The latest city council meeting on Tuesday December 9 has provided the media with much fodder. Among the blunders was a report from city staff that studied increasing transit service to suburban and rural areas and recommended that the cost be paid for more by those residents who live in those areas. The suggestion follows the ongoing effort by the tax-reform committee to introduce a service-based tax system in the city instead of the current system that doesn’t take into consideration the cost of providing certain services in one area or another, and the availability of those services when the tax is paid.

City councilors expressed their ‘concerns’ about staff’s recommendation, to say the least of their reaction.

What they might not know is that Metro Transit already undertakes a service-based cost/revenue structure with certain parts of their service, but I doubt many people know this.

Let’s take the example of when the U-Pass was implemented to provide Halifax students with unlimited bus usage. In the negotiation process, the student union and the university administration agreed to impose a flat bus pass fee on all full-time students at SMU, regardless if they use the bus or not. In return, SMU asked Metro Transit to provide better service to the university, and unlimited access for 8 months of the year to students who want to use the bus.

Ultimately, a deal was reached where SMU students paid for the full cost of the extra servicing, which was collected through the annual UPass fee. This is public information available in articles that appeared in the university student paper in 2003 when the UPass was launched.

SMU students ultimately ended up paying for the full (unsubsidized) annual cost of the additional services, regardless of the fact that the buses were used by more than SMU students alone, and were existing buses that are already subsidized as part of the transit money the city gives to metro transit. While seemingly unfair, the overall benefit outweighed the cost. Transit ridership gradually increased as more students adopted the new mode and left their cars at home. Less parking spaces were required in and around the university, allowing for more academic buildings and less street congestion.

The precedent has been set for a pay-per-service system. And while the cost of the pass was higher than what it should be, everybody won in the end, and all universities in Halifax launched the UPass in following years under the same fee structure.

So, let’s talk about the application of a service-based tax system in relation to transit services.

A service-based tax is a good idea, especially for transit. Transit is one of those services that can easily be linked to the elusive goal of good and environmentally-sustainable urban design. And so the question of transit planning is ultimately linked to the question of property taxes and their effect on housing distribution and sustainable service densities.

I understand why rural and suburban residents want good public transit options (who doesn’t!). But it must be provided at a higher expense to their tax area (albeit, not without first resolving the question of affordable housing for low-income families, as described further in this comment).

Extending bus lines to every nook and cranny in HRM, then loading the cost of that on all residents regardless of their location, is a recipe that awards suburban sprawl. This backward and reactive strategy has no place in planning a city ready for the challenges of the 21st century; A city with an eye for a prosperous future.

Our local government should work more at creating tax and service incentives to encourage people to live together more sustainably in higher-density communities. HRM staff knows this, common sense dictates this, and scientific evidence supports this.

Yet, people are reluctant to swallow penalties for unsustainable residential choices. They want to live in the quiet country-side large house with a sprawling back yard overlooking a lake, AND they want all the services that a city dweller with smaller quarters and higher rents/taxes gets, AND they want good roads and transportation options to travel back and forth from their oasis to their city work, AND they want to pay less tax than urban dwellers!!

Effect on Low-Income Families:

The argument that charging a higher tax to deliver services to rural or less-populated areas will negatively affect low-income families (who can’t afford to live in the urban core) is a critique that has been misplaced.  This is an issue that relates to the lack of affordable housing for low-income families, not an argument against service-based taxation.

The potential negative effects on low-income households can be solved with a more equitable tax structure in the urban core along with a commitment by local government to provide affordable housing for low income families throughout the urban districts.

Affordable housing and services can exist in the urban core only with a service-based tax system that allows city hall to redirect its tax revenues into creating housing solutions instead of exhausting city budgets on building and maintaining extensive road networks to service few residents scattered all around on the outskirts of a sprawling city.  The city can also use the new tax structure to provide tax incentives to encourage (or even mandate) developers to include affordable or mixed-income housing within their development projects.

Think about it: a low-income family can now live in the urban core, AND take advantage of lower service costs (due to the higher number of people who are splitting that cost between them in higher density urban areas), AND pay an equivalent tax rate to that which they were paying while living in rural districts.  Wouldn’t that be a good thing? They can live closer to work, have better access to public transportation, schools, health care, entertainment, etc.  These are all factors that contribute to that coveted ‘quality of life’ index that Nova Scotia promotes as one of the main attractions to living here.

The current tax system only helps to encourage the creation of ghettoized districts, where low income families are forced to collect in specific areas due to the financial incentive that the government inadvertently creates with a tax structure based on property value. Just ask France about how well it worked out for them to create suburban pockets in Paris where the cost of living was lower than in the city core!

