cannot become a distinct voice on this public debate.

______________________________________________________________________

Roger:

The Globe and Mail reports today on a new study on energy policy prepared by Canadian academics. They make the not-believable claim that if Canada makes a complete switch to so-called renewable energy sources by 2035, it can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent. The claim is very dubious because it seems predicated on the idea that runaway capitalist expansion, be it of the 'fossil fuel' or 'renewable energy' variety, may continue unabated. And it seems their "80 per cent" target would be achieved by offshoring all the dirty, polluting manufacturing--of electric automobiles, for example--so that clean Canada can have its emission reductions. Anyway, the article reports the scientists as saying that transportation planning must go hand in hand with the need to reduce rising greenhouse gas emissions. That's a blindingly simple truth. From the Globe article:

In the report to be released on Wednesday, the academics call for an end to subsidies for the fossil fuel industry and better regional and municipal planning so that investments in energy and transportation infrastructure are consistent with the goal of curbing emissions.

“I think it reinforces the point that, broadly, we know what needs to be done,” said Mark Winfield, a professor of political science at York University who specializes in environmental policy and was an outside reviewer of the document. “We really need to move into implementation.”

The authors acknowledge Canada has been hindered by a political structure that divides responsibility for policies related to climate and energy between the federal government and the provinces. This has led to a “patchwork of policies” at the provincial level exacerbated by an absence of federal leadership on the issue, they say.

A related point, the academics say "we know what needs to be done" to reduce emissions. But that's a trick phrase. The ongoing paving over of the Fraser Valley and southern Ontario, not to speak on the behemoth in northern Alberta, show that the "we" in charge of the country might "know" what needs to be done, but they aren't going to do anything about it. That includes the mayors' council of metropolitan Vancouver. ____________________________________________________________________

Roger:

Two letters to the editor below.

The president of United Way is claiming that the referendum vote will result in "25% more transit service" in Vancouver region. I think he is referring to 10 or 15 years down the road, when the all the promised projects, notably Skytrain to UBC, will be completed. And it sounds like he is counting the already-approved and under-construction Evergreen Skytrain line.

Ten or 15 years from now, we should have a lot more nasty climate change consequences that will diminish whatever impact the transit changes will have. And of course, Mr. United Way did not mention that all the referendum promises are subject to the whims of the provincial and federal governments.

The fellow does not explain the consequences for frequency of non-Sky Train service caused by the steeply rising volume of auto traffic that all the highways and bridges now built or planned are creating.

………..

Transit democracy

Re Vote Yes (editorial, March 17): High housing costs mean lower-income families are moving away from Vancouver, which often results in longer commute times. Parents frequently have to work multiple jobs or shifts. Low-wage earners are heavy transit users: Some 32 per cent of their trips are by transit, double the regional average. With fewer transportation options, parents are spending less time with their children. The half per cent tax increase proposed in the Vancouver transit referendum would result in an overall 25 per cent increase in transit service, including an 80 per cent increase in night bus service.

Why is this important? Because when parents do better, their children do better. For seniors, there are many barriers to getting around. Transit is a lifeline.

Michael McKnight, president, United Way of the Lower Mainland

.........

People in Metro Vancouver will be voting on a transportation referendum. The proposed projects cover trains, road and bridges, bus, LRT, SeaBus and HandyDart services, bike lanes, etc. There are promises to reduce pollution, traffic congestion and commuting times, to upgrade infrastructure, and to save money and about 200 lives a year.

The problem some of us have with this great referendum, however, is the “all or nothing” position that city planners and politicians have taken on this omnibus proposal.

A vote for the referendum means a vote for each and every project – end of discussion!

There will be no more opportunities for public consultation and discussion. The referendum calls for a democratic vote to eliminate further democratic input. It’s assisted suicide for democracy on transportation issues in Metro Vancouver.

Brian Tucker, Vancouver

____________________________________________________________________

Roger:

Now here is a referendum where I would vote 'yes': a proposal to spend $5 million to complete a plan for a rails-to-trails plan in the Okanagan Valley. Though even here, the focus of a yes campaign should be to restore freight and passenger travel by rail, while building an accompanying recreation path. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/okanagan-considers-...

______________________________________________________________

Anne:

Thanks Bill, Lawrence and Roger for this ongoing discussion, which I am following, but don’t seem to have time to reply to properly.

I remain a “Yes”, I hope because of some of the sound reasons Bill has articulated, and not just because of my lived experience of up to 3 ½ hours a day spent on or waiting for transit. I would accept minimal gains as valid, but yes, they certainly would be minimal and would not last very long. The improvements offered are almost totally inadequate in addressing climate change, but I don’t see a “No” as helpful in promoting that perspective.

I see the referendum as possibly a normalization of regressive tax vs. validation of higher user pay/ antitax/anti-public services mentality – not a good choice. So, it’s not surprising that it isn’t easy to agree on a position. I think we all agree with Derrick’s fence-sitting conclusion, “The referendum should not be the last word on these matters.”

Bill:

Lawrence, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I've replied to a couple below:

[I may be misunderstanding Bill here but he seems to be suggesting that neoliberalism is no different to capitalism.]

Yes, that is basically right. As Marx wrote about capitalism:

"The advance of capitalist production develops a working class which by education, tradition and habit looks upon the requirements of this mode of production as self-evident natural laws. The organization of the capitalist process of production, once it is fully developed, breaks down all resistance.” (Capital 1, 157)

"Neoliberalism" adds very little to this understanding, in fact it muddies the waters.

[I'm not suggesting it is a new offensive or the only regressive move that has been made by the ruling class. I'm simply saying that enough is enough; let's draw the line here; lets begin a campaign to build a movement against class oppression, and the pillaging and ecological damage to the commons (our common heritage and the heritage of succeeding generations not the private property of the super rich) that characterizes the capitalist economic system. I'm suggesting that it is somewhat obsequious towards ruling class power to accept their demand for increasing regressive taxation to get a part of what we demand for public transit anyway.]

I don't see the logic of selecting *this* issue to "draw the line", to oppose something that, for red and green reasons we want, though, yes, we should oppose regressive taxation.

[Nor can we build a working class movement by agreeing to measures that weaken the working class in exchange for minimal gains. It is akin to building walls by using the material from the foundation below the walls. We've practically imploded as a class as it is without weakening our position even more.]

This is perhaps the political crux. I don't think we are weakened by minimal gains and I think this is mainly because I disagree with your sense of the significance of neoliberal ideology and more sales tax, though I am a lot less sure about the latter than the former.

__________________________________________________________________

Lawrence:

My responses in [square brackets and different font].

On 2015-03-14, at 11:23 AM, Bill Burgess wrote:

Obviously I don't think Lawrence's statement should be the basis for one by VESG.

[I agree. It is difficult enough trying to win the trade union movement over to an ecosocialist perspective without alienating them by defying them on this issue. We are a long way off from winning the right to that respectful dialogue with union leaders which is crucial to our goals.

But principally, I agree with Bill because I don't think that either of our cases is or can be watertight. I certainly don't feel 100% sure that my position aligns fully with objective reality. I also think that our organization's decision to focus on networking in our activities means that we are going to be working with many groups that we don't completely agree with at the theoretical level. Thus, we operate counter to the rigid sectarianism that has plagued and weakened the left since time began. This is relevant for the strength of the "united front" stage of the struggle to overthrow capitalism.]

The focus on neo-liberalism is not helpful. In the minds of most people, notably Naomi Kline, neoliberalism means there is a nicer, *not* neo-liberal version of capitalism on offer. In fact it is *normal* capitalism and class rule that is bringing on ecological disaster.

[I may be misunderstanding Bill here but he seems to be suggesting that neoliberalism is no different to capitalism. The point I am making is that neoliberalism is a powerful weapon in the hands of the capitalists that they have been using to sharpen the power of their class while hamstringing the ability of the working class to fight back, principally by obliterating the will to resist. Neoliberalism is the response of the capitalists to the power of the working class developed in the two decades following WWII. It is an attempt to cope with diminished profits that resulting from the strength that unions had achieved by the late 60s. It is an ideological fantasy grasped by capitalists to increase their class power in the face of strong unions in the core countries who unfortunately had turned their backs on socialism because they were doing so well under a globalized capitalism that super-exploited the periphery while buying off a labour aristocracy in the core capitalist countries. As we enter what I believe is a neo-feudal age where corporate control of the global economy replaces the nation state which replaced the original feudalism. The New Zealand Standard website claims: "Neo-Liberalism itself has all the characteristics of blind belief and faith inherent in religion." From the same source: "Neo-Liberalism is a moral and intellectual justification for greed. A way for those few who accumulate wealth, by impoverishing many, to justify themselves, and keep those they are stealing from docile and compliant." In other words neoliberalism plays the same role in this stage of mature capitalism as religion played in the feudal world— pacifying the masses. So am I wrong in suggesting that neoliberalism is the opiate of the masses and that knowledge is the cure for the addiction.

The neoliberal ideology has effectively destroyed the power of unions and increased the power of the ruling class, driven social democratic parties throughout the core capitalist countries to the right, and, most significantly with regard to this plebiscite issue, convinced the working class that the market ideology of neoliberalism is part of nature, i.e., common sense. I think it helps in the struggle to try to restore union and working class strength, and I think it is useful to show people how the neoliberal agenda has functioned to increase naked class power for the rich based on a pretence that the measures were scientifically based.

