I haven't felt the need to hold my nose like this since the last time I drove past a mushroom manure plant in Abbotsford - and I haven't even decided how to vote in the transportation referendum.
It's not just Yes voters whose options in this referendum stink. Everything about the appropriately named "congestion tax" plebiscite is a bit ripe.
Most Metro Vancouver voters are finding both voting options odoriferous, regardless of their political predilections, and we're all reaching for our schnozzes on this one.
Yes voters have to hold their noses and accept that reducing congestion and enviro imperatives trump: the ills, real and perceived, of TransLink; another flat tax initiative that inordinately affects the poor; and the abdication of transit leadership by the provincial government.
No voters are convinced that their votes will chastise TransLink and save us from further organizational and fiscal malpractice. But even the disparate wings of the unlikely coalition of No voters are plugging their nostrils.
The progressive wing of the No vote generally favours expanding public transit but is either angry with TransLink's performance or the provincial government's sitting this one out. But they also worry that their No vote could force an inordinately long wait for a Plan B (if there is one). They worry that their desire to punish TransLink and/or the government may be tantamount to transit-icide.
The conservative, anti-tax wing of No voters knows that while a .05% sales tax hike may rankle its long-held austerity sentiments, it also supplies transit revenue without much affecting the rich, usually a litmus test for its support of any public revenue measure.
So even No voters genuflecting to Jordan Bateman are holding their noses for fear the next transit funding option might be more progressive.
Yes or No, there's enough stench to go around for voters in this proboscis-pinching plebiscite.
And while our voting options have us holding our noses, the referendum process itself is even more odious.
TransLink is another in a series of public/private scapegoats. It's doing it's job well, allowing the provincial government to appear neutral on the divisive issue of public transit.
A non-binding transit plebiscite was forced on Metro mayors to just that end. If the measure passes, Victoria can take credit for prudent leadership and all subsequent transit improvements while not being blamed for raising taxes. If the measure fails, the BC Liberals can shrug transit inadequacies off onto TransLink, Metro mayors or shortsighted voters.
It's a bulletproof strategy that many suspect has been Plan A, B, C and D from the beginning.
So, Metro voters find themselves holding squeezing hard and pondering the unanswerable plebiscite question: "Do you favour approving a flat tax that exacerbates an already unequal tax burden or would you prefer to stifle public transit improvements indefinitely?"
I still can't answer that question, so I'll be holding my nose no matter how I vote.
Jim Nelson is a former Face to Face columnist with The Tri-City News and a retired Tri-City teacher and principal who lives in Port Moody.
