So the mayors headed out on to transit this morning to sell the Yes side. And then there’s this, tonight. No info in the news release from City of Vancouver on how people can join in, but perhaps 3-1-1 has the answer
As part of ongoing efforts to raise awareness about the upcoming transit and transportation plebiscite, Mayor Gregor Robertson, Councillors George Affleck and Adriane Carr will take part in a telephone town hall with Vancouver residents this evening.
The telephone town hall will be moderated by award-winning former radio host and journalist Bill Good.
“With two weeks until ballots get mailed to local residents, Vancouver City Council is making the case directly to voters about why we support a ‘Yes’ vote in the transit plebiscite,” said Mayor Gregor Robertson. “With our region growing by one million more residents in the next two decades, we need to invest in better transit and transportation. We want to inform voters about what’s at stake and encourage them to get out and vote.
“I’m pleased to be joined tonight by Councillors Carr and Affleck, both of whom strongly support a ‘Yes’ vote. Vancouver City Council is unanimous in our belief that a ‘Yes’ vote is the best thing we can do to grow our economy, protect our environment and cut traffic gridlock in Metro Vancouver.”
The telephone town hall will involve phoning thousands of Vancouver residents at 7pm, and will go to 8pm. Participants can listen in, take poll questions, and ask questions live, moderated by Bill Good.
280 responses so far ↓
1 Jeff Leigh // Mar 8, 2015 at 3:37 pm
Ah yes, October 2014. We remember it well. Wasn’t there an election campaign going on? Read the quote about “if voters give me a chance….” in your link.
Flash forward to 2015 and a discussion with the new mayor, referenced above.
2 boohoo // Mar 8, 2015 at 3:41 pm
Again, it’s comical you’d be cheer leading a vague campaign promise as though it were a guarantee or evidence of anything.
I’d wager anything you want that there will not be trains running Surrey by 2018. But according to you it’s a lock.
3 A Taxpayer // Mar 8, 2015 at 4:51 pm
As entertaining as this discussion of the issues may be, let’s not overlook the greatest obstacle facing the Yes side is that people generally are not keen about imposing a tax upon themselves and they always have very good reasons why they shouldn’t. The HST was doomed the minute Gordon Campbell chose to hold the vote under the Referendum Act rather than the Recall and Initiative Act and there are many more reasons to vote No on the transit plebiscite than there was with the HST vote.
The Yes side is an impressive coalition and perhaps the credibility of Mr. Pattison will be enough to convince people to resist their natural aversion to taxation. However, don’t forget that another broad and well funded coalition has spent the last 20 years, without a lot of success, trying to convince the masses that they must radically alter their lifestyle or face the prospect of an inevitable climate catastrophe.
4 A Taxpayer // Mar 8, 2015 at 5:16 pm
How does the appointment of Mr. Pattison have any bearing on whether this is good money after bad? Translink is still going to be spending it and all Mr. Pattison can say is it was spent on the projects in the Transit Plan, not that it was spent efficiently.
5 Don33 // Mar 8, 2015 at 6:18 pm
Sorry, but I have never heard of the old ‘I know you are but what am I’ come back, and I don’t have a clue what it means.
You wrote that my ‘plan b is… a hope and a prayer’, and while I am not certain I understand your point (in no small part because I haven’t put forward a plan b), I took you to mean that by voting no I would be taking a gamble that transit may not remain a priority if the no side prevails. I don’t want to put words in your mouth – is that more or less what you were suggesting?
If so, you are quite right, there is a risk in voting no.
My rejoinder was intended to point out that a yes vote is no less a gamble: Is the existing governance model capable of delivering transit, even if we throw more billions their way? Mightn’t we be better off to put in place a competent and accountable governance model before we throw more billions at it?
You think a no vote is counterproductive, or a least, a gamble; I think that a yes vote is counterproductive, or at least a gamble.
What I can’t understand (besides what “Lol. The old ‘I know you are but what am I’ come back” means) is why you are unwilling to engage in a mutually respectful dialogue, instead falling back on unintentionally comedic schoolyard attempts at ridicule.