While we both agree that capitalism, by it's very nature, must inevitably destroy the ecological integrity of the biosphere unless we replace it with a planned economy asap, we are all searching for ways to get from here to there. I happen to think that a push against regressive taxation concurrent with a demand that progressive taxes be implemented so that corporate and wealth taxes are increased is a distinctly useful approach as part of a larger educational offensive. I'm calling for progressive taxation on the road to socialism rather than suggesting the absurd "socialism or nothing."

Someone from the no vote was going on about not paying more taxes until public sector wages are brought in line with private sector wages. That this seems reasonable to too many people rather than bringing private sector wages up to the level of public sector wages is part of the success of the neoliberal onslaught on the minds of the working class. We need to build a movement to struggle for these changes within the capitalist system as a

stepping stone on the road to destroying capitalism. Personally I don't understand how the unions can be fighting for a $15 minimum wage (progressive move) while joining the class enemy in a campaign to increase regressive taxation.]

Lawrence exaggerates the political significance of the sales tax. It is not some qualitatively new offensive, e.g., worse than the long-standing MSP premiums. The CCPA probably goes too far in arguing that the transit gains for tax paid is actually *progressive*, but public services are financed by taxes and the sales tax is not really worse than the property tax or vehicle levy alternatives open to the municipalities.

Transit should be funded by progressive income taxes and corporate taxes (and before that by cutting military expenditures and carbon subsidies), but we are not in power. The political facts of life are that the Mayor's Plan is a timid effort to go around the Liberal agenda of uber-carbon-and-car-sprawl. Two-thirds of the funds would come from the province and feds, which actually meets Derrick's condition that the province "help" municipalities fund transit.

[I agree]

Contrary to Lawrence's logic I notice that Derrick criticizes the NDP for *opposing* the carbon tax, which is also income-regressive. I think I have come over to Derrick's position on this. The green in red-green changes the traditional red position. We can't reject all measures that say we are going to have to pay more to save the world.

But I think the most central issue is that, like Derrick's article, Lawrence's statement fails to acknowledge that real improvements in transit are promised in return for the half percent. At the least, there will be fewer cuts in service and less pressure for fare hikes. No red green perspective should be so indifferent to these points.

Most people will interpret it as maximalist - "Never mind about your vital needs today; hold off for pie in the sky". We can't help build a citizens movement for the transit program needed to meet human needs and not spoil our nest by rejecting tiny steps in that direction.

Quite apart from Lawrence's own argument on the taxation method, if he disagrees that the transit steps themselves are *not* in the right direction this is a case that needs to be made. Yes, it is complicated, because transit is also favoured by large sections of capital who recognize that it necessary for continued functioning of capitalist cities and can be provided more cheaply by governments than by private capitalists. In sorting through the issues our eyes should stay on the needs of people and the environment.

[I have no problem with any improvement in transit, however "minimalist" and I have already argued that I believe a lot of these changes will be implemented whatever the outcome of the plebiscite. On p. 6 of the Sunday, March 15 edition of The Province, Jordan Bateman, after discussing how much taxpayer money is being used to campaign for a Yes vote, reports: “But even Yes supporters like Surrey Mayor Linda Hepner are hedging their bets, promising to deliver a new light-rail transit system for her city, even if the No side wins. They're also going to build a new Pattullo Bridge even if the No side wins. And a new bridge to replace the congested Massey Tunnel. Which makes me wonder how many wavering voters will succumb to the multimillion-dollar assault from the Yes Express, which is about to kick into high gear.” Bateman reports that $6 million in support of the Yes campaign is coming from Translink alone while we don't know how much is available from all donors. Meanwhile the No Translink Tax crowd list a mere $30,000 for their campaign. Yet the no campaign is still ahead.

My point is that if the rightwing No side is going to win anyway, we should be focussed on a campaign that stretches into the federal election to expose the tool of neoliberalism that the capitalist system depends on to anesthetize the electorate.

I do agree with most of the section in Lawrence's statement on "An alternative approach" except that I don't think 'communism' is the only or even main reason the ruling class gave us public welfare, education and health. There were more the result of working class struggle, lubricated in some periods by the fact that capitalism thrived via Keynesian spending, including how it promoted both suburban sprawl and more recently inner-city redevelopment.

Bill

[I agree with Bill's remark about my reference to communism as I was more than a touch puerile in oversimplifying what was happening in the first half of the 20th century. I guess I was a little too carried away by the brutality shown at the G20 Conference in Toronto a few years ago as well as the treatment of the Occupy groups in the US that suggested to me that the ruling class don't care how cruel they appear if they have total control over us through violence.]

*************

I would far rather see both sides of this argument presented on our website even as I insist that we should not vote Yes. However, even more important is that we are able to have these differences respectfully and I thank Bill for this. I think we have to be exemplary in our treatment of each other during disagreements, always recognizing that the best mind in the room is, in fact, the room. There is no scientific basis for the concept of the genius and we are clearer for the mental stimulation we provide each other in addition to all benefiting from the intellectual heritage provided by all of those who came before us.

Bill:

Roger is right that any position on this issue needs to be framed by a sharp statement on how Vancouver's urban development is socially dystopic and ecologically disastrous. It should go on to make clear that provincial and municipal governments are wedded to capitalism and to the expansion of particular branches of capital, notably carbon and real estate respectively. The statement I wrote needs to be more explicit on this point. (I was also wrong in how it addressed opposition to the Sky Cops.)

This should help resolve the apparent worry of Roger, Lawrence and others that the plebiscite amounts to a *confidence vote* in the Liberal government, the Mayors and even capitalist urbanization. This perception seems to be the reason for what I consider un-red and un-green indifference to the small but real improvements to transit that are promised in exchange for a bump in the sales tax. If I am wrong to distinguish between the plebiscite question and voting for capitalist parties I'd like to hear why.

Roger writes that the "transit component of the vote comes at the price of other, very negative consequences - more highways, more regressive taxes...".

About highways this is more wrong than right. The road improvements in the Mayor's Plan are a relatively minor component. (The Patullo bridge is not minor, but is probably justified on safety, etc. grounds. A whole other issue is that it is projected to be tolled as part of a strategy of tolling all bridges and many roads.)

More highways will be built either way. However, more transit (especially LRT in Surrey-Langley) would be a nudge in the direction of *less* highway expansion than would otherwise likely occur. It is not expressing confidence in the Mayors to recognize that, in real political life, their transit plan is *partly counterposed* to the Liberal's we-don't-want-to-pay-for-your-transit-our priority-is-roads-and-bridges stance. As I argued before, it is even possible that a "Yes" outcome could help opposition to the George Massey Bridge, since the demand for $2.5 billion for transit from the province would compete with the $3.5 billion for that bridge.

A "Yes" does not commit the ruling class to do anything. The province and feds have been *noticeably silent* about the 1/3 share each that was promised on their behalf. And no doubt the cost of the various transit improvements has been low-balled. However, both the province and feds would pay a stiff political price for not paying their share.

We all agree that "modest transit proposal such as this one… [are only a]... footnote to what is required". However, the impression I get from Roger is that it is not just that it is not enough. It also seems to be that it is not right kind of transit. In contrast, I think that as we struggle though the socio-eco-ecological crisis of the future we will thank God for just about every inch of transit infastructure that was built and curse how little there is. Almost all transit is better than no transit.

For example, Roger likes Geoff Olson's column. I can't agree, because of how it relies on Eric Chris'

*regressive* arguments. Chris' own words show that he is only for transit that serves trips in the *immediate* community and for people who *don't drive*. He *opposes* "hub to hub" transit, i.e., the whole idea that instead of paving every square inch of the Lower Mainland our settlement should be concentrated as much as possible to nodes formed by complete communities ("hubs") and along the routes between them, so as to leave farmland and perhaps even some room for bears and coyoties. If you read Chris' blog comments elsewhere you can see he is *for* cars and highways and road pricing.

Olson also quotes Charles Menzies from UBC, who insists on "European-style electrical trams" in exchange for his vote. This is the transit system advocated by UBC professor Patrick Condon. Unlike Chris, Condon is a consistent proponent of transit. However, his plan for trams in Vancouver is *silent* about the needs of the working class and the poor in the suburbs. He has no answer to the big questions of metropolitan-scale transit, which are the most important of all in terms of shaping urban form. Menzies also seems blind to these issues, which might explain why, when he looks at Skytrain, he sees only local real estate profits, not transit.

Roger claims, "This referendum vote is causing a further division and marginalization of those who might otherwise be part of creating a leading a proper movement for an environmentally and socially accountable city."

I think the best way to overcome division among working people is to extend decent transit to the suburbs, e.g., LRT in Surrey and Langley, and better bus service everywhere. And since I don't agree these transit improvements have the political price that Roger the Lawrence perceive, then any marginalization of progressive forces is self-imposed.

