Surrey, taxes and representation

Finance committee chair, councillor Tom Gill, announced there will be an increase in city taxes come 2015.

Surprise, surprise given no mention of said tax hikes came about during the election campaign.

Nevertheless, additional sources of revenue will include (as found in Dec. 15 CBC article, found here):

• A property tax increase of 2.9 per cent = about $46.20 additional for the average home owner.
• A fee increase for secondary suites of $116, up from $412, making the new total $528.
• A “Cultural & Recreational Parcel Tax,” which will be a flat fee of $100 per home.
•  A one per cent levy for roads = an increase of $15.93.

These increases, according to Gill, are necessary to ensure capital projects can be appropriately funded.

Fantastic.

What are (some of) these capital projects?

• 100 new RCMP officers and 16 additional officers added each year from 2016 to 2019
• Recreation centre and parks improvements and construction
• General road construction

The budget passed by the city consists of $205 million in projects, as reported by the Province. It includes a new rec. centre in Clayton, an expansion of the Surrey Museum, and the hiring of 100 Mounties to bring the city’s total to 803 officers.

Only on the lattermost point is there no sense of shock as it was part most expected.

In total, as Leader reporter Kevin Diakiw summarized, “the taxes for the average Surrey home will be climbing from $1,593 this year to $1,755 next year,”.

But, the crux isn’t even the amount.

As Jordan Bateman opined in the Now, none of these tax increases were thoroughly discussed during the election save for the general understanding new officers would require some serious money ($14.5 million or so, for the officers and necessary support staff, according to same CBC article sourced above).

Council is also seemingly prepared to move forward with the purported increases despite voiced concerns, a few examples local reporters Amy Reid and Diakiw spotlighted.

But, why should council care?

Surrey First’s mandate, whatever that mandate happens to be, is set for the next few years.

This is the primary concern over electing slates, or any majority.

Citizens can be hostage to the wants and whims of leaders, and thus wants and whims of the myriad lobbyists pushing for their respective causes.

We, as citizens, hope the actions taken by the public officials elected are within the best interest of the public. But history has proven good policy is not always the case.

The wonder, then, is whether government, no matter the level, is truly responsive to its citizens cries.

Moving ahead with policy at the behest of public outcry certainly serves to further cement the disconnect between voters and public officials.

Further, with under 20 per cent of the popular vote, yet passing legislation affecting the entire city populace, it’s little wonder citizens feel detached from government and the decisions made.

No taxation without representation is not just a slogan, it’s a principle.

If public concerns exist, and not taken into account, especially on taxation, why pay taxes in the first place?

At the core of it, the taxpaying public should decide. This isn’t to say we throw a referendum at every issue.

However, given the enormous platform Surrey First had during the election, and the imposing changes planned, there’s no excuse why these fiscal increases should not have been mentioned.

But, that’s politics.

It’s not politically savvy to discuss the hiking of taxes when there’s an election to win.

Politics is the practice of influencing people with ideas; character has nothing to do with it. Perception does.

TransLink and accountability: the battle ensues

Photo courtesy: Google Images.

A report submitted on TransLink revealed that the transit authority, its governance and structure, is an anomaly worldwide.

There is almost zero accountability.

TransLink’s board is made up of unelected representatives that are in charge of making major decisions that have regional implications.

Advocates, especially elected officials, are calling for change.

At the recent GVRD board, following the vote to rescind the property tax from TransLink’s source of funding, Surrey councillor Marvin Hunt put it in clear terms.

“The model of TransLink has business men running it . . . You’ve got business men with no accountability to the taxpayer, taxing the taxpayer. That’s called taxation without representation.”

While the British aren’t coming, provincial officials just might.

Transportation Minister Mary Polak pledged continued talks with Metro Vancouver mayors to reform TransLink’s governance structure.

What this reformation will look like begs further debate.

We’ve had elected officials as board chair, then Surrey Mayor Doug McCallum. But was that truly accountability?

Is it time to directly elect a transit board of directors? George Puil declared transportation the most urgent political priority. Perhaps direct elections are warranted.

But the issue isn’t necessarily accountability either, but good governance as well. To effectively govern a regional entity, with multiple, often competing interests, impartiality is at a premium. Political ties to a specific area or municipality will surely run-up against conflict of interest issues.

Listen to Surrey Councilor Marvin Hunt talk briefly about the city’s transportation needs (note: audio quality is poor due to file compression):

So where does this leave us?

To guarantee accountability and unbiased governance, a separate electable body is a faintly glimmering solution. But consider voter turnout for such an esoteric area of politics.

The answer to TransLink accountability and governance (that won’t amount to political stalemate) will not be arrived at in a 300-word blog-post, that’s for sure.

This is something to monitor in the months ahead.