Stop Ottawa's U-Pass

If someone were to come up to you on the street and demand $300 for bus fare, you would probably call it "mugging." When the university does it, they call it a "U-Pass."

The U-Pass is touted as a way to give students a break on transit fees. This is simply not true. The student body will not be paying any less for transit than it is now. The U-Pass will simply create an economy of scale where students who don't use the service will be forced to subsidize those who do. Transit costs in this city are the highest in the country, and something must be done to ease the burden not only to students, but to all citizens. However, levying a mandatory fee on one of the lowest earning demographic groups in the city, is not the answer.

Meanwhile nobody is willing to be held accountable for the tax, and public debate on the issue seems to have been limited to a series of referenda that had very low turnouts due to a lack of publicity, and had skewed results due to misinformation propagated by the student associations regarding the possibility of an opt-out, and the fact that students would ultimately have to foot the bill for the program. Not only that, but referenda are not legitimate forms of governance on issues where minority rights are at stake. Sadly, in this case, neither the students' associations, the university administrations, nor City Hall seem interested in protecting the rights of students.

As a mayoral candidate and a university student, I feel it is my duty to undo some of the propaganda that has been spread regarding the benefits of the U-Pass. Here are just a few of the reasons why the U-Pass is unethical, and must be stopped.

1. Students already pay for transportation even if they don't take transit. A student who uses an environmentally friendly mode of transportation such as a bicycle, must pay several hundred dollars for the bike, buy spare parts, and invest hours on bicycle maintenance. That same student shoulders the financial burden of his transportation alone, without the assistance of his fellow students. Why then should his fellow students expect him to subsidize their transportation?
   
2. All students already subsidize transit, whether they use it or not, in the form of property tax. Currently, 50% of the transit is funded by tax-payers, and all students (or their parents) who live in Ottawa pay taxes either directly or through their rent cheques. This puts students who don't use the system in a position of triple jeopardy-- they pay for their own transportation, they pay for public transit through property taxes, and now they will pay for transit again through the six per cent increase in their tuition.
   
3. It is very desirable from an environmental and an infrastructure standpoint to have students live within walking or biking distance of school, and City Hall should not penalize those who make sustainable lifestyle choices. Students who make this environmentally conscious decision likely already pay dearly for that lifestyle in the form of higher rents than students who live in outlying areas. With the added burden of subsidizing those students who might live for free with their parents in the suburbs, these students might not be able to afford the higher rent and may choose to move to lower rent neighbourhoods farther from school, putting additional burden on the environment and on infrastructure.
   
4. OCTranspo is not a service provided by the university, so the university has no business charging for it. The university is justified in levying fees for services they provide, such as the library or the gym. However, the university does not provide OCTranspo service, the city does. This means the U-Pass is not a service fee, but rather a tax. The university has no business collecting taxes on behalf of the City.
   
5. The U-Pass treats students as though they were second class citizens. Why have students been singled out as the only demographic group in Ottawa to be forced to subsidize an inefficient transit system, and the extravagant salaries of OCTranspo drivers, to the tune of $300/year? Why not force some other group, like lawyers, City Councillors, or university administrators to pay for the U-Pass? It is unjust to single out a specific group to shoulder such a steep burden, particularly one which traditionally has a great deal of financial trouble already. Students must pay tuition, and time constraints make it difficult to hold down full time work while attending school. Likely City Hall is relying on the traditional sense of student apathy toward municipal issues to get away with pulling a fast one. If they decided to charge everyone in the city $300/year for transit, the outcry would be intense.