There is a nascent popular movement for transit that would be strengthened by 'Yes' to better transit. Movements are built by winning small victories that stimulate our appetite for more. We should be taking advantage of this campaign to discuss the much more ambitious transit that is needed and how transit should be linked to public housing and other social issues. It is true there is a danger of becoming consumed or worse captured by a given reform, but progress can also be stalled by the opposite error of maximalism. ___________________________________________________________________

Roger:

PS We should be aware that inadequate public transportation is a feature of globalized capitalism (including in Moscow, which has one of the world's largest subway systems, with a daily ridership nearly equal to London and New York combined!). An interesting, if superficial, commentary in today's Globe and Mail comparing Toronto to Vancouver is a useful reminder of this fact. Toronto's transit crisis makes Vancouver's one look like a picnic:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/what-vancouver-can-teach-tor...

The problem and the solution is not 'better transit', however laudable , if not quaint, an idea that may be. The problem is nearly 100 years of expansionist, capitalist urbanization. It will take decades to repair this. We will not succeed in doing so if we allow our attentions to be consumed, even worse captured, by small, relatively trivial, proposed changes to the prevailing order, such as the transit referendum in Vancouver.

Roger:

There is a very good letter in The Province today on the transit referendum. I copy it below.

I agree with Bill that Lawrence's statement on transit doesn't suit our purposes, though we disagree as to why. I believe a statement needs to be situated in the context of the ongoing decline of the capitalist order, including how that plays out specifically in the Vancouver urban region. Geoff Olsen's column in The Courier does this very well, as I believe Derrick O's commentary does as well.

As with Bill, I don't find the term 'neoliberalism' to be overused and not explanatory. I much prefer 'globalized capitalism'. And yes, 'neoliberalism' as used by the likes of Naomi Klein implies there is a better, 'nonneoliberal' capitalism.

I don't think we should advocate a 'no'. I think we should explain that the transit component of the vote comes at the price of other, very negative consequences--more highways, more regressive taxes (a form of user fee) on top of many, other such fees imposed by successive governments in BC. And overall, the capitalist expansionist plans for the city, including the ongoing denigration of social housing, dooms any modest transit proposals such as this one to be footnote to what is required. The vote is divisive of the working class and, in any event, commits the ruling class to nothing if they so choose. Until there is a popular movement for transit, the transportation problem cannot be solved in the region. This referendum vote is causing a further division and marginalization of those who might otherwise be part of creating a leading a proper movement for an environmentally and socially accountable city.

….

Letter to The Province: TransLink must be fixed first:

Once again, we hear the familiar refrain, “the sky is falling, the sky will be falling,” if we don’t vote “yes” as recommended by our betters.

We heard this familiar refrain during the GST vote. The Fraser Institute, the Board of Trade and so on, warned British Columbians that businesses would leave en masse and the economy would be left in tatters if we didn’t vote “yes.” Yet, here we are, even according to our premier, living in a growing province that produces the only balanced provincial budget in Canada.

So excuse my skepticism and disbelief at the words of doom being thrown at us.

Let me be very clear: I absolutely believe that transit needs to be improved and that improvement would be better for our environment. I just think that David Suzuki and environmentalists who support a “yes” vote are missing the point here.

It is patently obvious that this tax increase will merely allow the province to continue on with the same broken model that has our transit system awash in poor decision making and unaccountability to taxpayers. There will be no incentive for a shakeup and change of the governance of TransLink.

— Debbie McBride, Delta

Bill:

Obviously I don't think Lawrence's statement should be the basis for one by VESG.

The focus on neo-liberalism is not helpful. In the minds of most people, notably Naomi Kline, neoliberalism means there is a nicer, *not* neo-liberal version of capitalism on offer. In fact it is *normal* capitalism and class rule that is bringing on ecological disaster.

Lawrence exaggerates the political significance of the sales tax. It is not some qualitatively new offensive, e.g., worse than the long-standing MSP premiums. The CCPA probably goes too far in arguing that the transit gains for tax paid is actually *progressive*, but public services are financed by taxes and the sales tax is not really worse than the property tax or vehicle levy alternatives open to the municipalities.

Contrary to Lawrence's logic I notice that Derrick criticizes the NDP for *opposing* the carbon tax, which is also income-regressive. I think I have come over to Derrick's position on this. The green in red-green changes the traditional red position. We can't reject all measures that say we are going to have to pay more to save the world.

Quite apart from Lawrence's own argument on the taxation method, if he disagrees that the transit steps themselves are *not* in the right direction this is a case that needs to be made. Yes, it is complicated, because transit is also favoured by large sections of capital who recognize that it necessary for continued functioning of capitalist cities and can be provided more cheaply by governments than by private capitalists. In sorting through the issues our eyes should stay on the needs of people and the environment.

_________________________________________________________________

Bill:

Consider the source of the arguments being made.

Eric Chris (along with Malcolm Johnson ['Zweisystem'] who also blogs on the Rail for the Valley site) disagrees with *ALL* progressive urban transit experts I know of that transit should be integrated with urban form; that is, that transit should be a lever for urban design. Along with right-wing neo-classical economists, they think that people make the choice of where to live (the economists call this "consumer sovereignty"), and the function of transit is to move them back and forth.

Chris' argument that mechanical and electrical engineers should run Translink registers this polar opposite perspective to all progressive urban planning thought.

The article Chris cites uses US data to show that building highways increases vehicle kilometers traveled (duh!). It then also noted that building transit did not *reduce* these vehicle kilometers, which, given the pathetic state of transit in most US cities is hardly surprising. The article still says that they think that, unlike highways, transit *does* increase welfare.

Canadian cities generally have better transit than in the US. Vehicle kilometers here have still (probably) risen on a per capita basis, but the transit modal share in Vancouver in recent decades has grown at the expense of the auto share. So consider the political trajectory of Chris' argument that transit does not reduce vehicle kilometers. He or she is NOT advocating for more ambitious transit; the opposite follows.

Johnson and Chris and now Charles Menzies believe that Skytrain is the root of all evil, partly because it has starved the rest of the system. Johnson is notorious for how he repeats the same points over and over, impervious to any facts that are raised, e.g., that Translink's capital and operating costs are not out of line with those in other systems (e.g. see https://voony.wordpress.com/, https://darylvsworld.wordpress.com/2015/03/04/referendum-myths-translink... ). According to Urban Transportation Indicators (2010; latest available) transit *operating and capital* expenditures per capita in Vancouver were $391 compared to $403 and $404 in Toronto in Montreal.

I know from previous discussions with Roger that he shares Menzies diagnosis that Skytrain is *all and only* about real estate profiteering. This line of argument dovetails with the failure of Chris-Johnson's failure to integrate transit and urban form. And *all* public services are exploited by private profiteers, and this would include any LRT alternative to Skytrain along Broadway. Even if they think surface LRT would have been a better strategic choice than Skytrain for the Vancouver area I don't know any serious, progressive transit specialist who shares the assumption that Skytrain has aimed Vancouver's urban form in the wrong direction. I think there is unanimous agreement that without Skytrain (or an equivalent LRT) there would be more sprawl and more cars.

A sideline: Since the technical studies on Surrey showed that Skytrain was a better 'value for money' option than LRT it is unclear why the Surrey establishment opted for the latter. Could it be that is because they perceive that LRT will be more amenable to all-out PPP privitization, just as choosing non-Skytrain technology was key to imposing the Canada Line PPP? So we should oppose LRT in Surrey?

Yes, we need to present a very sharp red and green perspective on these issues. But we do not cultivate understanding and support for the radically ambitious transit and housing and land program that is needed by *going backwards* relative to the minor improvements posed in the plebiscite, or the *opposite error* of halfbaked maximalism.

______________________________________________________________________________

Gene:

In case you haven't already seen this.

http://www.vancourier.com/opinion/columnists/hold-your-nose-and-vote-no-...

Vancouver Courier March 13, 2015

Hold your nose and vote No on plebiscite

Geoff Olson

The more I examine the barrage of claims and counterclaims about local transit, the less the upcoming plebiscite seems a yes/no option than a lose/lose proposition.

Eric Chris is an Australian-born chemical engineer living near UBC. In one of his heavily hyperlinked emails to local media, Chris recalled how smoothly traffic flowed in Vancouver during the four-month long transit strike in 2001.

This runs counter to claims about expanded bus service reducing road congestion. Chris cites a 2009 paper by

Gilles Duranton and Matthew A. Turner from the University of Toronto department of economics. “The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from U.S. Cities” concluded that “the provision of public transportation has no impact on vehicle kilometres travelled.”

The transit advantages were offset “by an increase in driving by current residents; an increase in transportation intensive production activity; and an inflow of new residents.”

In other words, automobile drivers eventually max out any newly available road space, particularly when new transit infrastructure is accompanied by increased urban residential development.

“Transit moving people who don’t drive and who really depend upon transit to go about their daily lives in their immediate community provides a valuable public service, and I truly do support it,” writes Chris.

What he and many others reject is Vision Vancouver’s template of developer-led urban growth, pegged to the shoddy performance of an unelected body tasked with megaproject-friendly transit expansion. (The cost of the farcically buggy Compass Card program has swelled from $100 million to $191 million, and we still haven’t seen the bottom of that particular sinkhole.)

When urban growth models are slanted toward the desires of wealthy offshore investors and local developers, transit tends to follow civic function. The long-term costs to the taxpayer balloon along with property values.

