This is their consultation. - FW
Important Choices - Transportation Projects and Funding - Survey Closes June 30
from support@translinklistens.ca
Dear TransLink Listens Advisor,
You are cordially invited to participate in TransLink's "It's Your Move" on-line public consultation exercise (which takes about 15 minutes or more) and then complete a short survey about the transportation plan for the next 10 years.
This is your opportunity to tell us what you think regional transportation planning priorities should be over the next ten years and how you think we should pay for them.
As an added incentive to participate - those who participate in the exercise and complete the survey by June 30, 2009 will be entered into a contest to win one of five cash prizes:
- Two prizes of $500 cash
- Three prizes of $100 cash
We are increasing the prizes to acknowledge panelists' time in becoming familiar with Transport 2040, the 30-year vision for the region. In addition, TransLink Listens provides significant research cost savings.
The proposed 10-year Plan, and ways to pay for it, is just the start. Your decisions will be instrumental in setting the course for the liveability of the Region, and we hope that providing this information will assist you in making informed decisions. The results of this consultation will be reported to TransLink's Board of Directors.
Watch for the most important survey in TransLink's history, on TransLink Listens July 3, 2009. We hope you'll be a part of it.
CLICK HERE TO BEGIN: https://join.translinklistens.ca/R.aspx?r=ITuvB1BOMEiYtOAoAosVwg&m=600000173
Sincerely
The TransLink Listens Team
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Neighbourhoods Pissed at Translink Planning
Copies of this letter are circulating in email. It challenges the notion that public "consultation" means giving the public time to hear and object but not any time to get their heads together and to effectively raise alternatives. Maybe with Kevin Falcon moving from the Transportation Ministry to Health, his heavy-handed style will be lifted from Transportation? (But moved to Health? - shudder) -FW:
Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver
June 24, 2009
TransLink Board of Directors
1600 - 4720 Kingsway
Burnaby, BC V5H 4N2
Attention: Mr. Tom Prendergast, CEO
Re: TransLink’s Transport 2040 - Consultation on the 10 yr. Funding Plan
Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver is a City of Vancouver wide organization of neighbourhood groups that includes about 30 residents' associations, CityPlan Vision implementation committees, ratepayers’ associations and community groups. We are commenting on the current and proposed TransLink funding models. Since TransLink's Transport 2040 and Metro Vancouver's 2040 Regional Growth Strategy were drafted in parallel, we are also including some of our comments on Metro's 2040 proposal which is interrelated with TransLink. Please consider this letter as part of our comments to TransLink under your consultation process.
Our concerns are mainly related to TransLink using real estate development, rezoning and land speculation to fund transit. The substantial change to use real estate to fund transit was done without public consultation and we adamantly oppose this direction. We support TransLink having a stable source of funding from Provincial and Federal taxation sources and abandoning the use of real estate speculation.
Our comments to date for TransLink funding sources are as follows:
1) Do not use property taxes or real estate development - Transit is a responsibility of the Provincial and Federal governments, so the funding sources
should be from those senior level sources of taxation not from the few civic sources of taxation. Therefore, property taxes and real estate development / rezoning / land lift should all be off the table as they are sources for civic fund raising for civic amenities. If these sources are used to fund transit then the Province is downloading onto the municipalities. There is a systemic conflict of interest for Translink to be both a regulator of land use policy and a real estate speculator / developer. There has been no public consultation to date to justify this direction or to having an unelected appointed Board of Directors.
2) Transit funding should be based on polluter-pay rather than user-pay principals[sic]- Transit fares should be lowered to encourage transit ridership. Those who pollute should pay more for transit through increased gas taxes, carbon taxes, variable vehicle levies, road user fees, parking fees, goods movement fees, or other polluter based charges.
3) The balance of funds should come from Provincial and Federal taxation sources-The municipalities only collect 10% of taxes while Provincial and Federal governments collect the remaining 90%. Senior governments must stop downloading onto municipalities as described above in #1. Any shortfall in funding should be provided by the Province and the Feds.
