Quote:
Originally Posted by melloman
Odd question, but why hasn't Translink gone into property?
By that I mean building residential highrises, solely for rental purposes, and then using that rental income to use for improving our transit structure. Ofcourse there's downsides to this idea, yet I think overall a profit off the highrises could be taken and used to fund some of their projects.
Instead of hurting everyone's pockets every which way.  |
The MTR model. For it to be profitable, Translink would need breaks on property taxes and other incentives. Besides, the NIMBYism in Metro Vancouver would turn Translink into a more despised organization than it already is. People like density, but only if it's not in their backyard.
This has been a very interesting thread. What I've concluded is that it's not so much governments not caring (contrary to what the enlightened minds of RS may think, public servants are quite bright and strategic - almost to a fault which results in a tendency towards risk aversion)- it's that people are being selective in what they read and want to hear. Quite frankly, people have gotten lazy (in spite of the fact that information is more accessible today than in any point in human history.)
But hey, let's just keep on believing that Translink's pigs at the trough are the sole cause of all the problems of transit in this city. Fire them all and replace them with fresh students from UBC's urban planning school and pay them $50K/year. Keep them on year-to-year contracts and then replace them with more students when they get too expensive. Better yet, let's privatize the damn thing once and for all so that I can drive my leased 3-series in peace! It's not my fault that others are too poor to afford my lifestyle!
Posted via RS Mobile