*Con: a .5% tax increase Obviously money has to be generated to fund anything. I disagree with a tax increased on the general populous. From an environmental stand-point a transit user is doing a good deed. Public transit should be encouraged and not frowned upon. Therefore the tax should place on the negative deed - car users. Rather, the VGA should implement a tax on the sale of gasoline that funds transit. By increasing this cost a.) more people will use transit and b) The taxation is on those who cause harm to the environment

An alternative solution, although not sure if achievable on a municipal level, is a draconian style tax on foreign ownership of apartments/condos. Those who own and do not rent at market rate are subject to a massive tax. This taxation creates the revenue needed for transit. In addition to this help solve the current housing market.

• Con: Splitting the bill People are seeking/wanting/demanding a world class transit system to match our world class city. Far enough. The only downside is that the VHA population is just over 2 million. When compared to cities who have our desired system our population is much smaller in comparison. For this reason we, as an individual, have to pay more for the same system.

Solution:

*Con: Proposed ideas I am open to paying for or being taxed for a new transit system...as long as it's relevant to the city of Vancouver. As a tax-payer I do not want/need/or would use a transit system to say Langley. Now, Langley has an incredibly high homeless population and we've provided direct access for them to relocate to a more friendly and accepting location. Only further increasing our current issue. Before we expand to include VGA we need to ensure that just the V has a high-class well functioning system.

*Pro:The creation of jobs / employment Fallacious. The creation of jobs isn't correlated to the transit system. The creation of jobs is correlated to the revenue generation through taxation.