Teachers strike linked to costly convention centre, sky-high B.C. Place upgrade, and silly fast ferries

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      This week, I wrote an article in the Georgia Straight about the dismal number of nonresident delegate days at the Vancouver Convention Centre.

      An expert on these facilities, University of Texas at San Antonio professor and author Heywood Sanders, said that Vancouver's delegate count in 2013 was below figures in the late 1990s. Keep in mind that the new convention centre didn't open until 2009.

      As occurred in cities around North America, Vancouverites drank the proponents' Kool-Aid in the form of an overly optimistic consultant's report.

      To justify construction before the 2005 provincial election, the B.C. Liberal government lowballed the estimated cost of the project when it bought the land from Marathon Realty. The minister responsible at the time, Rick Thorpe, insisted to me that it wouldn't cost a penny more than $495 million.

      The new convention centre eventually cost nearly $900 million. Part of the reason was the difficulty in building such a large project over the water.

      Since then, the city, the regional district, and the province have foregone tens of millions of dollars in taxes that would have accrued had the private sector built anything else on the site.

      That's because the convention centre was deemed so important that it shouldn't pay property and school taxes.

      Now, B.C. parents must figure out how they're going to look after their kids if schools are shut down by a teachers strike on Tuesday (September 2).

      The labour dispute is related to the government's refusal to meet the teachers' demands around salary, class size, and composition.

      It's easy to see why B.C. ranks behind most provinces in per-pupil funding. Just think of the $883-million convention centre, the $514-million upgrade to B.C. Place Stadium, and the $460 million blown on useless fast ferries.

      There was no need to spend this amount of money on these projects. That was obvious to anyone paying attention at the outset.

      Those three alone consumed more than $1.8 billion—and that's not even including debt-service costs.

      Simply put, B.C. provincial politicians appear to be more interested in building edifices to themselves than in educating students to thrive in the knowledge-based economy of the 21st century.

      That's the real reason schools will likely remain closed next week.

      Comments

      28 Comments

      MarkFornataro

      Aug 28, 2014 at 11:02am

      Re: corporate welfare,As the former very capable NDP Premier Dave Barrett pointed out 'government is about spending priorities'- and his were much smarter than the supposedly fiscally prudent right-wingers who have lead(or should I say miss-lead)the province for most of the time since.

      Zweisystem

      Aug 28, 2014 at 11:14am

      Don't forget the Millennium Line which cost so much they could not complete to the Tri-Cities, so we had to ante up another $1.4 billion to complete the uncompleted portion, now renamed Evergreen Line.

      Then there was the Canada Line which budgeted cost of $1.3 billion soared over budget by so much that the project eventually cost $2.5 billion, leaving the mini-metro with 40m to 50m long station platforms that can only accommodate 2 car trains. This means for the $2.5 billion investment we have a the only heavy-rail metro in the world, built as a light-metro which has less capacity than a simple streetcar costing a fraction of the price. Estimated cost to bring the Canada Line up to the capacity of the SkyTrain Lines (The Canada Line is not SkyTrain), minimum $2 billion.

      There is a lot more, but prudent spending of the taxpayer's monies is not in the lexicon of the BC Liberals and the NDP.

      MD

      Aug 28, 2014 at 11:18am

      I understand the point you are trying to make, and I agree with your conclusions on the necessity of projects, but you are comparing financial apples and oranges.

      All of the items you list are essentially capital expenditures in nature (short term, or one time, producing future revenue and expense streams), while the items that you list for the teachers are all annual in nature.

      Not buying a car today does not really impact what I do tomorrow if the total cost of, or net revenue streams produced from the asset on an annual basis are not enough to cover other annual expenditures I need covered. It may buy you some time, but it wont address the underlying problem long term.

      Even if all of the projects you list did not go ahead, and all of those funds were allocated to addressing salary, class size and composition, you still, depending on who you want to believe, would only be able to meet those demands for 2-5 years, and we are already more than ten years down the road in leaving those issues unaddressed; the fundamental problems at the root of this dispute would not go away, they would merely be kicked down the road a few years.

      Certainly, the BC Liberals mismanagement of necessary, and unnecessary capital projects causes financial pressures that are alleviated by not meeting teacher needs, but the link is not as direct as you claim, and not using proper financial metrics to make the comparison does not do your argument any favours.

      You could also argue that increasing the health care budget faster than inflation, which the BC Liberals have done occasionally, is also to blame for the inability of the government to meet the teacher's needs. It all depends on where you can see and prove value in public spending.

      If you cant make an argument that those in public sector financial administration, who more or less agree with your hypothesis on its most basic level, can accept without a fair amount of eye rolling on the technical side, you aren't going to convince anyone who needs to be convinced, or who does not already agree with you.

      If you want to address annual, long term funding concerns, then you need to find the solution in annual, long term revenue, or reducing annual, long term demands on those resources.

      This work hits emotional hot buttons for those that already hold this opinion, but it doesn't offer any significant financial solutions.

