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