10-26-2014, 09:18 PM
(10-26-2014, 01:41 AM)nms Wrote: That Record article was pretty dismissive, not to mention insulting. Is it wrong for a politician to say, "You know, this project seems to be out of the scope of what I should be deciding for my constituents, maybe I should seek their direct approval?" Or are the citizens expected to speak up once, at the ballot box, and then shut up between elections? The politicians and staff seemed pretty sure of themselves throughout the consultation process that the majority of the population supported this plan, so what was the risk of putting it to a yes/no vote?
As for a lack of a meaningful question, why not a referendum that asked the same question that Council was asked earlier this year (That is, "Do you support Stage 1 of the LRT project?")? It would have been simple and straightforward. If the proponents had made a good enough case, their side would have carried the day.
And if the answer was "no", there would have been no clear direction on what the government is supposed to do. That's the problem. Then the council would have to figure out if they should do a different route, a different technology, no rapid transit at all, invest in lots of new roads instead, etc. Keep in mind that the LRT is primarily a mechanism to achieve the Regional Official Plan's intensification goals - and it's unclear that those goals can be achieved without higher-order transit along the central corridor. Or should the Official Plan also be up for a referendum?
(10-26-2014, 01:41 AM)nms Wrote: Or even better, what about a referendum question like, "Do you approve of 0.5% sales tax to improve transportation in our Region over the long-term?" after a few years of consultation to discuss what projects might be eligible for improvements?
I would rather have a decade or two of discussion to get the plan right, rather than pay for mistakes later. As it is, this plan has been in public consultation for 9 years and, if we're to believe the politicians, been part of Regional planning since 1973. Instead of haveing the courage to pitch a fully-funded, multi-stage plan to the voters, what we'll be left with is a half-built LRT plan with aBRT tacked on for show that has no tangible funding plan for the second LRT phase beyond, "We hope that the higher levels of government will pay for it".
The Region doesn't have the power to levy a sales tax, so it would be a completely arbitrary decision to say that this project needs a referendum for its property tax impact, whereas other regional infrastructure doesn't and (apparently) neither does the alternative of building lots more roads to support sprawl.
The best way to get a "full" system is to start with a system that works, attracts new development, grows ridership, and which proves public demand. After that you have a much easier time building extensions. As for funding for the line all the way to Cambridge, asking for that much funding from the upper levels of government at once would have very likely resulted in zero funding. In fact, I suspect those conversations happened during the years of planning for the system.