4) Increase and improve TransLink’s public consultation process -
There has not been broad public consultation on TransLink’s direction or funding. We think that one rather confused workshop for the whole City of Vancouver is not adequate. Most residents do not know what the options are or that TransLink is proposing to use real estate development as the future main Transit funding source based on a Honk Kong model. This has never been publicly debated.
The main comments we have on TransLink's involvement in the Metro Regional Growth Strategy are as follows:
Our concerns with this proposal are mainly related to a substantial change of governance for municipal planning process, lack of clarity in the Metro proposal, and using the Regional Growth Strategy to give TransLink, which is now in the land development business, undo influence in municipal planning.
1) We oppose Metro, Provincial and TransLink regulation of municipal Official Community Plans (OCP): Unlike previous regional growth plans, this draft proposes shifting the authority over land use decisions. The Regional Context Statements and the Official Community Plans (OCP) would require Metro Board approval for compliance to the Regional Growth Strategy; TransLink approval of the OCP and large developments for implications to the regional transportation system; and
Provincial approval for developments along highways. This is an attack on the principle of subsidiarity; it would make municipal officials less accountable and public involvement in planning virtually meaningless. Municipalities should retain control over land use planning and approvals within their boundaries.
If Metro's intent is to protect green zones and industrial areas, then any regional authority should be restricted to absolute protection for green zones and qualified protection for industrial areas and only these should be required to be shown on a map. Metro should have no authority over or formal input into land use policy other than green zones and industrial areas. We do not support the City of Vancouver's motion amendment D that proposes regional land use 'input' for Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Corridors, as the wording is ambiguous and could be
construed as adoption of policies or plans that have not been subject to local area planning and Community Vision implementation under City Plan. Also, because of TransLink’s real estate development conflict of interest, TransLink should be allowed to review and comment only, without any authority over land use policy.
2) TransLink's conflicted roll [sic] as both planning regulator and developer: Land lift is a municipal asset that is used to provide amenities such as community centers, parks, and facilities. TransLink has been given a mandate to raise funds through real estate speculation, rezoning and land lift to pay for transit which is primarily a provincial responsibility. We strongly oppose this downloading onto municipal governments. It appears that the Province is using the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy to facilitate TransLink real estate dealings by giving this unelected board authority over land use decisions that could override municipalities. Since TransLink and their private development partners would have a financial stake in those decisions, conflicts of interest would be systemic.
3) Regional growth strategies are too prescriptive: The details outlined on pages 16-18 of the draft report are overly prescriptive in regard to density bonus provisions, variable development cost charges, reduced parking and other financial incentives for development. Although municipalities may choose to use such incentives from time to time, they involve significant trade-offs, and should not be prescribed in the Metro plan as they would be routinely used to fund transit and possibly other provincial responsibilities in place of amenities. The prescription for 'Large-scale, high density commercial office and retail uses' in the
Metro Core ignores and could conflict with the imperative to retain an adequate supply of old but functional buildings - essential for maintaining commercial diversity and affordable spaces for new ideas and enterprises.
4) Frequent Transit Development Corridors are too broad: The Frequent Transit Development Corridors as shown on Map 2 are described on Figure 2 (page 18) as 400 to 800 metres on both sides of the corridor for medium and high density development. In some municipal locations this may be reasonable if they have a generally large lot layout and only a few transit corridors. However, in Vancouver, 400 to 800 metres would result in mass upzoning of the entire city! The Metro plan should generally describe transit oriented development to be close to transit without specifying where it should be located. Detailed community planning
within municipal boundaries should be under the sole jurisdiction of the municipality.
5) Provincial control of developments along highways: Developments impacting highways should also be under municipal control. It is a concern that
requirements for provincial reviews of developments along highways could be a way for the Province to use land lift and rezoning to fund highway improvements. Again, this would constitute down-loading. While such authority might ostensibly be a check on car-dependant sprawl, it could actually facilitate environmentally destructive highway-oriented residential, commercial or industrial development.
6) Green zones would be more vulnerable: Under this proposal green zones would be more easily removed from protection, which would make them subject to “horse-trading” between municipalities, a practice we oppose. Exemptions from Green Zones should require unanimous support of the Metro Board, not just 2/3 support as
proposed. Also, some green zones are shown within Urban Containment boundaries and should be excluded so they cannot be developed (e.g. UBC Endowment Lands and the North Shore).