According to a 2014 property tax report on new homes, 2,243 detached homes in the West Side met the wrecking ball in a three-year period. Meanwhile, local dwelling options for younger middle-class residents are literally shrinking down to laneway houses, cramped stacking units in the sky, and much-ballyhooed “tiny homes.”

Still, the worker bees have to get into and around Metro Vancouver’s buzzing urban hives somehow, no?

“There is plenty of proof over the last two decades that hub to hub transport by TransLink is merely a ploy for businesses to make money from building the concrete intensive SkyTrain lines and concrete intensive condos along the SkyTrain lines,” insists Chris.

This argument is echoed by Charles Menzies, a UBC professor of anthropology. A passage from his blog deserves to be quoted at length:

“Fundamentally the transit referendum is about subsidizing the real estate development industry of the Lower Mainland. It is a wealth transfer from the majority to the elite minority who are raking in big dollars by revalorizing land through the development of public transit. This is not a new plan, it’s one used by developers historically and the world over: use the mechanisms of the state to take money from the majority to fund the profit making ventures of the minority.”

Menzies continues: “UBC, for example, wants a subway so that they can realize the highest rate of return off the land they have. The same goes for each of the town centres created by the regional plan and the expansion of public transit. The push for transit in Metro isn’t about ecology, sustainability, or making our communities nicer: it’s about using public means to facilitate the accumulation of profit by a minority of developers. It’s a form of social theft. So when I get my paper mail in ballot I’ll vote No to social theft, No to the developer tax.”

Voting Yes won’t result in ideal light rail transit (think European-style electric trams), a civically more attractive option than additional pollution from non-electric buses, revenue-gobbling SkyTrain expansion and bored tunnel infrastructure courtesy SNC Lavalin or some other bidding behemoth. (SNC Lavalin is reeling from criminal investigations and a 2013 World Bank decision to debar it after allegations of bribery in a Bangladesh bridge development).

Given the binary option of a tax for transit infrastructure attached to out-of-control urban development in Metro Vancouver, this plebiscite begs for public rejection. The next best thing is to hold your nose and vote No.

Lawrence:

As promised at Thursday's meeting, I've polished the article as best I can in the available time. See attached.

In Favour of a Progressive, Working Class NO VOTE in the Metro Vancouver Transit Plebiscite

by Lawrence Boxall

I’m 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 definitely not for the same reasons that the mainstream NO Campaign is using. Derrick O'Keefe's article in the latest The Source1 is the first I've seen from a left perspective that aligns to some extent with my thinking on why a “YES” vote is not what it seems.

Entrenching neoliberal ideology

Increasing a regressive tax that places financial burdens on the less wealthy by a government that generally reduces the taxes that the rich pay rewards the über-class and reinforces this class’s control of our society. The transit improvement considerations in this vote blinds us to the consequences of increasing regressive taxation. After more than 40 years of this economic agenda corporations pay less taxes and the rich don’t pay tax on their capital gains. Since the Reagan and Thatcher era, successive governments have been forcing their citizens to accept neo liberal-inspired measures that accelerate the pauperization of the majority by legitimizing a theory that effectively labels unfair economics as “common sense.”

Entrenched neoliberalism prevents planning to avoid ecological disasters The neoliberal agenda is bad for planetary ecosystems. The enhanced power of the ruling class that flows from Neoliberal policies increases the difficulty of addressing climate change adequately. I’d rather not vote for what seems like a sensible way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions— public transit—if it means empowering the neoliberal agenda by increasing regressive taxation. Consider our government's environmental agenda. At the same time that we are being asked to vote on this non-binding decision that conflates voting for transit and an increase in sales tax, Christy Clarke is calling on the federal government to refrain from imposing any carbon emissions regulations that “will hinder growth in the energy sector.”2 Rather than facilitating the democratic discussion required to do proper planning in order to mitigate climate change, Clarke wants to rely on market forces unhindered by an “interventionist federal government.”3Neoliberalism is all about relying on market forces to do the right thing Too many people who want better transit and believe that better transit will contribute to mitigating climate change are ignoring what I’m arguing is the real agenda. After increasing PST and making this seem like the sensible thing to do, neoliberal governments are better able to get away with placing greater financial burdons on the less wealthy while at the same time leaving the wealthy and big corporations free of regulation in order to further increase their wealth and their power.

By strengthening the hand of those who believe that leaving things to market forces ensures an efficient economy, we make it less likely that the planning and implementation of measures needed to slow climate change and prevent ecological collapse is likely to occur. Further, It seems to me that the ruling class intends to make these transit improvements to ensure a healthy economic climate whatever we vote for. They know that the electorate will be very supportive and appreciative of these changes. A “Yes” vote provides a precedent to increase the regressive sales taxes and this is the corporate agenda. It is highly likely, following a successful “Yes” vote, that every time something socially desirable needs to be built, like schools, hospitals, and parks, that governments will ask us to accept a rise in sales taxes. 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 while rewarding the wealthy with less taxes? It serves to habituate people to regressive measures every time the government has to provide something that we all need.

An alternate approach

I suggest voting “No” while we engage in a strong campaign showing why an efficient, convenient and comfortable transit system, paid for out of general revenues, will produce enormous economic savings by reduced spending on (a) road and bridge construction, and (b) health care expenditure resulting from the reduction in pollution and accident injuries as more people shift from private cars to public transit.

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 a “No” vote as part of a massive and focussed campaign that promotes the consciousness of a public transit system which is vital in addressing the threats of climate change as well as improving the quality of our lives in general. Supporting a “Yes” vote 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 that is disguised as “common sense” solutions while really serving to increase unbridled class power of the super rich. Once upon a time, the ruling class gave us benefits such as welfare, public healthcare, and public education 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 an unassailable position to control us and eliminate any threats we pose if we make any significant attempt to change the system. 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.

Conclusion

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.

Neoliberalism puts a brake on changes that need to be decided on democratically by an informed citizenry to save our planet from the consequences of the destructive economic practices of the past 200 years: If it’s good for the corporate bottom line, its good; if its bad for the bottom line, its bad. That is why neoliberalism is dangerous and why we shouldn’t strengthen the ideology of a market economy by imagining that we are voting for better transit.

Vote NO to refuse regressive taxation and the neoliberal agenda!

Demand a democratic discussion about our society’s transit needs and environmental responsibilities!

http://thelasource.com/en/2015/03/09/yes-we-need-better-transit-so-why-a...
Globe and Mail, Saturday, March 7, 2015, p. A12 3. Ibid.

Bill:

Yes, post the article but I would not endorse it as "excellent". Like Harsha's statement, Derrick evades the challenge of being concrete on an issue where our side has stakes.

The "ideological offensive" that Lawrence and Derrick and Gene highlight is a bit of a diversion. Our focus should be on what is in human and ecological need.

Also, not much of the offensive is really new. As in the past, most of the $$$ for the Mayor's Plan would come from provincial and senior governments. Local funding of transit has always been substantial. The province has always called the shots on transportation; the 'Mayor's Plan' is actually a feeble attempt at 'dual power' within the bourgeoisie.

The stakes in the plebiscite are slightly improved transit (with significant improvement in Surrey and Langley) vs. fewer busses/higher fares and wind in the political sails of the most pro-carbon, pro-car forces.

We will not help promote a citizens movement for the radically ambitious transit and housing plan that is needed by disavowing concrete steps in that direction. I have yet to hear a credible argument from transit specialists (pink or green) that what the half percent is intended to fund is not better than what is there now. A "Yes" outcome in the plebiscite might even help challenge the George Massey Bridge given the competition for provincial funds.

Instead of focusing on what is good for us and the environment, too much attention is being given to the posture of this or that bourgeois faction. More transit is in the interests of working people and is currently also recognized by most of the local bourgeois leaders as being in the capitalist interest. They currently disagree on this with the Liberals and the minority opinion local capitalists like the auto dealers. ________________________________________________________________

Gene:

I have no problem posting the piece on our website.

While I agree that we should present a very similar conclusion in our statement, I would argue our statement has to be more succinct about the "ideological offensive" and concentrate more on the need to launch a citizens' movement fighting to relieve the burden of "congestion" on transit users AND to pursue the urgent task of creating a transit system that can get people out of their private automobiles. The non-binding plebiscite is a diversion, it is a lose-lose choice, it is another normative shift in who pays for infrastructure, and it will be held up for years as a good-faith attempt by government to resolve problems rather than what it is, a cynical maneuver to evade and postpone responsibility for these problems.

________________________________________________________________________

Roger:

Writing in the weekly print newspaper La Source, Derrick O'Keefe makes a compelling argument that the transit referendum is a diversion from the debate and decision-making process that is needed over transit.

Is there any objection to posting this to our website?

In my view, VESG should have arrived at a position resembling Derrick's. The transit referendum is one of the proposed agenda items at our forthcoming meeting.

http://thelasource.com/en/2015/03/09/yes-we-need-better-transit-so-why-a...

The Source

March 10 - 24, 2015

Yes we need better transit, so why are anti-taxxers winning referendum debate?

Derrick O'Keefe

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 of its 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 nonbinding. 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.