6 boohoo // Mar 8, 2015 at 7:36 pm
A different governance model is not on the table. The province has been asked and said that is not on the table. If this were about a different model or about an alternative, I’m up for that debate. But there has been no indication of that from the province, so I’m not sure why there’s this belief that it’ll just happen.
So far, the only rationale has been that the province couldn’t just do nothing, but I have no idea why people think that. Of course they could.
You’re right, you haven’t put forward a plan b. No one has. Including the province. We should be grilling them about what they’ll do, but the media would much rather take the easy yes/no talking points and regurgitate them ad nauseum. That the province would put this to a vote without a shred of detail about what a no vote would mean is ludicrous. You can’t possibly make an informed decision about something without even knowing the consequences. That’s why this plan, while not perfect is at least something concrete with known results. You can gamble on a no vote and just hope the province steps in with some magic solution, but I have no faith they will. Like I pointed out earlier, if they do have a plan then what the hell are we doing wasting time and money on this vote.
7 jenables // Mar 8, 2015 at 7:47 pm
You are telling me this at the same time you don’t think a bus along 12th is feasible; don’t you think it might be a good idea to at least try, considering the subway wouldn’t be built for years and people aren’t going to stop moving to the suburbs in the meantime. I am aware twelfth is narrow from Glen to Kingsway, but not so narrow a bus wouldn’t fit or another innovative idea couldn’t solve. There’s a serious lack of east west connections in this city. To be honest, the subway comes with a host of other issues that the people in power never seem to look critically at. You really only need to look at the Cambie corridor to see what those issues are and how the city has dealt with them if you want to understand my concern.
8 jenables // Mar 8, 2015 at 7:55 pm
Because they would cancel the 99 b line when they build the subway, right? Sure the costs of operating would be lower if you aren’t paying bus drivers, but it’s not like it pays for itself. Of course, who knows what transit will cost when it is built? I’m not sure the densifying along the subway makes sense along Broadway, either. It would seem to me that much of the commercial activity and jobs will probably be replaced by you know what with empty retail below. Particularly on the east side that would also mean the loss of more affordable housing and displacement.
9 logan5 // Mar 8, 2015 at 8:43 pm
So what’s the tipping point for you? The Broadway corridor sees over 100 000 riders per day. Is there a magic number that would qualify Broadway for a subway? Or you’re just dead set against a subway under any circumstances?
10 Don33 // Mar 8, 2015 at 8:51 pm
Well, I could be wrong, but I am convinced that a different governance model is very much on the table, by default, in that if the no side prevails, it will be taken, by both sides, as what it is – an overwhelming rejection of the current governance model, not as a rejection of transit.
It doesn’t matter what you call it (who ever thought of “congestion Improvement”?) this is not a referendum on transit. Yes supporters such as yourself will understandably, if disingenuously, characterize it as such to get their vote out, but will be the first and loudest to characterize it as a referendum on governance in the event that the no side prevails.
That will be your Plan B, and ironically, we will end up being in agreement
I’m not going to argue about it any more – let’s just let the events unfold.
11 boohoo // Mar 8, 2015 at 9:10 pm
I’m not opposed to reviewing the model, but again, if that’s the objective or end goal, then why are we wasting time and money with this referendum?
12 Chris Keam // Mar 8, 2015 at 9:39 pm
“How does the appointment of Mr. Pattison have any bearing on whether this is good money after bad? ”
It doesn’t. Because it’s not. However, that perspective is common, and conceivably the appointment addresses it. As I say, then it turns out there’s some new criticism that Mr Pattinson doesn’t ride the bus, so shouldn’t be judging. This however is apparently not a problem when CTF critics don’t use transit. How bizarre.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2cMG33mWVY
13 Lysenko's Nemesis // Mar 8, 2015 at 10:10 pm
Well said.
14 A Taxpayer // Mar 9, 2015 at 9:34 am
According to the poll reported in the Sun this morning, apparently Mr. Pattison’s appointment doesn’t.
15 Chris Keam // Mar 9, 2015 at 9:54 am
Ah yes, governance by polling. What could go wrong?
