The Editor,
Re. "Vote Yes, help vulnerable; or vote No, condo taxes can pay" (Letters, The Tri-City News, April 15).
Letter writer W. Sikorra plans to vote No in the transportation referendum based on the following argument: Future urban densification (e.g. from condo highrises) will bring "windfalls" to local government in the form of increased revenue from an expanding property tax base and development cost charges. This windfall will cover any future funding required to meet the additional demand for public transportation from future population increase.
I've already voted Yes but W. Sikorra makes an interesting point. After thinking it over, though, I believe the writer's answer is the kind H.L. Mencken had in mind when he said, "For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong."
The first flaw in this argument is that current congestion in Metro Vancouver is having multiple detrimental effects on our area right now. We need to reduce current congestion, not simply to prevent things getting even worse in the future.
Second, densification isn't a new phenomenon it has been happening in Metro Vancouver for years. As the letter writer points out, more than 50% of taxable properties in the Lower Mainland are already strata units. So for years developers have been paying DCCs and the tax base has been expanding. If densification hasn't yet produced big surpluses for municipal governments (after paying for the additional services required by increasing population), why should this happen in the future?
Third, there are limits to the amount of DCCs that can be imposed on developers; after all, these costs are passed on to the buyers of the condos, and the price of housing in our city is already unaffordable for many.
Here's what most of the regional mayors say about our transportation system: "Ultimately, the growth in current revenue sources is not keeping up with the growing need, meaning that the cost/revenue gap continues to grow every year."
I think they're right and we do need an additional funding source to improve public transportation.
But thank you, W. Sikorra, for contributing to the debate.
John L. Perry, Coquitlam
