OUR VIEW: ‘Yes’ side’s scare tactics insulting to residents

Here’s the scenario: It’s the summer of 2015, and thousands of Metro motorists are stuck in gridlock when the heavens suddenly burst open, showering flaming asteroid chaos upon the congested traffic below.

The Port Mann Bridge collapses into the Fraser, producing waves that sweep away every community along the river’s banks from Hope to Steveston.

This initial fiery, wet destruction is then followed by earthquakes, pestilence, famine and the obligatory zombie invasion.

And all this, because a majority of voters voted "No" to a 0.5 per cent, non-binding, provincial sales tax increase that would have purportedly been used for public transit projects.

Seriously, the "Yes" side in this upcoming plebiscite on transportation is insulting the general population with its scaremongering tactics.

Did SFU president Andrew Petter really suggest a "No" vote could mean students won’t be able to get seats in classrooms?

Ironically, some politicians spearheading the "Yes" campaign took umbrage with "scaremongering" when it came to public safety issues – crime – during last year’s civic election campaign. Transit, then, is fair game?

Campaigners on either side of the referendum question would do well to avoid the temptation to engage in scaremongering. Canadians generally don’t take kindly to such tactics. Take the failure of Mulroney’s Charlottetown Accord in 1992. There was plenty of scaremongering leading up to that national referendum, yet Canada did not snap in twain when the accord was roundly rejected.

All this aside, though, here’s a scary thought: No matter who wins – the "Yes" side, or "No" – TransLink will still be there.

And that’s enough to keep any sane mind up in the dead of night.


The Now