7) Timelines for public consultations are inadequate: We agree with the conclusions under 'Public input to date' in the CoV staff report. There has not
been enough time for the public or their elected representatives to understand the issues and to respond. We implore Council to insist on an extension of the Metro public consultation. The deadline for all input by May 22, 2009 is not acceptable.
These and other concerns raised at during the May 20th Metro public forum at the Wosk Centre confirmed that more work and substantive changes are required for the Regional Growth Strategy and Translink funding models. To this end we support a better opportunity for public participation in both the TransLink Transport 2040 funding proposals and the Metro Vancouver 2040 Regional Growth Strategy.
Regards,
Ned Jacobs
On behalf of the Steering Committee
Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver
Group contact email: nsvancouver@hotmail.com
Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver
June 24, 2009
TransLink Board of Directors
1600 - 4720 Kingsway
Burnaby, BC V5H 4N2
Attention: Mr. Tom Prendergast, CEO
Re: TransLink’s Transport 2040 - Consultation on the 10 yr. Funding Plan
Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver is a City of Vancouver wide organization of neighbourhood groups that includes about 30 residents' associations, CityPlan Vision implementation committees, ratepayers’ associations and community groups. We are commenting on the current and proposed TransLink funding models. Since TransLink's Transport 2040 and Metro Vancouver's 2040 Regional Growth Strategy were drafted in parallel, we are also including some of our comments on Metro's 2040 proposal which is interrelated with TransLink. Please consider this letter as part of our comments to TransLink under your consultation process.
Our concerns are mainly related to TransLink using real estate development, rezoning and land speculation to fund transit. The substantial change to use real estate to fund transit was done without public consultation and we adamantly oppose this direction. We support TransLink having a stable source of funding from Provincial and Federal taxation sources and abandoning the use of real estate speculation.
Our comments to date for TransLink funding sources are as follows:
1) Do not use property taxes or real estate development - Transit is a responsibility of the Provincial and Federal governments, so the funding sources
should be from those senior level sources of taxation not from the few civic sources of taxation. Therefore, property taxes and real estate development / rezoning / land lift should all be off the table as they are sources for civic fund raising for civic amenities. If these sources are used to fund transit then the Province is downloading onto the municipalities. There is a systemic conflict of interest for Translink to be both a regulator of land use policy and a real estate speculator / developer. There has been no public consultation to date to justify this direction or to having an unelected appointed Board of Directors.
2) Transit funding should be based on polluter-pay rather than user-pay principals[sic]- Transit fares should be lowered to encourage transit ridership. Those who pollute should pay more for transit through increased gas taxes, carbon taxes, variable vehicle levies, road user fees, parking fees, goods movement fees, or other polluter based charges.
3) The balance of funds should come from Provincial and Federal taxation sources-The municipalities only collect 10% of taxes while Provincial and Federal governments collect the remaining 90%. Senior governments must stop downloading onto municipalities as described above in #1. Any shortfall in funding should be provided by the Province and the Feds.
4) Increase and improve TransLink’s public consultation process -
There has not been broad public consultation on TransLink’s direction or funding. We think that one rather confused workshop for the whole City of Vancouver is not adequate. Most residents do not know what the options are or that TransLink is proposing to use real estate development as the future main Transit funding source based on a Honk Kong model. This has never been publicly debated.
The main comments we have on TransLink's involvement in the Metro Regional Growth Strategy are as follows:
Our concerns with this proposal are mainly related to a substantial change of governance for municipal planning process, lack of clarity in the Metro proposal, and using the Regional Growth Strategy to give TransLink, which is now in the land development business, undo influence in municipal planning.
1) We oppose Metro, Provincial and TransLink regulation of municipal Official Community Plans (OCP): Unlike previous regional growth plans, this draft proposes shifting the authority over land use decisions. The Regional Context Statements and the Official Community Plans (OCP) would require Metro Board approval for compliance to the Regional Growth Strategy; TransLink approval of the OCP and large developments for implications to the regional transportation system; and
Provincial approval for developments along highways. This is an attack on the principle of subsidiarity; it would make municipal officials less accountable and public involvement in planning virtually meaningless. Municipalities should retain control over land use planning and approvals within their boundaries.