16 A Taxpayer // Mar 9, 2015 at 10:10 am
Your repeated non sequiturs, while amusing, are tedious. You stated that perhaps the appointment would address a common perspective. The poll indicates it has not. It has absolutely nothing to do with “governance by polling”.
17 Kirk // Mar 9, 2015 at 12:53 pm
A “yes” vote might give you a pay raise! Maybe I’ll go ask my boss and hinge my vote on his response.
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/03/saying-yes-transit-referendum-may-increase-salary/
18 Lysenko's Nemesis // Mar 9, 2015 at 1:22 pm
Of course, if we vote Yes we’ll live longer, be richer and have more nooky.
They’ve asked Al Gore to fly in with Bono and tell us to vote Yes.
19 Kirk // Mar 9, 2015 at 5:44 pm
I read the report. It argues that a yes vote will decrease congestion and thus enable people to take higher paying jobs that they currently wouldn’t take because their commute would take too long. It’s described as “better urban access”. But, to me, that means it will encourage urban sprawl…?
It also says housing costs would rise and lead to bidding wars. Am I reading that right? If that’s true, no wonder all the developers are pushing for this. Can someone else give their take on the report?
Anyway, my boss laughed and said they’re idiots. I said they’re asking for more money to manage.
20 boohoo // Mar 9, 2015 at 7:33 pm
Except ‘they’ aren’t asking for more money.
We’re paying for this one way or another. ..pick your poison.
21 jenables // Mar 10, 2015 at 2:13 am
As I said above, unfortunately a subway would come with a whole lot of displacement and increased property values. I have a hard time supporting more of this, especially when there are other potential solutions. Not to mention this is the most expensive option, and apparently translink can barely keep the lights on..
22 Internet made me obsolete // Mar 10, 2015 at 10:39 am
And who owns the Government of Singapore? The Lee family. So it’s all private in that sense.
23 IanS // Mar 10, 2015 at 7:29 pm
Speaking of tone deaf, if I get one more recorded message from the Suzuki Foundation inviting me to join a town hall teleconference about the importance of voting “yes”, I’m switching my vote to a “no”. Seriously, who thinks those recorded messages are a good idea?
24 Lysenko's Nemesis // Mar 10, 2015 at 9:35 pm
They have become a sort of, international conglomerate.
25 A Taxpayer // Mar 11, 2015 at 8:57 am
The fact that the Suzuki Foundation is for the “Yes” side would be enough for me to consider to vote “No”.
26 IanS // Mar 11, 2015 at 10:56 am
Well, I’m not really going to vote “no”, even though the recorded phone calls are so incredibly annoying.
If’s almost funny. I’m determined to vote “yes”, but almost everything I hear from the “yes” side makes me want to change my vote to “no”.
27 Kirk // Mar 11, 2015 at 6:52 pm
If you vote No, you could DIE!
http://www.vancouversun.com/story.html?id=10879973
28 Lysenko's Nemesis // Mar 12, 2015 at 8:30 am
Police Chief Chu got all dressed up to ask that we give TransLink $7 billion and then, maybe, some drunks on Granville on Saturday nights, might take the night bus home.
Hey Chief, how about we arrange a car and driver for all the drunks. If we donate $20 billion will that cover it?
29 A Taxpayer // Mar 12, 2015 at 9:35 am
If the Chief is so concerned about impaired driving then why isn’t he asking Council to do something about the lack of taxis in Vancouver. By any measure, Vancouver has fewer taxis than needed yet they not only block Uber, but also suburban taxi companies that are trying to serve Vancouver, particularly during high demand hours.
Let’s see now. Council suspends issuing new taxi licenses in October, the Vancouver Taxi Association donates $53,000 to Vision, Vision wins election in November. No doubt, none of these events are connected.
30 Lysenko's Nemesis // Mar 12, 2015 at 10:26 am
March 12, 2015 CKNW. “The BC Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the City of Vancouver saying city council has the final say on who can drive a taxi on city streets.
Councilor Geoff Meggs says the decision means the city can continue to wait before making a final decision on giving licenses to 38 suburban taxis. …”
First he has to get instructions from the guy that calls the shots. The head of the taxi association.