__________________________________________________________________________

Lawrence:

I realize that I am repeating myself in my insistence that this whole project is tainted and damaged because it is trapped within the strictures of the neoliberal agenda that has laid waste to all the achievements of the working class, the gains won through struggle and sacrifice during the last century. We are all tainted by the mindset that the ruling class has engineered to ensure their control of the wealth generated by the working class and their control of the resources of the planet. This means the mounting exclusion from real power of the majority of people on earth. We are not going to get the transit we need from this yes vote that even the CCPA is campaigning for. We are going to further legitimize regressive taxes and the neoliberal agenda with a yes vote.

The fact that Jimmy Pattison will now be the Transit and Roadworks Czar (as soon as he has worked out what's going on) throws into sharper contrast, as Roger's brief statement shows, the reality that this is not about planning our society to satisfy the needs of all while avoiding the environmental disasters that loom in the immediate future. Thus I think we should, above all, be using this referendum and the subsequent Federal election to attempt to counter the messages that all levels of government and the media are using to make their demented ideology appear to be the only option for society.

I appreciate Rogers clarity in the observations he has been making and how they break through the blinding propaganda we are drenched in every day.

Roger:

The cost of a proposed extension of the Spadina subway line by six stops, including to York University, is seriously delayed as well as plagued by cost overruns. The budgeted cost of $1.5 billion became doubled. Now another $400 million additional cost has been announced.

The extension was announced in March 2006 and was supposed to open in the fall of 2015. Now it won't open until at least 2017. The new estimated cost is $3.6 billion.

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2015/03/06/spadina-subway-extensi...

You will have read that the famed environmentalist and public transit advocate Jimmy Pattison, he who made his fortune selling cars, among other endeavours, is the announced overseer and guarantor that the transit tax increase being voted in Vancouver will be put to good use. When questioned about the posting, Pattison said he was told nothing of what's involved, but he's sure he will learn fast. He has a good, solid track record of supporting the BC Liberal governments' social austerity programs during the past 15 years as proof.

Article below posted to our website today.

Vancouver's transit plan can be summarized as: Some more transit.. and lots more cars, trucks, ships and freight trains. Capitalism run amock. I don't think I will vote in favour of that.

Metro Vancouver air quality suffers as driving increases

Greenhouse gas emissions on the rise along with kilometres driven, study shows

By Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver Sun, March 4, 2015

Metro Vancouver’s attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the region are being undermined as drivers return to their vehicles in droves, according to a new study.

The study, by Victoria-based Pacific Analytics, found that while greenhouse gas emissions declined during the economic downturn from 2009 to 2012, they have risen steadily since and will likely continue over the next few years as more vehicles — both private and commercial — hit the streets...

Bill:

Transit statement discussion – Bill, Feb 24

I’m sorry I will not be there for the discussion of the proposed statement. I tweaked my previous draft (see below and attached) and then got Roger’s outline. A few comments on Roger’s:

The Mayor’s Plan does not include funding the proposed George Massey Bridge. But who knows, they might well get stiffed by the Province when it runs out of money for both.

I disagree that Vancouver’s transit system is qualitatively more “expensive” than elsewhere (or this needs to be demonstrated). The main problem is not that too much has been spent, it is too little. I think Roger is referring to the cost of Skytrain and I disagree with this thrust.

Our approach should be to defend and promote transit as a public service, just like we do health and education, and despite how all public services are twisted by capital towards its own ends. Let the reactionaries have the “expensive” argument.

It is not the ‘Yes’ option that will “keep fares high and rising”. This will happen in any case. However, the pressure will be even greater if there is no sales tax funding. This is a function of transit not being a priority of senior governments with greater resources. The Mayor’s Plan represents a minor split in the bourgeoisie, towards a position that is less bad.

It is right to use this discussion to prosecute other issues like employment levels, high fares and the Transit Police. But this is not a vote on a political program or government. The other issues should not determine how to vote in a plebiscite on a tax. In this case, in exchange for paying higher taxes we are promised tangible improvements to transit.

I continue to disagree with abstaining. Roger’s text evades the reality that there are social and ecological stakes in this vote, however modest and compromised. Ecosocialists have to be willing to get down and dirty.

There is a lot of overlap/agreement between the two drafts and I like some of Roger’s formulations, like “slapped on top of the greed-and-sprawl urban fabric already in place and constantly being expanded.” But my own hackneyed prose aside, I think my revised statement is a better basis for another draft than Roger’s on the facts, the context, the program and the voting recommendation. If I were at the meeting I would suggest both be voted on. I’m fine with being voted down but this may help clarify our agreements and disagreements.

Obviously the statement that emerges should be guided by whichever gains more support.

…………………………DRAFT 2 BB………………….

Vancouver transit plebiscite: Vote “Yes” despite the false choice, the regressive tax hike and the timid plan

Metro Vancouver residents will vote by mail-in ballot between March 16 and May 29 on whether to support an increase from 7.0% to 7.5% in the provincial sales tax in the Metro region.

As projected in the “Mayor’s Plan”, this half percentage point tax would be directed towards the extension of Skytrain under Broadway Ave in Vancouver and a new light rail line in Surrey and out to Langley. It would help fund more coverage of the region by buses, including 11 new express routes and more ‘Night Owl’ service. The Pattullo bridge between Vancouver and Surrey would be replaced by a new tolled bridge, some funding would go to road maintenance throughout the region and wider tolling is envisioned. This $7.5 billion program over 10 years also promises more bike paths, a third Seabus across Burrard Inlet and restoration of HandiDart service levels. http://mayorscouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Mayors-Council_Highli...

The projected $250 million per year raised by this bump in the sales tax is modest relative to the almost $2 billion that Translink currently receives from passenger fares, taxes on property, gasoline and parking plus a Hydro levy. The mayors also assume that two thirds of the capital costs in their Plan will come from yet-to-besecured contributions by the provincial and federal governments.

We should vote “yes”, despite the plebiscite offering a false choice, a ‘Mayor’s Plan’ for transit that is totally inadequate, and even though public services should not depend on regressive sales taxes. A “No” outcome will postpone needed transit infrastructure and strengthen the pro-car, pro-sprawl lobby.

The false choice has been imposed by the provincial Liberal government because the capitalist interests they represent want tax funding of highways and bridges instead of transit. Last year they unilaterally decided to spend $3 billion to replace the George Massey Tunnel with a new bridge that will allow the Fraser River to be deepened to accommodate ships that would export US coal from the Fraser-Surrey docks. The Liberal’s multibillion dollar “Gateway” program of highways and bridges (Port Mann Bridge replacement, new Golden Ears Bridge, new South Perimeter Road and widening Highway 1) torpedoed the modestly transit-oriented “Livable Region Plan” adopted in the 1990s by municipalities in the Lower Mainland.

All the transit funding options allowed by the provincial government are bad. General sales taxes are regressive because lower income people are taxed on virtually their entire income while higher income people escape the tax on the income they invest. The proposed half percent hike in the sales tax would translate into about $125/year for the average Metro Vancouver resident plus any tax-induced increases in prices passed on by businesses.

Municipalities have the power to raise property taxes but they too are strongly income-regressive. They hit working class and low-income elderly homeowners, and the tax is passed on to tenants. Vehicle levies and higher gas taxes would be better environmentally, but the amount collected per payer would have to be considerably greater than with the broader-based sales tax. Many of those payers would be lower income and working people who have no choice but to drive. The provincial Liberal government rejected the proposal in the original Mayor’s Plan that transit be funded by the carbon tax.

Finally, while voting “Yes” in this vote we need to be clear that the “Mayor’s Plan” is hopelessly inadequate. The Plan provides some long-overdue infastructure, notably light rail in transit-starved Surrey and Langley. But overall it amounts to upholding the status quo. The car will still be King.

Choosing transportation systems is not just about how we get around. It is also a decision about how our cities will develop for a long time into the future. There has to be a dramatic change in how this occurs. We can’t know everything in advance, but ecological reality will impose cities based on walking, biking and public transit rather than private cars and trucks. Our communities need to be far more dense and compact. They need to be more complete, so there are not long distances between home and work and school and services.

Along with transit infastructure, a huge expansion of social housing (mostly low-rise) and public land ownership will necessarily play strategic roles in shaping these new cities. Any such direction is strongly opposed by the auto, real estate and other capitalists. The “Mayor’s Plan” is an effort to prevent the current situation from getting worse, but they are captive to these capitalist interests.

A number of secondary questions have emerged that confuse what is at stake in this plebiscite. Translink is an undemocratic agency with overpaid leaders. The anti-poor, anti-immigrant Transit Police should be disbanded.

While voting “No” might feel like a form of resistance, it will not actually have any effect. Skytrain along Broadway is more expensive than surface rail. However, it is a mistake to get hung up on the technicallycomplex issues of this transit mode versus that; we should support any and all modes that get us closer to ending reliance on cars. It is also wrong to approach consumption taxes as a point of principle. Even if income tax rates on high income recipients were very high there are simply too few of them to fund all public services.