If Metro's intent is to protect green zones and industrial areas, then any regional authority should be restricted to absolute protection for green zones and qualified protection for industrial areas and only these should be required to be shown on a map. Metro should have no authority over or formal input into land use policy other than green zones and industrial areas. We do not support the City of Vancouver's motion amendment D that proposes regional land use 'input' for Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Corridors, as the wording is ambiguous and could be
construed as adoption of policies or plans that have not been subject to local area planning and Community Vision implementation under City Plan. Also, because of TransLink’s real estate development conflict of interest, TransLink should be allowed to review and comment only, without any authority over land use policy.
2) TransLink's conflicted roll [sic] as both planning regulator and developer: Land lift is a municipal asset that is used to provide amenities such as community centers, parks, and facilities. TransLink has been given a mandate to raise funds through real estate speculation, rezoning and land lift to pay for transit which is primarily a provincial responsibility. We strongly oppose this downloading onto municipal governments. It appears that the Province is using the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy to facilitate TransLink real estate dealings by giving this unelected board authority over land use decisions that could override municipalities. Since TransLink and their private development partners would have a financial stake in those decisions, conflicts of interest would be systemic.
3) Regional growth strategies are too prescriptive: The details outlined on pages 16-18 of the draft report are overly prescriptive in regard to density bonus provisions, variable development cost charges, reduced parking and other financial incentives for development. Although municipalities may choose to use such incentives from time to time, they involve significant trade-offs, and should not be prescribed in the Metro plan as they would be routinely used to fund transit and possibly other provincial responsibilities in place of amenities. The prescription for 'Large-scale, high density commercial office and retail uses' in the
Metro Core ignores and could conflict with the imperative to retain an adequate supply of old but functional buildings - essential for maintaining commercial diversity and affordable spaces for new ideas and enterprises.
4) Frequent Transit Development Corridors are too broad: The Frequent Transit Development Corridors as shown on Map 2 are described on Figure 2 (page 18) as 400 to 800 metres on both sides of the corridor for medium and high density development. In some municipal locations this may be reasonable if they have a generally large lot layout and only a few transit corridors. However, in Vancouver, 400 to 800 metres would result in mass upzoning of the entire city! The Metro plan should generally describe transit oriented development to be close to transit without specifying where it should be located. Detailed community planning
within municipal boundaries should be under the sole jurisdiction of the municipality.
5) Provincial control of developments along highways: Developments impacting highways should also be under municipal control. It is a concern that
requirements for provincial reviews of developments along highways could be a way for the Province to use land lift and rezoning to fund highway improvements. Again, this would constitute down-loading. While such authority might ostensibly be a check on car-dependant sprawl, it could actually facilitate environmentally destructive highway-oriented residential, commercial or industrial development.
6) Green zones would be more vulnerable: Under this proposal green zones would be more easily removed from protection, which would make them subject to “horse-trading” between municipalities, a practice we oppose. Exemptions from Green Zones should require unanimous support of the Metro Board, not just 2/3 support as
proposed. Also, some green zones are shown within Urban Containment boundaries and should be excluded so they cannot be developed (e.g. UBC Endowment Lands and the North Shore).
7) Timelines for public consultations are inadequate: We agree with the conclusions under 'Public input to date' in the CoV staff report. There has not
been enough time for the public or their elected representatives to understand the issues and to respond. We implore Council to insist on an extension of the Metro public consultation. The deadline for all input by May 22, 2009 is not acceptable.
These and other concerns raised at during the May 20th Metro public forum at the Wosk Centre confirmed that more work and substantive changes are required for the Regional Growth Strategy and Translink funding models. To this end we support a better opportunity for public participation in both the TransLink Transport 2040 funding proposals and the Metro Vancouver 2040 Regional Growth Strategy.
Regards,
Ned Jacobs
On behalf of the Steering Committee
Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver
Group contact email: nsvancouver@hotmail.com
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Vote Clerking at Mt. Pleasant Neighbourhood House
Voting personnel in the May 12 Provincial election had to work about a 14 hour or more day. There were about 8 voting boxes at the Mt. Pleaseant Neighbourhood House, and each one had a table with officials at it. There was also a table for people to register if they were not on the rolls at all, and another table for people to vote absentee if they were not at their own polling place.
