Urban creep.....

I'm not sure I'd agree with the suggestion that social problems are still concentrated in urban areas and ignored in the suburbs. Five years ago maybe. Surrey and Maple Ridge spring immediately to mind, but I also know that rural BC has its own issues around addiction, mental health, crime and poverty. It just gets less media coverage.

issues like this are why politics smells so bad

i'm no expert here, but i thought the whole idea of a democracy was one person one vote...

all this politicking of speculating and redrawing lines and such shuffling stinks so terribly badly of stacking the deck.

I see our government

...is taking the environmental bull by the horns, and reining in the kind of sprawl that uses up unrenewable resources lickedy split!

Where does BC's wealth originate?

Really? Let's not forget the 2002 Urban Futures Institute report by David Baxter and Andrew Ramlo:

"Compared to the provincial average annual international exports of $8,659 per capita, the average originating in non-metropolitan regions is $14,290 per person, while that originating in metropolitan regions is only $4,278 per person, half the provincial, and 30% of the non-metropolitan, averages. Non-metropolitan areas produce a $6,261 per capita surplus from international exports while metropolitan areas have a $4,176 per capita deficit."

http://www.urbanfutures.com

Revenge indeed.

Disagree with article completely

If the northern BC loses three seats and the go to Suburban areas, voting pattern changes will likley be more liberal than conserative. Since rural areas are WAY more likely to vote conservative and suburban a LITTLE more likely to vote conservative.

I also thing the divide is between the urban/suburban and the rural. Since as the population decreases in the rural areas the densly populated areas have to subsidize them mroe and more.

Vancouver and Surrey have more in common with each other than Vancouver/Peace River.

And contrary to what many people seem to think. There ARE more issues out there than Public Transit.

Whoa up there, Flattax

I disagree completely with your statement!
If the revenues for the resources that are being extracted in record quantities remained in those areas, people would be moving to "anywhere but Vancouver". As it stands though, the rural areas for the most part subsidize the urban areas, because the wealth goes there, and only a little is returned.

If I took a $100 from you, 'cause you weren't using it, then gave you $1 back, I am sure you would be quite pi$$ed about it.

That's like saying Calgary is subsidizing Alberta, when we all know it's the tarsands, with the wealth going (mostly) to the urban areas.

vicki

Absolutely right, Vicki! Much of rural BC is not doing well. Suicides, poverty, and crime are plentiful.

its all urban to me

I have to agree with flattax. The divide in BC is between rural and urban/suburban.
Every suburb surrounding Vancouver proper is just a degree away from being a new urban centre. I am a rural resident and I know the truth about how rural resources pay the bills for the urban areas. The rest of the dough goes into the pockets of the corporate cronies the government is in bed with. I don't vote conservative or liberal but the majority here certainly do. Genetic predisposition to stupidity I guess. There are big problems with representation by population in BC. The population base is obviously skewed by geography and history to the point where the majority are clearly in two tiny pockets of the Fraser Valley/Vancouver island and the Okanogan. Meanwhile the interior and northern hinterlands hold the bulk of the resource commodities that drive the economy. Given the economic and environmental importance of the rural areas there needs to be a legislative mechanism that addresses the demographic and geographic differences.

Subsidizing rural areas

Agreed that the resources in rural areas are vast and with current commodity prices worth alot. They are big income generators and are basically funding the province and providing the surplus that that provincial government sleazingly tries to take credit for.

However, my point is simply that providing services to rural areas costs more than providing services to urban areas. And my beef is that urban areas are forced often by legislation to subsidize rural areas. For example:

Phone service in urban areas costs more since Telus cannot charge more to rural customers than they do to urban customers.

Postal services cost more in the city since Canada Post cannot charge more for pick up and delivery in one horse towns.

I would like to see a more accurate "Transfer Pricing" mechanism in place to track the costs and split them out. Easpecially for crown corps and regulated monopolies like Telus.

flattax

You haven't heard of the social contract apparently, nor the deregulation of local phone service either....I think rural BC is going to have to start sending you an annual bill for everything from water to the air around your head and the cartage on the shoes on your feet - I doubt they were made in Vancouver but they either came here in a truck, on a train or plane or via boat. So, when you decide you want some accounts rendered you might remember you'll likely get a few bills in your mail slot too....

