"It presupposes that the tax increase in question would be a strict positive for the populace, and argues based on that premise."

That's because it is a good plan. Every single mayor and a vast majority of councillors are voting YES. http://transit-vote.thetyee.ca/

Almost every single organization, left and right of centre, has endorsed the plan: http://i.imgur.com/guVFQDa.jpg

It's a good plan. That's why the piece pre-supposes that point.

You may be right, that this is a solid plan. I should have been clearer in my original post that my complaint isn't with the position the writer holds. In fact, if I were a resident of Vancouver, I'd probably vote yes on it.

My problem is with the article's attempt to present their side as a fact; that the existence of opposition must be due to some defect in humanity itself, rather than a reasoned stance. It's very patronizing and doesn't help to convince those that need convincing.

When people have a general distrust of the handling of their tax dollars, they often have experience that informs that distrust. One should not summarily discount and ignore that sentiment if they're looking to raise funds.

Why are they putting this on a vote, if it's such a good plan? Policymakers should be making policy, not offloading blame for policy outcomes to the residents. It's their only job.

The fact that local micro politics have a real chance of influencing the outcome of the referendum more than the quality of the plan is exactly why such a referendum is not a good idea.

Besides, what if the No vote wins? They will probably still do most of the things in the plan, but somewhat slower and with less fanfare.

If I had voting rights in Vancouver I would just vote No in protest against the referendum itself.

IIRC because the premier promised not to increase sales tax without putting it to a vote first; it was one of her election promises. Around the time she was elected, there was a lot of controversy because the previous government tried to enforce a major tax change (GST/PST to HST) that also caused the total sales tax on some items to increase. People were pretty angry about it, and in the end we had to pay the costs of switching from GST/PST to HST, and then again the costs to switch back to GST/PST.

Apparently if people vote "no" on the sales tax increase, they will be increasing property taxes instead:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/clark-w...

Voting no to "punish" the people putting it to a vote sounds like an incredibly ineffective way of protesting. Nobody would know it was a protest except you. If you live here, why don't you actually protest instead? You don't even need voting rights for that.

I'm still unsure whether to vote yes or no. I think we need the transit improvements and the money has to come from somewhere. OTOH property tax seems like it would be less regressive than sales tax, and I'm not in favor of regressive taxes in general. So if we're really voting on sales tax vs property tax, a "no" vote would make sense, except I feel like the property tax route would be more fraught with further political drama and other difficulties and we might not actually get the needed funding.

The Mayor of Delta, Lois Jackson, is not on that list. So maybe it's not quite "every single mayor"? I think there are many councilors missing from that list. I think at this point we need to get more than just a good plan. We need some sort of reform. This plan is at best a band-aid.

The plan has been the same for the last 5 years. There has always been the intention to make light rail through Surrey and Langley and the plan has always been to improve the bike lanes and roads.

A yes or no vote will not change the plan, it will merely change the way that Translink makes money.

The plan has been similar for years, and translink has been trying to get funding for it. The referendum is the last ditch attempt to actually get funding. In the event of a no vote it is unlikely that anything but road expansion will occur for the next five to ten years.

If the politicians are supporting it, then it must be a good plan.

politicians, businesses, unions, charities, literally everyone across the spectrum, everyone's saying it's a good plan, except the auto-industry backed CTF (where was their outcry when the province was blowing billions of dollars on bridges?)

Any plan that can unite that many wildly disparate organizations behind it is likely to be a very good plan.

> Any plan that can unite that many wildly disparate organizations behind it is likely to be a very good plan.

The war in Syria is also uniting "many wildly disparate organizations"...

The simple fact that the very voters whom the plan supposedly benefits seem poised on the brink of rejecting it should be a good hint that maybe the plan is flawed.

Stupid voters. Do what you're told by your political-class superiors!

no, it's more that they're being played like a fiddle by a skilled demagogue making emotional arguments