There was a voter book for each voting box, and if people had voted in advance polling that was already marked into the book, so they couldn't vote a second time.
I was just a voting clerk, at the table for Box 100. People came into the room and were met by one of two very young and smiling women who stood on their feet the whole time the polls were open, greeting people and directing them to the right table. Box 100 had the most traffic of any of the boxes, or so it seemed. My job was to look at people's i.d.'s, find their names on the voting list, have them sign beside their names, affirming that they had the right to vote and were only voting once; and then I gave their voter number to the person sitting next to me. She was the boss of our table. She had to write the voter number on each of two stubs for each of the two ballots (the election ballot and the referendum ballot). One stub stayed in the book and the other stub was torn off along with the ballot.
People took their ballots and went behind a screen at the end of the table and marked them. If they asked us questions about what was on the ballots, we weren't allowed to tell them anything, except that they should mark one X or check on each ballot, and if they didn't want to mark the ballot they didn't have to. If they had questions, all we could do was refer them to information posted on the wall, which included the text of the referendum in a number of languages.
Judging by the names and conversations, there were people from a very large variety of ethnic groups voting in our location.
When the people brought their ballots back to the voting captain at our table, she tore off the numbered stub from each ballot and gave them back to the voter to put their now-anonymous ballots into the ballot box. Some people were in a hurry and left us to put the ballots in, but most did it themselves. Most people were friendly and fairly patient. The lines never got terribly long - people arrived in waves, starting with early-birds before work and the people who had just dropped their kids off at daycare, and peaking again at lunchtime, picking up again around 3 when shiftworkers got off, and then another big rush right near 8 pm when the polls closed. Of course most of the people who arrived at the very last minute had problems to solve, like needing name changes or address changes. This was very hard on the people at the table that handled that, and they started making mistakes that will probably come back to haunt at the next provincial election, in the form of incorrect voting cards getting mailed out. But five years from now a lot of more people will have changed their names and moved.
There were a lot of steps to the ritual, especially in the case of new or changed registrations, that could throw the voting clerks off. I myself made two mistakes, that I caught later. One was not realizing that a voter had failed to sign the book. The other one was not noticing the last newly-registered voter's sign-in on the next page, and so giving an incorrect total for the ballot count. Eventually, when the number of ballots didn't match up the count, we kept going over it until I found my mistake. This made our table the last to finish. Luckily we had assistance from a young man who had really studied the system carefully and had experience of a previous election. We were all very patient and good-natured. If you follow all the steps during the counting process, the procedure is designed to be sure you catch all the mistakes.
Less than half the number of voters registered for Box 100 actually voted. There were about 173 on the voter list, and about 11 new registrants on voting day, but only 82 actually voted.
When we did the count, we first had to separate the election ballots from the referendum ballots. We had a set of grids to mark down the votes for each candidate, then we separated each candidate's votes into a separate pile. Each time it looked as if a candidate had 25 votes, we rubber-banded that pile of ballots, and re-counted that group to be sure we had marked them correctly. Jenny Kwan had far and away the majority of the ballots. The Liberal candidate had about half as many, the Green candidate had only 16, and in our box the Communist candidate got none. No other parties were running candidates in Vancouver-Mt. Pleasant. Of those who actually marked their ballots for the referendum, BC-STV passed in our box by 62%.
Each party is allowed to have a scrutineer at each ballot box. We ended up with only one, I'm not even sure what party she was from. There are processes for scrutineers who are there at the start of the day to see that the ballot box starts out empty before it is sealed, and is fully emptied at the end of the election. Ours didn't arrive til our count had started, and she watched us do the count. We didn't have any ballots that were strangely marked in our box, but if we had, there wss a list for us to use to decide if it was possible to ascertain the intent of the voter or not.
The count done at the actual box is reported to the head of the polling place and that's the first information that goes to the press. Then we had to take our box to the polling headquarters downtown, where the ballots would be re-counted. The absentee votes cast at each polling place are not counted on the spot, but they are counted about a week later. In some districts, this can mean a change of the final result.
