Burlington Transit – Fares Going up – Service Going Down.

In a previous posting I tried to find humour in the City of Burlington’s idea about raising transit rates.

The Toronto Star, Canada’s most widely read paper, quoted Burlington’s Mayor as saying that there should be a clear rationale to determining fares.

But that isn’t happening and a proposed 8% hike is  against the advice of staff and totally arbitrary coming out of the environmentally/transit challenged head of some Burlington Councillor.  So at the end of the day I guess raising rates really isn’t funny.

But now that Burlington’s transit planning is becoming so well known with a story in the Star of all things I thought a little history might help.

Last year we put this video together to show how badly resourced Burlington Transit is compared to other communities.

I looked at it today. While the data is a year old it reflects the historical trend. And the acting is terrific.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V6cEdvQHp0

The Mayor of Burlington Made me Smile Today

 Does the Globe and Mail still have that “Morning Smile” on the front page?

I don’t see the Globe anymore.  I have to get my yuks from the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/transportation/2013/03/13/burlington_bus_fares_headed_for_steep_hike_despite_service_complaints.html).

Here is today’s knee slapper from Burlington Mayor Rick Goldring.

Referring to a steep increase in transit fares that his council will be considering on Monday night Goldring said:

“They should not be done on an ad hoc basis.  There should be some clear rationale.”

OK, I sense you are not rolling in the aisles on this one.  And how good is a joke if you have to explain it, right?   But here goes.

Well, why it made me laugh is that the just a little over a year ago the mayor had a rationale in his hands.  A report from Dillon Consultants entitled  The Route Ahead: Burlington Transit Master Plan 2012 -2021 ran  nearly two hundred pages and laid out a busload of rationales and all kinds of strategies for Burlington Transit including pricing strategies.

Council didn’t like what was in that report (which by the way cost over $100,000).  It never was released for public comment.

Instead Council has headed off on its own by cutting routes and shifting gas tax dollars away from transit.

(http://burlbus.blogspot.ca/2012/05/shaving-and-paving-for-environment.html)

Now the basis for all transit decisions is truly ad hoc with absolutely no clear rationale for what is being done.  

Actually it really isn’t that funny is it?   

Government Closest to the People?

The government that is closest to the people. 

That’s what they call local government.  At least that is what people in local government (politicians and senior bureaucrats) say about their work. I used to say such things as well while serving as a municipal politician 1991-97 and then again in 2006.  Now I worry that I might have been spreading false news.

Two cases in point came across my computer screen today.

First, there’s the situation of John Gauvin in Hamilton.  Read his story from the Bay Area Observer (http://bayobserver.ca/flooding/) and tell me that his local government is working for him.

Then closer to home (my former home) we can observe City of Burlington Councillor’s, heads firmly planted in the sand,  ready to raise transit fares by 8% on Monday night.

Now there really isn’t anything wrong with raising fares, fees or charges. It is just when you raise the price on something it is good business to be improving or at least maintaining the quality of the product.  This is not the case in Burlington though.  

Burlington for Accessible Sustainable Transit, better known as BFast, advocates for better transit in Burlington.  I used to be involved with them before  I got out of town.

In a media release they note that the Budget submission from staff to Council included no fare increase in the short-term, but proposed a process for adjusting fares. (http://bfastransit.ca/?p=88)

Then council, in their wisdom as they say, came out with what appears to be an arbitrary increase.

Bfast says Council justifies the fare increase based on improved services.  That’s the usual line from Council.

But Council is wrong.  As Bfast notes:

“Transit is still under-capitalized, and will continue to suffer from the $500,000 decrease in transit's share of the Gas Tax money made by City Council one year ago.

Recently Bfast asked for the City to restore transit's share of the Gas Tax funding.  They weren’t successful.

“The reality is that net transit spending by the City has decreased,” BFast claims correctly.

I used to go on about this on a blog I retired.   Public consultation demonstrated that residents wanted and needed better transit; so did business and so does our environment. Council wouldn’t listen. 

In http://burlbus.blogspot.ca/ I’d blame councillors like the one who got elected mainly to get the bus off his street and others who could be best described as environmental neanderthals.

But the mayor needs to wear this. 

I had a coffee with him when he was my newly elected Councillor in 2007.  He explained to me then that Burlington couldn’t support good public transit.

I disagreed with him.

But as the mayor of the government closest to the people I guess he was right.

Too bad.

If Passed Bill C-400 will help Municipalities

If the following story induces a Groundhog Day moment for you, well, it probably should.

A Private Members Bill (Bill C-400) is working being considered tonight in the House of Commons. This bill sets out a method to develop a national housing strategy.

It picks up where a former Bill (C-304) left off. That Bill was introduced in the last Parliament then passed first reading, was amended and passed second reading, before it died when Parliament adjourned for the May 2011 election.

