The provincial government is driving forward its promise of holding a referendum on TransLink. Or perhaps, "driving forward" isn't the correct euphemism in this case.
There's a lot to be said for Transportation Minister Todd Stone's reiteration of Premier Christy Clark's election campaign promise to put TransLink under direct public scrutiny through a referendum. The very idea of politicians actually keeping a promise is always refreshing.
But the advantages of "direct democracy" through government-by-referendum are sometimes vastly overstated. Elections allow us to "hire" politicians to work for us, to take the time necessary for in-depth research and consideration needed to make important decisions about how government and its agencies serve us.
Some of those decisions require understanding of complex levels of information beyond the abilities of most folks, who have jobs of their own, to do the research fully. Admittedly, they are also the types of decisions that tend to draw the most public reaction, usually from people whose limited understanding leaves them vulnerable to the loudest, not always wisest, voices.
That's the problem with TransLink funding: is the average public person able to get past vocal claims of bloated and overpaid administration and ineffective, skewed service levels to choose appropriate taxation modes and levels? And then there's the matter of getting people to vote at all. This one smacks of the politicos ducking an unpopular necessity.
Sometimes, the politicians should just do the job they were hired to do, instead of proposing referenda to hand off difficult decisions. Then they can take the heat for bad calls, not just the credit for the good ones. Business people who "lost" the HST referendum surely know what we mean.