Having seen how the votes were counted, and how difficult it is and what failsafes are in place, I have to admit that a changeover to a system like BC-STV would have meant a lot of work figuring out, learning and teaching a new ballot-counting method. Instead of getting finished at 10 pm, counts might well have gone into the wee hours. My experience showed me how easy it is to make mistakes even in a simple system. Back when I was promoting STV, I remember one older women from the neighbourhood telling me she was against it "because I think they would screw it up." Maybe that's a realistic assessment.
What I would still support in the way of election reform for BC would be instant runoff voting. This is where people's first choices are counted and if there is no winner that has a majority then there is a runoff among the top two candidates. Anyone who didn't vote for one of the top two, their ballot then goes towards their second choice. This would eliminate the problem of vote-splitting by third and fourth parties resulting in a government formed by a party that never received a majority of the votes. I think that would be not too difficult a modification of our current system, and maybe only add an hour or so to the counting job.
For my actually 15 hours of work on voting day, plus my two hours of training time, I received about $270 in pay. That's about $15.88 an hour, which is almost twice the minimum wage.
I did enjoy the experience of being part of the process and getting to see my neighbours performing their civic duty. I don't know how much the Neighbourhood House made off the deal. They were very nice to us, including I got a free carton of chocolate soymilk that was there for giveaway.
--FW
There was a voter book for each voting box, and if people had voted in advance polling that was already marked into the book, so they couldn't vote a second time.
I was just a voting clerk, at the table for Box 100. People came into the room and were met by one of two very young and smiling women who stood on their feet the whole time the polls were open, greeting people and directing them to the right table. Box 100 had the most traffic of any of the boxes, or so it seemed. My job was to look at people's i.d.'s, find their names on the voting list, have them sign beside their names, affirming that they had the right to vote and were only voting once; and then I gave their voter number to the person sitting next to me. She was the boss of our table. She had to write the voter number on each of two stubs for each of the two ballots (the election ballot and the referendum ballot). One stub stayed in the book and the other stub was torn off along with the ballot.
People took their ballots and went behind a screen at the end of the table and marked them. If they asked us questions about what was on the ballots, we weren't allowed to tell them anything, except that they should mark one X or check on each ballot, and if they didn't want to mark the ballot they didn't have to. If they had questions, all we could do was refer them to information posted on the wall, which included the text of the referendum in a number of languages.
Judging by the names and conversations, there were people from a very large variety of ethnic groups voting in our location.
When the people brought their ballots back to the voting captain at our table, she tore off the numbered stub from each ballot and gave them back to the voter to put their now-anonymous ballots into the ballot box. Some people were in a hurry and left us to put the ballots in, but most did it themselves. Most people were friendly and fairly patient. The lines never got terribly long - people arrived in waves, starting with early-birds before work and the people who had just dropped their kids off at daycare, and peaking again at lunchtime, picking up again around 3 when shiftworkers got off, and then another big rush right near 8 pm when the polls closed. Of course most of the people who arrived at the very last minute had problems to solve, like needing name changes or address changes. This was very hard on the people at the table that handled that, and they started making mistakes that will probably come back to haunt at the next provincial election, in the form of incorrect voting cards getting mailed out. But five years from now a lot of more people will have changed their names and moved.
There were a lot of steps to the ritual, especially in the case of new or changed registrations, that could throw the voting clerks off. I myself made two mistakes, that I caught later. One was not realizing that a voter had failed to sign the book. The other one was not noticing the last newly-registered voter's sign-in on the next page, and so giving an incorrect total for the ballot count. Eventually, when the number of ballots didn't match up the count, we kept going over it until I found my mistake. This made our table the last to finish. Luckily we had assistance from a young man who had really studied the system carefully and had experience of a previous election. We were all very patient and good-natured. If you follow all the steps during the counting process, the procedure is designed to be sure you catch all the mistakes.
Less than half the number of voters registered for Box 100 actually voted. There were about 173 on the voter list, and about 11 new registrants on voting day, but only 82 actually voted.