The plebiscite can be an opportunity to discuss how to fight for transit mobility for everyone and which promotes urban ecological sustainability. Here are some points to consider for a red and green approach:

Vastly expanded transit service. Modal integration and optimization, a fast rail backbone at national and largemetro scales

Public ownership and operation of transit systems; build public space and decommodify life. Public and worker control of transit agencies – direct elections, transparent planning and administration

Compact, complete communities – dense infill, more low-rise than high-rise, a strategic role for social housing and public land, all land and building conversion to be transit-contingent.

Funding by senior governments, from i) military expenditures, subsidies to carbon and auto corporations and instead of new highways, ii) sharply progressive taxation on personal and corporate income, iii) dedicated revenue from parking, gas, carbon and capital gains on land near transit, iv) public debt

“Towards fare-free transit” – progressively lower fares and/or fare-free access beginning with children, seniors, students, employer-funded transit passes, during special events, on particular routes, off-peak hours, etc.

Measures that progressively discourage cars and trucks, but, as in the case of ‘mobility pricing’ not before reasonable transit alternatives are in place for working people and the poor

Transit as an important component of a pro-worker, pro-nature plan of reconstruction – re-tool plants and reassign auto and carbon workers to build transit infrastructure, renewable energy capacity, social housing, energy-efficiency renovation, environmental restoration.

Roger:

Hello VESG,

Attached is the outline of a VESG statement on the transit plebiscite. The attachment includes Bill's draft, proposed statement which we discussed at our previous meeting. The goal here is to merge the two drafts as much as possible.

For the discussion, I also suggest reading the first essay in the attached pamphlet on transit of the Socialist Project. You may have already done so.

Outline of a statement on 2015 Vancouver region transit plebiscite

By Roger, Feb 24, 2015

What is in the plebiscite proposal? Including, to what extent does it propose to fund expanded roads and bridges.

Why the plebiscite? Because the provincial government wants to offload responsibility for transit onto municipalities and individual taxpayers. Do we get to vote on bridges and highways, or pipelines?

What is the problem that the plebiscite purports to address? Essentially, it is one of decades of urban sprawl accompanied by inadequate or even impossible (considering the geographic spread of sprawl) transit planning and placement.

Urban sprawl and its twin brother—expansion of road and bridges in order to accommodate capitalist trade by truck and train through the Port of Vancouver--have created a near-to impossible choice in this plebiscite. We are asked to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars more for an urban transit system to be slapped on top of the greed-and-sprawl urban fabric already in place and constantly being expanded.

What's more, the transit system we are asked to fund is an expensive, alien and increasingly militarized transit system. The rapid transit option of choice-skytrain-creates few long term jobs because it is driverless and because there is no customer service at its stations.

What are the choices in this plebiscite:

No? Why we oppose the 'no' campaign.

Yes? But this option will keep fares high and rising, includes more highway expansion by virtue of the proposal to build new Patullo and Fraser River (Massey Tunnel replacement) highway bridges, and it does nothing to address how public transit is being turned into a police state-within-a-police-state.

Yes to public transit. Why we need expanded public transit. The goal must be the rapid and progressive decline of auto and truck traffic. But this cannot be accomplished by transit alone. Our cities need to be redesigned from top to bottom, in function of social needs, including gainful employment. The greed and profit imperative of capitalism must go.

To do that, we need to build a peoples movement that can propose a 'people's transit', ie not leave things to the mayors and city councils that are in the pockets of the real estate, construction and transportation industries. Transit riders, the unions of transit workers and the political parties of popular forces must build such a movement.

A popular movement program:

More transit. What's the balance between rapid rail transit and buses and trolleys, eg rapid transit to

UBC? Let the experts decide. Not technocrats alone but also the other experts in urban design--those who live in the city and ride its transit!

Affordable transit. Need a progressive fare reduction program.

Demilitarized transit. (Sketch out the elements.)
Vast expansion of social housing. This is a vital step in reducing the dependency on long distance commuting.

A vital part of social housing plans is to create new forms of urban housing which offer alternatives to the "I have to mow the lawn of my very large and forlorn property using fossil fuels every week" form of single-dwelling housing which has ravaged the North American landscape since the dawn of the Age of Auto.

Build a social economy with meaningful jobs for all. Again, this will reduce the pressure for longdistance commuting to the all-too-rare job that provides satisfaction and meets social needs.

Yes or no? Not the question. For peoples transit, in liveable and sustainable cities!

[Note: I have stayed away in this statement from the issue of taxation. There are good and bad arguments for every form of increased or different taxation that could be proposed to pay for transit—sales tax, carbon tax, income tax, property tax.]

__________________________________________________________

Lawrence:

Comrades,

This stuff by Stefan Kipfer that Bill sent out last week is really good insofar as it looks at the bigger picture in providing an analysis of the wider social context into which public transportation fits. If you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend that you do.

Bill:

If you are interested, I found this article and similar points in a presentation by the same person (Stefan Kipfer from York U) on a "red green program on transit" very good.

http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/738.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgvSAOZVFZI

Bill:

We should identify with the spirit of resistance and rejection of social democracy in Ormond's article, but not with its abstention from a concrete issue with real stakes. Neither it nor Harsha's statement express a working class or socialist perspective. They are voices of militant opposition to bourgeois society. But they lack the instincts needed to build a united front to remake society using governmental and then state power. Both are silent on whether to vote and if so how to vote. As ecosocialists we also need to raise the 'green' questions so conspicuous by their absence in their approach.

My take is a lot less ambitious than Lawrence's. I don't think the plebicite poses either a neoliberal juggernaught or an important blow against climate change.

The concept of neoliberalism is itself a diversion. We are dealing with 'normal' capitalism, a system of exploitation, oppression and class rule. Thinking here in terms of neoliberalism is a theoretical concession to the illusions of social democracy about the possibility of a kinder, gentler version of capitalism. Like Naomi Klein does.

The fixation on Translink mischaracterizes the stakes in question. It is not particularly exceptional or more regressive than the range of other semi-public agencies like BC Hydro, BC Ferries, the Regional Health Boards and hospital administrations, the universities and even K-12 Boards of Education (though at least we still elect the latter). Consider health. Yesterday's budget's 4% hike in MSP premiums is worse than the .5% sales tax hike; more regressive in its incidence and a much worse precedent. The contracting out of virtually everything in health services and the smashing of HEU is far worse than what Translink has done. That does not make Translink better but is not worse.

Ormond's antipathy to Skytrain and dedication to only bus transit is misplaced. As Kipfer wrote, "The narrow debate between streetcar/LRT and subway proponents in Toronto is a good example of how transit advocates have been forced to engage in ‘either/or’ arguments because of the state's systematic transit hostility. In this context, free transit advocates best argue for a virtuous cycle between neighbourhood and commuter transit that strengthens transit at all scales." http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/738.php

While hopelessly inadequate relative to social and ecological need the Mayor's 'Plan' would, in fact, "strengthen transit at all scales". We cannot be indifferent to reversing the cuts to HandiDart, more B-lines and rail in Surrey and to Langley! I doubt there will be enough money for all these goodies, notably the federal and provincial shares required, but that is another issue.

__________________________________________________________________________

Lawrence:

Well everyone know how I feel, but I'm going to say it again anyway:

I think it's about time someone as articulate as this writer condemned this vote for the neoliberal juggernaut that it is while masquerading as an important blow against climate change.

How can we not put it up?

Every day I hear these Yes Vote people talking about all sorts of good things that will come with improved transit while ignoring the fact that the neoliberals are slipping the thin edge of the wedge into our polity for a further deepening of the neoliberal stranglehold on the minds of citizens.

Meanwhile the No side continues their monopolization of the No vote as something to prevent an irresponsible Translink from having more money to waste. They forget to mention that Translink is another consequence of the neoliberal agenda to disenfranchise the electorate from controlling anything that has important consequences for our daily lives. Thus they say nothing about all the good reasons for voting no to a rise in regressive taxation.

Ormond stresses thensignificance of “Regressive taxation,” “funding privatization” and “Advancing the neoliberal containment state” coupled with promises of “bread and butter” while failing to address “issues of power and control.”

Aren't the issues of class war fundamental to achieving our goals of securing ecological integrity within the biosphere of our overheating planet?

Please put it up.

____________________________________________________________

Gene:

I think it's a good idea to post it, with the intro you suggested, Ann.

I wouldn't promise the quick appearance of a VESG position. At the meeting last Thursday (for those who didn't make it) Roger undertook to re-work Bill's statement and bring it back to the Feb. 27 meeting. If members participate in the discussion, we might get a VESG position that represents the views of more than a majority of five.

__________________________________________________________________

Brad:

Yes, put it up. It’s an important point of view – could but an intro. – something like the VESG position will be published soon?

___________________________________________________________

Bill:

I would say no, but I may be a minority on this and so I am happy to be over-ruled by the majority. Whatever position VESG adopts, I don't think the politics of this statement are worth repeating.

Ann:

I was going to put this on the website with an introductory comment: "One take on the upcoming referendum in Metro Vancouver" but given our discussions and Bill's statement on the subject I'm not sure if I should do so? What do people think?

____________________________________________________________________

Gene:

Another take on transit:

http://themainlander.com/2015/02/13/op-ed-the-bitter-twilight-of-social-...