So you’ve heard this before. And you have heard that Canada is one of the few industrialized nations in the world without a national housing strategy.

We used to have one.

Housing expert Michael Shapcott from the Wellesley Institute notes that the plan we had in place from 1973 – 1993 delivered 600,000 good quality, cost effective homes.

“Since 1999, the federal government, most provinces and territories, and many municipalities, have announced a variety of housing and homelessness measures, but the funding has tended to be short-term and inadequate to the scale of need, and there has been little or no co-ordination between the federal, territorial, provincial and municipal governments, along with Aboriginal governments, and the private and community sectors,” writes Shapcott.

BILL C-400

This new bill calls for a national strategy to address housing costs so that the cost of housing “does not compromise an individual’s ability to meet other basic needs.

Among other things the bill, if passed, would make it a priority to ensure the availability of housing for those without housing and as well for those members of groups “particularly vulnerable to homelessness.”

And Bill C-400 envisions a consultation process that would involve municipal governments, the federal, provincial, and aboriginal communities. A conference with these representatives and non-profit and private sector housing providers and others would be required six months after the passage of the bill and a report to Parliament would be due six months after that conference.

The report would include standards, dates for programs to start and principles for inter governmental agreements. In short, we’d have a housing strategy again.

You can find the full content of the Bill at http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=5391884

(This story originally appeared in North End Breezes on February 1st. It was been revised and updated on February 27th. North End Breezes online newsletter can be found at http://www.northendbreezes.com/)

Pro Poor Strategies for Municipalities

Recently staff from the Hamilton Community Legal Clinic, where I hang out when not blogging, spoke at the Hamilton City Council’s General Issues Committee (GIC) regarding the establishment of a community economic development pilot project.  (You can read that report here http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/E2946A4C-B81B-44DE-B7CB-F271F83185E7/0/Dec05EDRMS_n382333_v1_8_1__PED12189.pdf )

Our argument was that the proposed pilot project should incorporate ‘pro poor’ economic strategies.

I must say that I didn’t know a lot about the concept of pro poor strategies but after some research I’ve come to believe municipalities ought to be considering this approach.

The term “pro poor growth” is generally thought to apply to developing or transitional economies.  But that is not the case, according to McMaster University’s Dr. Atif Kubursi.

Dr. Kubursi indicates that pro-poor policies are not restricted to third world or developing countries, but rather the entire development approach of the UN (adopted at the Economic and Social Commission) is a pro-poor, rights based development policy.

The traditional trickle-down approach that is typically put into place to address poverty reduction doesn’t work.

“Wealth and income are more like glue they stick to the hands that first touch them,” notes Kubursi.

The renowned economics professor defines pro-poor growth as growth “that reduces absolute poverty and hunger while simultaneously slimming down existing inequalities in distribution.”

Craig Foye from our Clinic spoke to the fact that that countless research papers, government submissions, and community presentations have made the case that the rate and depth poverty in Hamilton remains relatively stagnant and takes a very high human toll on community members.  Hamilton is, of course, not unique in this regard.

 “These matters also affect our economy, both directly through the absence of buying or tax-paying power, and indirectly through the high costs of services to deal with poverty (such as social services, health services, etc) and the effects of obvious and prevalent poverty on the quality of life and culture of our community for all,” Foye told the Committee.

Examples of economic development strategies that might be considered as applying a poverty reduction lens or defined as  “pro poor” would include: living wage strategies, micro loans, community economic development, and targeted business development (such as supermarkets in poor neighborhoods).

While the General Issues Committee did not endorse the Clinic’s recommendation it is hoped that in the future the community economic development strategy might include such “pro-poor” policies.

I wonder if other cities are pursuing pro-poor policies?

More on Dr Kubursi ideas on Pro-Poor Growth strategies can be found at  “Macro Economic Policies Promote Pro-Poor Growth Strategies: ESCWA’s Perspectives”, Dr. Atif Kubursi, Undersecretary General and Acting Secretary, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia

 

 

Social and Economic Rights

Last year United Nations Special Rapporteur, Dr.  Oliver De Schutter came under fire from Federal Conservative Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.

De Schutter had expressed concerns about the barriers that many in this country face in getting enough good food to eat.  

“Canada is much admired for its achievements in the area of human rights … but access to adequate diets, too are human rights issues - and here much remains to be done,” De Schutter had said when visiting Canada in May.

Minister Kenney went on the offensive arguing that the Special Rapporteur should focus on countries where there is widespread hunger.  Looking at Canada isn’t a “very intelligent use of resources” and is “completely ridiculous,” huffed Kenney.

But does Kenney really appreciate what is happening around the world on the human rights front?