When we did the count, we first had to separate the election ballots from the referendum ballots. We had a set of grids to mark down the votes for each candidate, then we separated each candidate's votes into a separate pile. Each time it looked as if a candidate had 25 votes, we rubber-banded that pile of ballots, and re-counted that group to be sure we had marked them correctly. Jenny Kwan had far and away the majority of the ballots. The Liberal candidate had about half as many, the Green candidate had only 16, and in our box the Communist candidate got none. No other parties were running candidates in Vancouver-Mt. Pleasant. Of those who actually marked their ballots for the referendum, BC-STV passed in our box by 62%.
Each party is allowed to have a scrutineer at each ballot box. We ended up with only one, I'm not even sure what party she was from. There are processes for scrutineers who are there at the start of the day to see that the ballot box starts out empty before it is sealed, and is fully emptied at the end of the election. Ours didn't arrive til our count had started, and she watched us do the count. We didn't have any ballots that were strangely marked in our box, but if we had, there wss a list for us to use to decide if it was possible to ascertain the intent of the voter or not.
The count done at the actual box is reported to the head of the polling place and that's the first information that goes to the press. Then we had to take our box to the polling headquarters downtown, where the ballots would be re-counted. The absentee votes cast at each polling place are not counted on the spot, but they are counted about a week later. In some districts, this can mean a change of the final result.
Having seen how the votes were counted, and how difficult it is and what failsafes are in place, I have to admit that a changeover to a system like BC-STV would have meant a lot of work figuring out, learning and teaching a new ballot-counting method. Instead of getting finished at 10 pm, counts might well have gone into the wee hours. My experience showed me how easy it is to make mistakes even in a simple system. Back when I was promoting STV, I remember one older women from the neighbourhood telling me she was against it "because I think they would screw it up." Maybe that's a realistic assessment.
What I would still support in the way of election reform for BC would be instant runoff voting. This is where people's first choices are counted and if there is no winner that has a majority then there is a runoff among the top two candidates. Anyone who didn't vote for one of the top two, their ballot then goes towards their second choice. This would eliminate the problem of vote-splitting by third and fourth parties resulting in a government formed by a party that never received a majority of the votes. I think that would be not too difficult a modification of our current system, and maybe only add an hour or so to the counting job.
For my actually 15 hours of work on voting day, plus my two hours of training time, I received about $270 in pay. That's about $15.88 an hour, which is almost twice the minimum wage.
I did enjoy the experience of being part of the process and getting to see my neighbours performing their civic duty. I don't know how much the Neighbourhood House made off the deal. They were very nice to us, including I got a free carton of chocolate soymilk that was there for giveaway.
--FW
Sunday, May 10, 2009
You can vote anywhere in provincial election May 12
Unlike the Federal election, for the May 12 provincial election you can vote at any polling place in the province on election day. So, if there's a polling place across from your house or your workplace, for example, that is not your assigned location, you can vote there. Be sure to bring an official i.d. that shows your address, like a driver's license - or, one picture i.d. and one thing like a utility bill, for example, that shows your residential address. Persons lacking such things can bring a letter of attestation from a facilities manager, such as a shelter manager. Work on getting those letters has been underway on the Downtown East Side already.
The provincial electoral commission is nonpartisan, and they seem to be really working to help as many people to vote as possible. Poll workers have been instructed to err in favour of the voter - unlike the Federal election, where people were sent home. If you forgot your proper i.d., a neighbour can vouch for you - but a voter can only vouch for one other person.
There will be two ballots this time. One to vote for your choice for a Member of the Legislative Assembly, and one to vote on the Referendum.
The Referendum is asking if you agree to changing our voting system, or if you want to keep First Past the Post. As mentioned, I support the change to Single Transferable Vote. That will allow you to, for example, vote for the Green candidate first and the NDP second, so that if your first choice candidate doesn't win you haven't inadvertently helped the Liberals get a majority. Because adjacent ridings will be merged, you'll have more choices of candidates, so you can help elect more MLAs, but in the end the number of MLAs will be exactly the same. [The opposition is implying that there will be fewer MLAs under BC-STV. Not so!]
