In British Columbia, there are multiple methods that exist in reducing congestion. One of those major ways is by promoting the use of public transit. Doing so reduces the use of private vehicles. However, another way to reduce the use of private vehicles is to find a way to tax their use more heavily. The one that I most want to investigate is the use of the parking space tax that is currently utilized in BC. Currently the parking tax is levied on commercial parking spaces of whose rights are sold to users for varying levels of time including hourly, daily, monthly, and yearly (Translink). Essentially, the parking lots operator is charged the tax so they increase the price of parking. Although we regularly see rates of parking that are even charges when hourly or daily (e.g $6 daily on weekends), they is simply because the operator will just increase the price to a higher level that is easier to pay for the user instead of odd numbers after accounting for the tax. Then, they just pay the larger tax amount. If you pay for a monthly or yearly fee, then that tax is much more explicit in its charge. Currently, according to CTV, the charge for the tax is 21% before HST. This tax revenue is collected by Translink and then used to fund the public transport system. By having this relation in both creating disincentive to drive and creating a better public transport system, we can see how there can be a significant decrease in congestion.

There are several exemptions of course. If there is a parking space that is for your place of residence, then you do not have to pay. Also, if you park on a street that uses parking meter parking then that is not included as well (BC Laws). Essentially, that means that the overall coverage includes parking lots and large parkades, which are mostly in the downtown core. As such, it is mostly charged to people who decide to drive into the downtown core and decreases that overall level. Taking this knowledge, this tax affects anybody who drives into the downtown core for any reason and decides to park. Through common sense, the people that drive into downtown the most and utilize these parking spaces are those who work there.  It does affect people who drive there on evenings and weekends, but less so due to the charge for parking being less during this time period thus a lower dollar value amount of tax paid.

The poor are thus not affected as negatively if they are not driving into the downtown area in the first place. If the poor are shown to be taking transit in the first place then this tax should help them if the revenue given to Translink is actually used to improve service for the poor. Those who will most likely be affected by the parking tax are most likely the upper class downtown workers who drive to work and the middle class. The rich are now paying a larger amount for the parking spot due to the tax and that revenue is being used to fund transit. The only benefit that they may gain from this can be from the decreased congestion, which will lead to less traffic in their commute. What must also be noted is how some of the rich are not drivers at all if they live in the downtown region of Vancouver and thus do not have a need to drive and park near their workplace. The middle class on the other hand may be hurt in various ways. In one way, if they continue to drive, then they will be affected in the same way as the wealthy drivers. However, those who now decide to take transit instead of driving can also be hurt due to the lost utility from driving. In effect, the increased transit improvements should outweigh this cost, but if the policy is not as effective, then it may not.

As of the time of this writing, there are not any readily available resources involving the full effectiveness of this tax; however I will state some ways that we can find this out. First, we would need to analyze how much money is gained from the tax. Then, as stated above, we will need to see how effective Translink is in utilizing the money. This of course is not easy for an outside observer, but it would definitely be possible by looking at net returns of the various projects that Translink puts into place. After analyzing this, we would need to examine the role of the tax in getting less people to drive and onto transit. It is often very difficult to find the exact amount of transit users that there are, but what may be more possible is to see the overall decrease in cars that are parked in the lots according to the tax revenue that is gained.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/coalition-blasts-translink-s-35-per-cent-parking-tax-1.737774

http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us/Taxes/Parking-Tax/FAQs.aspx

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_98030_01#section30.1

Greater Victoria Sewage Tax:

Greater Victoria is seeking to have a sewage tax increase placed upon homeowners within the region. This tax is to be used to pay for the damage that the sewage dumping can cause upon the water within the region. Essentially, the sewage water that comes from Victoria is being sent back into the Juan de Fuca Strait with only primary levels of treatment.

Primary treatment of wastewater is the first step in the process of treating wastewater before it is disposed of. This step involves collection of the wastewater and allowing the solid waste to settle to the bottom, which would then allow the water and oils to go above. The waste that has settled is then extracted and use for other uses such as fertilizer and methane productions. Then, what is left will then move to the next step of secondary treatment. Secondary treatment is based on taking the wastewater with its suspensions and other dissolved elements and removing them from the water. This is done through the use of various organisms, which can eliminate them. Following this, the water is then disposed of or goes through a tertiary treatment.

The main problem that is arising is that the sewage in Victoria is only undergoing the primary treatment and not the secondary treatment. Thus, that water with the suspensions and dissolved material is being dumped into the ocean and polluting it. Victoria has been seeking to fund a new treatment plant in order to at least perform the secondary treatment. However, in order to do so, they needed to create funding, 1/3^rd of which is being funded by the Federal government. Another portion is being funded by the Provincial government and the rest being funded by the Municipal. In order for the municipal government to create funding, it has sought to create a much larger sewage tax.

The sewage tax is based around taxing a specific level on homeowners according to the region that they live in. In a sense, this should be in the region that is most likely to cause damage set at approximately 200-300 per year. However, it is not a tax on how much sewage is actually disposed of by the household. As such, this is fairly disproportionate in making those who cause the most damage as being those who pay the most as it is a uniform charge depending on the area that you are in. The original proposal was to have a tax based on the estimated value of the house with a charge of approximately $232 per annum for every $100000 that your house is worth. This one too would be fairly unfair, but at least slightly increases the accountability of users who exude the most sewage. The higher the value, the more waste that is usually disposed of due to those with larger incomes having more to dispose of and often the larger households having houses worth more.

With the municipal government needing to raise approximately $260million dollars in order to pay for the treatment plant (the total cost being 783 with the Federal and Provincial governments paying the remainder), the government needs to raise a significant amount of money. By charging the amount that they are, in order to find how appropriate the tax is, we would need to investigate both how long the tax will be in place and who will apply to. In this sense, everyone that is can be responsible for the emission will be paying the tax, but the length of time that it is paid is not clearly defined. What we can do to examine the pricing of the tax is to look at how many households are approximately in the area, which is approximately 102613 according to BC Stats as of 2011. This project would be paid off in approximately 10 years if the tax has an average of $255 per annum. Even with a very brief look, it would seem that this tax is a reasonable amount to account for the cost of the project. Of course there would be the added costs of maintenance, but the project would definitely be expected to last well beyond 10 years. However, what is contentious is whether the tax may be too high and disproportionate and that may be possible.

With a tax that is placed at almost a flat rate across the population, it will negatively impact the poor of the region. Basically, this will occur because they will be forced to pay a much larger proportion of their income on the tax. However, what should not be forgotten is how the tax is on homeowners themselves and not necessarily on the people living in the house itself. As such, renters will not necessarily be directly affected. The poorest income levels are often those who are renting so it can be argued that they will not be affected. However, this can definitely be countered with the ability of the landlords to simply increase the monthly rent to account for the tax itself.

Clearly, the new waste management facility should be effective in improving the water that is sent out. However, since the tax is a flat rate, which does not vary over time, it will not create disincentive to decrease waste. Of course, how much can people decrease the level of their waste water? The main level of contention of course would be the level of the tax and how appropriate it is to pay for the facility without hurting the population too much.

http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/schools/sdinfo/acc_contracts/2013/61.pdf

http://www.canada.com/news/Floatie+returns+sewage+issue+raises+stink+Victoria+byelection/7600903/story.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/sewage-at-centre-of-victoria-by-election/article5582535/

http://www.saanichnews.com/opinion/174656351.html?mobile=true

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Greater+Victoria+sewage+committee+votes+keep+project+flowing/7617633/story.html