Richard Truscott speaks on Transit Referendum
.JPG)
In the interests of balanced debate and the representation of very different arguments, we welcomed Richard Truscott to our meeting to represent the "No" side of the Great Transit Referendum. Appearing as the Vice President of the Canadian Federation for Independent Businesses, and therefore appearing on behalf of some 109,000 members (of which 10,000 are from B.C.), he commenced his address by stating that 80% of the Federation's members were against the proposal to increase the sales tax and then proceeded to agree with Mayor Brodie's excoriation of Translink. But from that point, his argument embraced several propositions, firstly that an increase in the sales tax would be iniquitous, being contrary to local business interests, secondly that revenue is presently being simply misused, and thirdly that Translink is totally irresponsible and that it should cease to exist (perhaps to be replaced by a government agency (sic)) because of its past transgressions.
But, paradoxically, he agreed that his membership recognized the need for infrastructure improvements, the projected growth in population and business obviously mandating major transportation innovation. It would seem, however, that the No side is of the view that Translink is sitting on a pile of money and that it should simply be abolished or recast (what is legislated into existence can of course be equally easily legislated into history) and the transportation problem would be resolved by, presumably, appropriate use of the resulting flood of funds. As a solution to a set of problems that few deny, this doesn't sound much like a plan, a flaw that members' questioning immediately limned. All know that there is no Plan B, so one is forced to the conclusion - at least on the basis of this presentation - that a No vote is simply a recipe for inaction.
But, paradoxically, he agreed that his membership recognized the need for infrastructure improvements, the projected growth in population and business obviously mandating major transportation innovation. It would seem, however, that the No side is of the view that Translink is sitting on a pile of money and that it should simply be abolished or recast (what is legislated into existence can of course be equally easily legislated into history) and the transportation problem would be resolved by, presumably, appropriate use of the resulting flood of funds. As a solution to a set of problems that few deny, this doesn't sound much like a plan, a flaw that members' questioning immediately limned. All know that there is no Plan B, so one is forced to the conclusion - at least on the basis of this presentation - that a No vote is simply a recipe for inaction.