The STV is heavily supported by young people, and I don't think we should disappoint them. A review after three elections has been recommended by the Citizens Assembly; and the legislature is still allowed to change the system at any time.
The provincial electoral commission is nonpartisan, and they seem to be really working to help as many people to vote as possible. Poll workers have been instructed to err in favour of the voter - unlike the Federal election, where people were sent home. If you forgot your proper i.d., a neighbour can vouch for you - but a voter can only vouch for one other person.
There will be two ballots this time. One to vote for your choice for a Member of the Legislative Assembly, and one to vote on the Referendum.
The Referendum is asking if you agree to changing our voting system, or if you want to keep First Past the Post. As mentioned, I support the change to Single Transferable Vote. That will allow you to, for example, vote for the Green candidate first and the NDP second, so that if your first choice candidate doesn't win you haven't inadvertently helped the Liberals get a majority. Because adjacent ridings will be merged, you'll have more choices of candidates, so you can help elect more MLAs, but in the end the number of MLAs will be exactly the same. [The opposition is implying that there will be fewer MLAs under BC-STV. Not so!]
The STV is heavily supported by young people, and I don't think we should disappoint them. A review after three elections has been recommended by the Citizens Assembly; and the legislature is still allowed to change the system at any time.
Kingsgate Mall Sold?
This is just gossip at present, from one of the aunties whose nephew works in construction. She says he said that Kingsgate Mall has finally been sold, that the buyer is Jimmy Pattison, and that he is going to change the Buy-Low there to a Save-on-Foods.
My research online shows that that Pattison group includes both Buy-Low and Save-On-Foods, as well as several other named chains. Their site says that they put different stores in different locations, depending on which best suits the conditions in the neighbourhood. So, why would Buy-Low be switched over to Save-On? Maybe the demographic of the neighbourhood going up has something to do with it. Buy-Low has already added a deli section, which is not at all cheap, and a few other hi-end items. Their prices are also higher than the smaller local stores for fruits and vegetables. [They also compete with the downstairs Shoppers Drug for loss-leader grocery items (be sure to check ice cream prices in both stores before deciding where to buy).] I'm wondering if Save-On-Foods is designed for a richer demographic than Buy-Low.
At least it's not an IGA!
My research online shows that that Pattison group includes both Buy-Low and Save-On-Foods, as well as several other named chains. Their site says that they put different stores in different locations, depending on which best suits the conditions in the neighbourhood. So, why would Buy-Low be switched over to Save-On? Maybe the demographic of the neighbourhood going up has something to do with it. Buy-Low has already added a deli section, which is not at all cheap, and a few other hi-end items. Their prices are also higher than the smaller local stores for fruits and vegetables. [They also compete with the downstairs Shoppers Drug for loss-leader grocery items (be sure to check ice cream prices in both stores before deciding where to buy).] I'm wondering if Save-On-Foods is designed for a richer demographic than Buy-Low.
At least it's not an IGA!
Saturday Tai Chi at Mt. Pleasant School
Dr. Lyla Yip's Tai Chi class is meeting outdoors at the Mt. Pleasant School on Saturdays now at 1 pm. We're still working on Chi Gong exercises, plus the Yang style 24 steps, plus have recently started following along and getting idea of a Chen style 24 steps that has larger, looser movements. We are mostly older women, and we have a very pleasant and relaxed time while improving our balance, limberness, strength and grace. Come join! We are each giving Lyla $10 a month.
Bus service "improvement" for whom?
Translink kindly puts out a tiny newsletter for bus riders. The headline for the April 10 edition, the last I picked up, says "Better bus service starts April 20." The article begins with "Bus service is getting better ... All over Metro Vancouver we'll be making improvements to bus routes and service for the summer. Read on to find out what bus services will be improved in your area."
So, reading on I find that service on the 9, the 84, and the 99-B, which serve our area, are among 14 routes on which "services will be adjusted to reflect lower summer ridership." In other words, bus service will be reduced!
No details on how long we'll have to wait for the bus now.
So, reading on I find that service on the 9, the 84, and the 99-B, which serve our area, are among 14 routes on which "services will be adjusted to reflect lower summer ridership." In other words, bus service will be reduced!
No details on how long we'll have to wait for the bus now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