      Graham

      Aug 28, 2014 at 11:46am

      Is the teachers strike really in such dire straights that articles like this are being written to try to tie a capital project built years ago to teacher's salary demands? I have friends and relatives that are teachers, but I think it's time that they accept that they are already making a lot of money for a job that has minimal education requirements and too many people for the number of jobs. Supply and demand means that their salary should go down.

      Manuel Erickson

      Aug 28, 2014 at 12:27pm

      MD is trying to differentiate between capital and non-capital costs. What he forgot is that all provincial monies come from the same pocket--ours. Money is money, regardless of where it comes from.

      Furthermore, it is the fault of the voters that BC is in the financial mess that it is. They didn't want the NDP, so they got another dose of right-wingism from the mis-named "Liberals." They got huge capital projects at the cost of almost $2 BILLION(!) instead of spending it on education and health. The Liberals are shameful, and so are the voters.

      Speaking for myself, I vote Green.

      Hazlit

      Aug 28, 2014 at 12:58pm

      @Graham,

      You point out that teachers don't have that much education. Isn't that the problem? And it's disappoint ing not to see Charlie Smith falling all over himself to support the teachers. The media and education both depend upon an educated populace. Who wants a stupid B.C.? Pay teachers more so they can get an education.

      RK

      Aug 28, 2014 at 1:17pm

      Public Education is a provincial government OBLIGATION funded by taxes. The premiers and ministers of this administration including Christy Clark,Gordon Campbell, Carole Taylor, Rick Thorpe and others KNOWINGLY emptied the public treasury on these projects, racked up a further 160 billion dollar debt even after selling off public assets and DELIBERATELY crippled our ability to adequately fund public education by cutting or eliminating corporate taxes. The funding shortfalls for education are no accident and neither are they an excuse. Wake up people.

      Arthur Vandelay

      Aug 28, 2014 at 1:30pm

      Say what? The lack of budget dollars today to spend on education is the fault of some capital projects of the recent past? Not likely.

      This (underfunding) issue is all demographic. Our population is aging and the financial implications are now beginning to hit us in terms of relatively less revenue being collected and relatively higher expenditures being required.

      Canada, like most developed countries better get used to this situation and find ways to deal with these pressures, because it’s only going to get worse in the future. We can’t keep doing this the way we have always done them. We need to find ways of doing more with less. Teachers, above all, should recognize this.

      You can read about it here. http://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/eficap-rebvpc/report-rapport-eng.asp

      Promises

      Aug 28, 2014 at 2:17pm

      “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. “ This certainly seems to be the case with the two bozos that are supposed to be looking after the children of BC – namely Mr. Fassbender and Ms Clark not so affectionately known in public as Mr. Factbender and Chrusty the Clown.

      Teachers and parents don’t trust you both and rightfully so. You have never kept your word to them from day one. Shall we talk about some of the ways you both “broke faith” with the teachers, parents and children of this province:

      Ms Clark claimed to be on the phone 24/7 in early summer with the BCTF. When the BCTF offered to produce phone records to say nothing had indeed taken place, all of a sudden our not so ethical Premier was awfully silent and instead reverted to tweeting about football games, just what the people of BC wanted to read.

      Ms. Clark, as a NONPROMISEKEEPER, continued to prove herself worthy of the title, by claiming she didn’t want things to simmer this summer. She forgot to tell BC that she didn’t plan to do anything about it. Again as a charter NONPROMISEKEEPER, this is acceptable conduct. I am sure Mr. Factbender, totally applauded your lack of ethics there.

      You, Mr. Fassbender, were supposed to be in a “media blackout” but it didn’t matter to you NONPROMISEKEEPER one whit! You did a “partisan” swing advertising the forty pieces of silver bribe for all to see and the $350,000 website that a high school student could have done for $50. Even the CBC reporter, who interviewed you, noticed your callous nonchalant behaviour and wrote about it in an article. At least you could have “faked” sincerity but sincerity and ethics are not your strong suit as rightly fitting for a NONPROMISEKEEPER.

      Then last week you again “fabricated” the story that the BCTF were away ALL WEEK on conference so no negotiations could take place. You forgot to mention that the BCTF were available Mon. – Wed. last week, but when you’re a NONPROMISEKEEPER you will say anything to make yourself look good, even if it’s a lie. You also do the 24//7 thing very well as does the other NONPROMISEKEEPER so I’m sure that’s in the code of “non – ethics” for the organization.

      Then yesterday (just a few days from school but a NONPROMISEKEEPER is cool with that) you summon Mr. Iker to the Legislature and attempt to coerce him into sending his teachers back to work Tues. I guess your job h

      Ginger

      Aug 28, 2014 at 11:08pm

      @Graham, it's not about wages, as the gov and BCTF are very close to settling on that number. The big fuss is about restoring class size and composition language and funding which was ILLEGALLY stripped 12 years ago. The Supreme Court has ruled in teachers' favour TWICE now, and ordered the gov to fix it. Teachers know they are right, and that class size and comp is essential, hence the strong stance. Focussing on wages is so 2012, get with the program dude.