Rural subsidy

I agreed with you on one point flattax, you should have quit while you were ahead.
I cannot agree that rural areas should be free of subsidy. It is subsidy that pays for the development that is badly needed. Bennett Sr. understood this very well and he was an unapolagetic capitalist. Even with small subsidies we still have far less service and convenience in the hinterland. Capitalists have no desire to help a "few people living in the sticks" So the fair thing to do is to share these costs across the entire nation and provide a better standard of living for everyone including those who labour to provide the commodities on which those in the city depend. Not only that the examples you cite are lame. Postal service in my one horse town means no door to door delivery, no rural routes and is the only way I can economically obtain many needed goods by mail order from the city. The lower costs of postal service versus private courier benefit everyone equally in this country thank god.
Telephone service in rural BC used to be less expensive than in Vancouver. I remember when I paid $4-8 per month for a party line (yahoo, lets celebrate!) and very high long distance charges. Now I pay more than $25 per month for a private line and much lower long distance rates (isn't equality great) Not much difference from what you pay in the city I think. Then there is BC Hydro. I live a few kilometres from the second largest dam in the province. At the time of its construction the power was of great benefit to the local development of our community as well as the jobs. If we decided cut the power lines to the south because we were tired of supporting "city slickers" I am sure it be a problem. Not to mention all the valuable wilderness and timber that was wasted and flooded out because we had too much of those things at the time. How about ICBC? Still want to privatize it? No matter that the private companies make millions denying policyholders their rightfull claims and charge more for the privledge. Then there are the hospitals, those expensive houses of death sprinkled throughout the province. Unfortunately it often takes longer than an hour to reach one when you need to and your chances of dying go through the roof. If we are lucky we will be airlifted to a city hospital where most of the doctors are because it is cheaper to fly and drive the almost dead to the city than provide a network of good rural hospitals. While we are brought back to life in the city our relatives can visit us at their expense by driving and flying to the city to stay in expensive hotels. Since most rural people are simpletons anyways, we could save money by downsizing the schools to one room, keeping the girls at home in the kitchen and teaching the boys using online education.

good topic for debate...

as someone who recently considered moving back to the lower mainland for ostensibly a 'better paying job' than out here in The Heartland(s), i must say that there is likely lots to write about and study in this urban/suburban divide. housing in vancouver proper is ridiculously unaffordable - and, to a large degree, the housing stock is not reliable - y'know, houses aren't that much different than cars or other consumer items - they plumb wear out, and cost more than they're worth to fix up a lot of the time. so, you decide to consider the 'burbs, but soon realize that you'll be sitting for hours in your single-occupancy car because it take ninety minutes on public transit (one way from White Rock - i looked it up on translink!) - burning two or three hours per day sitting in traffic! some people want their kids to attend 'better schools' in the suburbs, and they want a nice sized lots for playing soccer with the kids and letting 'em run around - tyee posters may not know it but families - white, liberal, asian, conservative - whatever families - crave space more than just about anything else. space from their kids, their spouses, their work colleagues, and the suburbs offer that.
interestingly, i just returned from toronto. those vancouverites whining about 'overcrowding' in a 33 x 125 foot lot would be stunned to see Victorian row housing in Leslieville (12 foot wide townhomes, anyone??)... still, gotta love that TTC transit. well, to quote christine lavin 'if you want space, go to fort st john...'
on another note, - don'tcha love these private healthcare clinic ads on the Tyee??

Missing the point...

More importantly, the whole idea behind the new boundaries better represents the proportionality of the province by region and city. This article only states the opinions of a "youngish urban geographer" as the basis for the opinion. Here are some key points to consider:
Our current First-Past the Post electoral system is a sham. Here's why:
· Denies representation for all voters
Winner-take-all voting systems provide representation only for those voters who support the most popular party in their riding. The majority of votes cast in BC
elections elect no one.
· Distorts the will of the voters
Because many voters do not win representation, overall election results are distorted. A party winning only 40% of the vote may gain 60% or more of the seats and 100% of the power. Smaller parties that may attract 5% or 15% of the vote will almost never be represented (like the current BC Green Party).
· Produces phony majority governments.
Because of these distortions, BC is generally ruled by phony majority governments – i.e., by parties that captured a majority of seats without winning a
majority of the popular vote.
· Fails to produce accountable governments
Governments that win with less than majority support nonetheless claim a “mandate from the people”. Once any party controls a majority of seats, nothing can stop a premier from enacting unpopular laws that are not supported by a majority of voters.
· Gives us stagnation or wild swings
BC often has periods where one party is entrenched in power for an extended period (like the present with the BC Liberals). Then, even with a relatively small shift in voter attitude, the composition of the legislature can swing wildly from one side of the ideological spectrum to the other. Neither trend is responsive to the evolving political will of citizens.
· Results in low percentages of women and visible minority MLAs
Every voting system produces incentives for parties to bring forward certain types of candidates. In a winner-take-all system, parties have little incentive to field a diverse range of candidates. Other voting systems in which parties must bring forward lists of candidates for larger regions have the opposite incentive.
· Promotes apathy, cynicism and negativity among voters
In BC, nearly 40% of eligible voters do not
bother casting ballots. Countries using fair voting systems generally have higher voter turnouts.
Hopefully, Ontarians will vote in the MMP and British Columbians will have the choice to bring in STV in the next provincial election with pre-determined boundaries.

Why don't we get a real choice in BC

Bring on a referendum but not just the single option STV - it is better than FPP - but not by much and multi-member ridings are a BAD idea.

And how about making voting compulsory?