Bruce Porter, of the Social Rights Advocacy Centre (http://www.socialrights.ca), would say he doesn’t.

I had the privilege to hear Porter speak in Hamilton last summer. He focussed on the “very important new developments in the human rights world particularly in the area of social and economic rights.”

These rights were originally articulated in 1948 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. A bill and two covenants ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations in 1976 meant that the declaration took on the force of international law.

Now domestic judicial bodies must pay attention to rulings in other jurisdictions.  For example, a ruling in a South African case dealt with the Grootman community’s right to housing.  The ruling articulated the concept of “reasonableness.” 

Porter argues that this ruling suggests that governments must “take reasonable measures in conformity with available resources” to address issues like poverty and housing.  (Porter has written about the case at http://www.escr net.org/usr_doc/Porter_and_Liebenberg,_Reasonableness.pdf)

Municipal governments are accountable too.  Martha Jackman and Porter write:

“Recalcitrance on the part of one level of government, however, should not prevent others from implementing their own mechanisms, procedures, and strategies for ensuring meaningful accountability to international human rights. City or municipal charters can be adopted to implement the right to housing and an adequate standard of living within all areas of municipal authority.  (International Human Rights and Strategies to Address Homelessness and Poverty in Canada: Making the Connection Social Rights Advocacy Centre, September 2011.)

Of late the Canadian government has failed to adequately address social issues using the excuse of financial constraints, essentially arguing that dollar concerns trump human rights considerations.  But Porter notes that it is “no longer acceptable to treat social and economic rights as policy objectives.  Government is obligated to provide effective remedies.”

Porter says that many in the U.N. system have become increasingly alarmed with what they are seeing in Canada as, unlike many countries, we have resources available to ensure that no one is hungry or homeless and yet choose to allow violations of social and economic rights. 

Bruce Porter and others spoke at an event in Hamilton on the right to an adequate standard of living.  This video captures some of that event. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0TiORUTpCnU

Reforming Social Assistance in Ontario

Earlier this month Tim Hudak’s Ontario Conservative Party released a White Paper on Social Assistance called Paths to Prosperity – Welfare to Work.

If I had to assign it a grade I’d give it an “E” for effort.  It recalled the mark I received (and deserved) for a paper for a university geography course where I relied exclusively on the Book of Knowledge for my “research.”

In its thin twenty-three pages Paths to Prosperity – Welfare to Work manages to squeeze in two full page photos of the Leader of the Opposition, very little analysis but lots of clichés:

Like:

     “The best social program is a job.”
      “It is time to wake up Ontario’s welfare system.”

And a call for:
               
      “Fresh ideas” …“to cut through the cobweb of complicated and complex social service system."                  

That cobweb is, of course, the 800 plus idiotic rules and regulations that govern the system.  The McGuinty government should be justifiably criticized for the slow pace with which it has got around to doing something about those rules.  But the Harris/Eves government of which Mr. Hudak was a proud member created them.  That’s not mentioned in Paths to Prosperity – Welfare to Work.

There is little about the impact the current changes to the system are having/will have on municipalities either other than dangling a carrot that property tax payers will share in the savings that will inevitably come when the Conservatives get power and start kicking welfare recipients around like they did in the nineties.

I’d say that the most important change we can make to the welfare system is to create rates that reflect the real cost of living.

That is talked about in the report of the Commission for the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario. This report, called Brighter Prospects: Transforming Social Assistance in Ontario, charts “a new course for social assistance towards a simpler, more effective, and more accountable system....”

There are controversial aspects to the report, to be sure. One issue, though, that is not contentious is that a new system must be established that incorporates an evidence based method to determine the rates.

The Hamilton Community Legal Clinic/Clinique juridique communautaire de Hamilton has done a lot of work over the years in developing such a method.

The Clinic, where I work, has advocated for an arm’s length body to recommend evidence-based social assistance rates on an annual basis. Those rates should be based on an analysis of the actual costs of rent, a healthy food basket, and other basic necessities in communities across Ontario, and should provide a level of assistance that will allow individuals and families to live with dignity.... 

In Brighter Prospects which came out in October there is a recommendation (#27) which calls for a “rational methodology” to set social assistance rates. But such a methodology has already been articulated. So why reinvent the well.

Legislation Introduced in 2007

Many years ago the Clinic worked with Liberal MPP Ted McMeekin and put together a bill to establish an Ontario Social Assistance Rates Board. The former Bill 235 was introduced in the legislature in June of 2007 but “died” when the legislature was adjourned.

You can look at the legislation here on our Fast Facts page at http://www.hamiltonjustice.ca/did-you-know.cfm

This legislation makes as much sense now as it did in 2007 and if passed would make a far more significant impact on Ontario’s prosperity and welfare of its citizens than anything in Hudak’s’ White Paper.