The Bitter Twilight of Social Democracy: NDP, unions and enviro NGOs back transit referendum

AIYANAS ORMOND

FEBRUARY 13, 2015

Leaders of the transit referendum's 'yes'side | Photo credit: Business in Vancouver

This spring, the provincial government will be asking Metro Vancouver residents if they approve of a new TransLink funding proposal. The social democrats are coming out of the woodwork to throw their weight behind the ‘Yes’ side in the referendum, as though it were some kind of grand cause. In reality, neither a ‘yes’ vote nor a ‘no’ vote will have an impact on the political direction of transit in our region: privatization, criminalization of the poor, racial profiling, and ‘service’ geared to corporate profits rather than people’s needs.

In backing the referendum, provincial NDP, Vision Vancouver, union bureaucrats, middle class environmentalists and the Christian church establishment have also found unity with the main institutional representatives of the ruling class in BC: the Vancouver Board of Trade, the BC Chamber of Commerce, and the Building Owners and Managers Association of BC.

This unholy alliance wants us to vote to slightly increase funding for TransLink, a neoliberal institution that not only works against our interests as working class people, but has actually been on the front lines of containing, criminalizing, incarcerating and deporting the most oppressed and marginalized sectors of our class. What’s the actual political content of this proposition by the social democrats? Let’s take a look.

Regressive Taxation

Today there is a general line among social democrats that taxes are good. This is a response to the neoliberal line that all taxes are bad, but it is simplistic. At the strategic level, the ruling class aren’t against taxation (after all, Mulroney brought in the GST!), they just want to shift the tax burden off of corporations and the rich and onto working class people – in other words, to strip taxation of its redistributive function.

The reality is that from a class standpoint, all taxes are not good. Some are regressive and some are progressive, and that’s before even considering what the money is being spent on (sending soldiers to Afghanistan, prisons for the poor, NGO imperialism in Haiti?). But today the social democrats have completely given up on their defining principles – like progressive taxation and universality – which grew out of actual class struggle and working class movements. It is no secret that social democracy now functions as the left wing of neoliberal capitalist common sense.

In this referendum, the NDP, the unions and their allies are actively pushing for a regressive tax. An increase in the PST is a flat tax that actually hits the poor and working class disproportionately, since we spend a much higher proportion of our income on things that are taxed by PST. Rich people are much more likely to save or invest their money and pay very little sales tax proportionally.

Funding Privatization

Since being founded in 1998, TransLink has been a leading model of privatization and the neoliberal

‘restructuring’ of public service. The process has been simple: to take out most of the ‘public’ and most of the ‘service.’ The main mechanisms for this process of privatization have been:

Shifting spending away from provision of labour-intensive basic service bus service to capital intensive privatized mega projects, like the Canada Line, which generate larger corporate profits;

Steadily increasing fares and shifting the burden of paying for the transit off of general tax revenues and onto individual transit riders, who are disproportionately low-income – despite the fact that better transit benefits everyone, even those who don’t ride it on a regular basis;

An ideological campaign against the idea of transit as a universal public service: poor-bashing and scapegoating people who can’t afford to pay the fare as ‘fare cheats’ and sinking money into fare enforcement mechanisms (cops & security, fare gates, Compass Pass) that are only beneficial to the corporations feeding off of lavish contracts;

Privatization of the governance structure in 2007 in response to a perceived excess of democracy: what then

Minister Falcon called a “circus atmosphere” because the TransLink Board, under pressure from antiprivatization forces wouldn’t pass the privatized Canada Line fast enough, causing concern it wouldn’t be completed in time for the Olympics.

So the social democrats are really talking about mobilizing working class people to fight for the increased funding of an institution that has, for almost two decades, been completely hostile to our interests.

Advancing the Neoliberal Containment State

For the better part of two decades TransLink has operated against the economic and political interests of working class and oppressed people. But since the introduction of an armed transit police in 2005 many people in our community, particularly the poor, the racialized, and those with precarious status, have actually experience this institution as a daily source of intimidation, criminalization, and even incarceration and deportation.

Having your fare checked by a cop with a gun is bad enough. But the numerous stories of violence and public humiliation – particularly against poor people and Indigenous youth, as well as migrants who increasingly experience public transit as an armed border checkpoint – make it very evident that there is a much bigger issue than funding at stake.

Pick a Bigger Weapon

It has always been one of the chief failings of social democracy that it promises ‘bread and butter’ but fails to address the issues of power and control, as if these are only a secondary part of our exploitation and marginalization. There is no analysis and no vision here. And the truth is that there hasn’t been for a long time.

From 2000 to 2010 I was part of a militant and grassroots group (the Bus Riders Union) fighting against privatization and for social, economic and environmental justice in the transit system. The social democrats could have joined in this fight and in some instances, notably in the struggle against the Canada Line, their role could have been decisive. Instead, they backed the pro-privatization, pro-transit police, pro-fare increase policies of Larry Campbell as their representative, while supporting the Canada Line on the narrow and short term basis that it would generate ‘union jobs.’

Whichever way we vote in the TransLink funding referendum (for those of us who decide to vote at all), we are eventually going to have to engage in the tough work of building grassroots political organizations capable of challenging the big business agenda in public transit. This means fighting not only for access, but for power and control for working class and oppressed communities. We can start by realizing that there is no solution to the social catastrophe of capitalism or the environmental catastrophe of climate change within the respectable, procapitalist boundaries of social democracy. In its bitter twilight this phoney leadership, who pretend to be about social, economic and environmental justice, will at every critical moment side with the ruling class to save their rotten system

Lawrence:

Comrades!

My apologies for non attendance at tonight's meeting as I am going to the Jeff Halper presentation. It is a real pity that I am missing this meeting as I am more convinced than ever that the only vote I can support is a NO vote.

My reasoning, in a nutshell:

I believe that the transit issue is a screen to blind us to the true motives for this plebiscite: increasing a regressive tax.

I've seen David Suzuki's promo picture that says simply VOTE Yes for better transit & transportation that comes from the Facebook page “Vote YES for better transit Community” which a lot of my friends have "Liked." No mention of increased PST. So all people these people who want better transit are ignoring what I see as the real agenda here.

The ruling class actors know that they MUST make these transit improvements as the necessary improvements to the infrastructure to ensure a good economic climate. 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." 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.

I suggest voting "No" with 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 transit police, road and bridge construction, and health care expenditure resulting from the reduction in pollution and accident injuries as more people shift from private cars to public transit.

At a meeting of the IS in Vancouver last week the membership voted to support the Yes vote principally so as not to alienate the unions and other potential allies.

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 forego 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.

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 the communists. Now with greatly enhanced class power that results from the success of the economic and social changes since 1973 that constitute the neoliberal agenda, 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. Think of G20 in Toronto a few years ago. How can we allow them to get away with tricking 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 support 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.

______________________________________________________________________

Bill:

This is obviously preliminary, for the purposes of discussion. See below or attached.

You will note similarities and differences with the SP approach in the pamphlet reading that went out.

…………………………DRAFT Feb 12/15 BB………………….

Vancouver transit plebiscite: Vote “Yes” despite the timid plan, regressive taxation and the false choice offered Statement by the Vancouver Ecosocialist Group

Metro Vancouver residents will vote by mail-in ballot between March 16 and May 29 on whether to support an increase in the provincial sales tax in the Metro region from 7.0% to 7.5%.

As projected in the “Mayor’s Plan”, this half percentage point tax would go towards Skytrain rail under

Broadway Ave in Vancouver, a light rail line in Surrey and one out to Langley, and more coverage of the region by buses, including another eleven “B line” express routes and the “Night Owl” service. The Pattullo bridge between Vancouver and Surrey would be replaced by a new tolled bridge, some funding would go to road maintenance throughout the region and wider tolling is envisioned. There are also promises of more bike paths, a third Seabus across Burrard Inlet and more HandiDART service for elderly and disabled.

http://mayorscouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Mayors-Council_Highli...

The projected $250 million per year raised by this bump in the sales tax is modest relative to Translink’s current annual budget of about two billion dollars. The “Mayors Plan” also assumes that two thirds of the capital cost of the rail lines and other new infastructure will come from as-yet-secured contributions by the provincial and federal governments.

We should be clear. This plan for transit is totally inadequate. The sales tax is regressive. The plebiscite offers a false choice.

However, we should still vote “Yes”. A “No” outcome will delay transit infrastructure and strengthen the procar, pro-sprawl lobby. Our challenge is how to orient the “Yes” camp towards building a movement for transportation systems that meet human needs for mobility and promote cities that are environmentallysustainable.

Abstaining is no option given how important transit is for working people and the poor and anyone with even an inkling how climate change means everything has to change.

Regarding transportation, the key issue is whether to continue to massively subsidize roads for private cars and trucks or improve access to mobility through public transit.

The context for this plebiscite is therefore important. The BC Liberal government torpedoed the modestly transit-oriented development strategy adopted by municipalities in the Lower Mainland in the 1990s. Its “Gateway” program instead poured billions into highways and bridges (Port Mann Bridge, Golden Ears Bridge, South Perimeter Road, Highway 1 widening). Last year it unilaterally declared that a three billion dollar bridge will replace the Massey tunnel between Richmond and Delta. This will enable dredging the Fraser River to accommodate ships hauling US-origin coal from the Fraser-Surrey docks. Never mind that the choke point will simply move down the road to the next bridge!

Now the provincial government has imposed this transit-funding plebiscite on the municipalities and the Translink transportation authority. The Mayors’ proposal that new transit funding come from carbon taxes instead of the general sales tax was nixed. Much too short a time to sort out the issues was allowed – not even the ballot wording is settled!

The alternative of higher property taxes would hit working class homeowners, and would be largely passed on to tenants and customers. Vehicle levies and higher gas taxes would be better, environmentally. However, the amount collected per payer would have to be almost twice that for the broader-based sales tax. Many of those payers would be lower income and working people who have no choice but to drive.

Rather than voting on the basis of which form of regressive taxation, it is better to campaign for more equal access to a better transit service, e.g., for lower cost or free transit passes.

When voting “Yes” we need to emphasize how inadequate a vision for transit is expressed by the “Mayor’s Plan”. Certain real improvements and Langley will be ‘huge’. But the plan overall amounts to upholding the status quo – the car will still be King. Choosing transportation systems is not just about how we get around, it is also a decision on how our cities will develop for a very long time into the future. This one falls far short of what is urgently required.

Our current urban form has to completely change. We don’t know all the details in advance, but it is clear that cities must function on the basis of walking, biking and public transit rather than private cars and trucks. Our communities need to be far more dense and compact. They need to be more complete, so there are not long distances between home and work, school and services.

The “Mayor’s Plan” instead reflects their allegiance to what is possible without challenging the hegemony of the auto and real estate capitalists.

A number of questions have been raised that mischaracterize the stakes in this plebiscite.

Yes, Translink is an undemocratic agency with overpaid leaders. But “No” will not improve this. True, the subway under Broadway is a lot more expensive than surface rail. But we need dramatically more ambitious transit infastructure, not less - this or that transit mode is not the key issue, it is building up a comprehensive system for our future. Has Skytrain starved bus service and precluded local streetcars? This feeds into the wrong terms for debate. It should not be the rotten choices within the hopelessly inadequate budget for transit, it should be the transit budget vs. the budget for more roads and bridges. Yes, developers profit from Skytrain, just as they profit from highways and suburban sprawl. In fact the latter has historically been their preference. Definitely, scrap the Transit Police, but that will not yield more transit routes.

In voting “Yes” on this plebiscite we should advance suggestions like these for a red and green program for urban transportation:

Transit mobility for everyone and to promote urban ecological sustainability

Public ownership and operation of transit systems; build public space, decommodify life

Public and worker control – direct elections, transparent planning and administration

Modal integration and optimization, a fast rail backbone at national and large-metro scales

Compact, complete communities – dense infill, more low-rise than high-rise, a strategic role for public housing and public land, all development must be transit-contingent.

Funding by senior governments, taken from i) military expenditures, subsidies to carbon and auto corporations, ii) sharply progressive taxation on personal and corporate income, iii) dedicated revenue from parking, gas, carbon, and capital gains on land near transit, iv) public debt

Against ‘mobility pricing’ before transit alternatives are in place for workers and poor

“Towards free transit” – progressively lower fares and/or fare-free access for children, seniors, students, pro-transit employer programs, during special events, on particular routes, off-peak hours, etc.

Transit as a leading component of a pro-worker, pro-nature plan of reconstruction – re-tool/re-assign carbon workers to build transit infrastructure, renewable energy, public housing, energy-efficiency renovation, environmental restoration…

___________________________________________________________________

Brad:

From a FB post from Harsha Walia:

This Transit referendum is so frustrating.

Yes Metro Vancouver needs more transit, but no one is talking about whether transit is actually becoming more affordable and accessible, or the fact the transit plan re-entrenches a user-pay model that disproportionately offloads the tax burden onto low income, poor and working class people.

Plus why a sales tax to fund this proposed new transit plan and not, for example, levy a property tax which would actually target rich and middle class people instead of poor and working class people? More green capitalist Vancouver crap, backed up even by Christy Clark.

Our so-called public transit system is already so privatized and militarized, especially over the past decade. We are regularly faced with fare increases, private public partnerships have been introduced that basically guarantee corporate profit (like the SNC Lavalin contract), and the new secretive and unaccountable transit governance boards.

More and more money is going into transit police, the only armed transit police force in the entire country, with an annual budget of $31 million that is expected to grow 25% over the next few years. This is five times more than what TransLink loses from fare evasion, which demonstrates that Transit Police are basically on transit to maintain social control and criminalize marginalized communities even further.

Like the killing of 23-year old Gitxan man Naverone Woods. Or Transit police turning migrants like Lucia Vega Jimenez over to Canada Border Services Agency to certain deportation and/or death.

So yeah more and better public transit, but how about ensuring accessible transit that people can ride without fear of being detained, abused, harassed, or deported.

Lawrence:

Thanks for these attached items, Bill. I'm particularly pleased to have access to the work on transport being done by Eric Doherty and his colleagues.

I was a little confused at first by the page references you gave for the Socialist Project pamphlet as I was looking at the page numbers printed on the original document rather than the page numbers assigned by Acrobat Reader. Thought I'd mention this in case anyone else is confused.

On Brian Campbell's remarks: I agree completely with the idea that this should be treated as an opportunity to present a socialist perspective rather than choosing one of the options offered by the ruling class. Brian expressed himself more clearly than I had in my original comment.

Bill:

I suggest we all read the Toronto Workers Assembly program on transit (screen pp. 41-45 of the attached (Toronto) Socialist project pamphlet http://www.socialistproject.ca/documents/FreeTransit.php and if you have time the Roundtable p. 35-45). For one Vancouver plan motivated by the climate crisis see the attached

CCPA report https://www.policyalternatives.ca/transportationtransformation

______________________________________________________________

Brian:

I am inclined to agree with Lawrence’s position although I don’t think it goes far enough. Bill is suggesting picking between the two choices provide by the bourgeois politicians and does not take into consideration what a socialist position would be. Lawrence choose perhaps the least damning of the revenue raising option but still accepts the concept of having to go to referendum.

I suggest that a more thought out socialist position should be considered and put forward. I would argue for fare-free transit funded from general revenue. A number of organizations have argued for this position and there is lots of data available including,I think, from the Toronto General Assembly.

We do not want to choose the options provided to us but argue for a position that clearly represents the interests of the working class and poor.

_________________________________________________

Lawrence:

At this point in the game my opinion is:

This vote is the usual regressive neoliberal taxing of the poor. I’d prefer to tax the corporations and make public transit free in order to align myself with an ecosocialist agenda.

I think we should be using this vote as an opportunity to bring the larger issues to the table. If not now, when? Mount the independent campaign. Bring up the issues that are being ignored. The Mayor is proposing a solution that doesn’t challenge the absurdity of the capitalist system and the damage that the private car industry is doing to the planet. This is an opportunity to challenge all these big things that are assumed to be part of the natural way of being. We need to expose the bad sense of the “common sense” approach to developing our society.

I don’t think that critical support for the yes vote is even remotely correct if we want to escape the treadmill that the left has become habituated to in this neoliberal age.

Bill:

Today’s Sun has a story on the Taxpayer Federation’s alternative to the 0.5% bump in provincial sales tax posed in the upcoming ‘transit referendum’. What a surprise. The “No” camp are for only that transit that can be funded with existing taxes.

On the other side are the usual suspects, see http://www.getonboardbc.ca/blog

I have been wondering if the VESG should take a position on this vote. Just thinking aloud:

"Don't vote/no opinion". This signals we don't have much to say about an issue with ecological and social weight.

"Vote no". This would leave us in the camp of reaction if we can't mount the independent campaign and developed program needed to distinguish ourselves.

"Critical support for yes vote". This is the correct position, but would mean we need to think through a couple of questions not yet broached by VESG.

The 'Mayor's Plan' for Vancouver-area transit is absurdly inadequate, constrained as it is by the province, the vacancy of the Feds and its live-with-capitalism (and cars)- framework. The same is true about other public infrastructure and services. So, yes, ecosocialism, but what are the first steps in our transitional program?

Sales taxes are regressive. But income tax progressivity has eroded, and the sales tax route is relatively transparent, universal and 'efficient'. The 0.5% theoretically goes to transit, which is needed/used more by 'us' than 'them'. Is the 0.5% very different than a similar bump in the also-regressive carbon tax that would be funneled to transit; would we oppose that? I am less sure than I used to be of the answer. How can we popularize "tax the capitalist" funding mechanisms among supporters of the "Yes"?

The issues with Translink should not be the basis for voting. Its appointed Board and managerial salaries reflect the Liberals exactly, but the regional scale and responsibility for [some] road infastructure are necessary, not bad. The currently- projected choice of transit mode (e.g., Skytrain vs. surface rail vs. buses) also should not be the basis for this vote. All these modes (perhaps even the gondola up Burnaby Mountain) are needed components of the dramatically expanded system we should advocate. A more current issue is whether the province and feds will ante up for the proposed LRT in Surrey and Broadway Skytrain. Can we/how do we promote democratic planning and administration of transportation from within the "yes" camp?

________________________________________________________________________

Category:

Articles Menu

Vancouver Ecosocialists discussion on Vancouver transit plebiscite