So let’s not say no to a service-based tax system that will benefit everyone in the long run and will bring us closer to an environmentally, fiscally, and socially sustainable city. Instead, let’s take this opportunity to inscribe urban solutions to the low-income housing situation as part of the overall effort to move the city into the new tax structure. The structure that rewards dense community living with financial savings that allow the implementation of excellent public transit options and everything else that our city deserves.

That’s where the features of the Pomegranate Phone start to draw skepticism from people. But the features that follow leave no doubt that this is a gag-ad. The ad showcases the phone as a personal shaver and mobile personal coffee brewer.

Thus begins Nova Scotia’s latest, slickest, and most expensive endeavour into using new media and social networking to pass the message of the ‘Come To Life‘ campaign to their unsuspecting target market. The viral campaign peddles this ‘it does everything’ phone with all the might that a $300K advertising budget can provide. Yet it seems that the jury is still out on the effectiveness of this campaign.

Visit the website by clicking the image below. Or see the videos below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq2A6bi_sDE

The campaign was produced by Bristol Group, Egg Films/Hatch, and Breathe Media.

• Art Director: Dan Couto
• Copy writer/creative director: Albert Ianni
• Production Manager: Collette Snow
• Designers: Andrew Grantham, Michael Gatto
• Internal Programmer: Melissa Castle
• External programmers/designers: Breathe Media
• Production/Post: Egg Films/Hatch Post
• Actors/Models: Christopher Killam, Lita Lewellen, John Beale, Laura Bleasdale, Andrea Wilson, Pasha, ?Others?

Synopsis:

The impossible-made-possible features of this phone are not so far fetched. In early 2007, I reviewed a new product by an Israel-based technology company that produced a pocket projector device not unlike the built-in fantasy projector showcased for the Pom. The Explay Nano Projector is effectively the world’s smallest consumer projector and was planned to launch to market in 2008. The company was working on providing the technology as OEM for cell phone and camera manufacturers to incorporate into future devices. Click picture below to visit their website.

Similarly, the voice translation function currently exists, though the technology is not fit for seamless speech recognition yet (only phrase by phrase). Devices combining voice recognition and translation software are a dime a dozen. A simple speech-to-speech voice recognition translator can be bought from Ectaco for a little under $400 CDN. The software itself is available for installation on smart phones.

Last but not least, a hybrid musical instrument phone was recently launched by Japan’s Kddi in collaboration with Yamaha. See my review of this technology here. It can be played as a harmonica, trumpet, flute, and various other instruments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-76oq_AHHg

The campaign can be said to have three components:

• The medium
• The message
• The actual product it peddles.

The Medium:

A great viral campaign by Bristol, Hatch, and Breathe. World class, really. It achieves the desired effect of getting people to pass around the url to give their friends and colleagues a quick chuckle. The campaign was implemented in Boston, Toronto, Calgary, and Ottawa. On Tuesday of last week, 200 pomegranates (the fruit, not the phone) containing the url (pomegranatephone.com) were passed around to people by street teams in Boston, Ottawa, and Toronto during their morning commute.

Yet, there appears to be a disconnect from the Pom site and the site containing the client’s message. It’s as if two different companies were hired, one for the flashy viral campaign, and another for the Come To Life mini-site.

The Message:

Here is where it gets tricky. Critics of this campaign point to how the message is hard to locate in this viral. Even when you do get to the mini-site containing the video clips that are meant to pitch Nova Scotia to the target market, there appears to be a disconnect between the demographic target of the videos and the demographic target of the Pom’s viral.

The Pom’s viral appeals to a tech-savvy younger demographic that spends a lot of time on the internet and enjoys passing around virals. Other demographics that spend a lot of time on the internet and pass around junk mail and viral videos are employees, stay at home parents, and teenagers without much to do.

Yet, Bristol notes that the key demographic they are after is “influencers and business leaders in key markets”, a group that usually stays on top of trends and the latest in technology.

Bristol is correct in that influencers and business leaders stay on top of technology and trends. However, perhaps a fatal flaw here is that the Pom phone is neither a new technology nor a trend, so it would be of little interest to business leaders to visit the site or forward to their contacts. It is just a gag site, and we have already established who is attracted to gag sites. Leaders and influencers are too busy leading and influencing to spend time checking out gag sites.

So, ultimately, the main visitors that ended up on the site were teenagers from around the world, and expat young professionals who out-migrated from Nova Scotia seeking opportunities in other Canadian or international cities. They clicked, they chuckled, some sent it to their friends.

Some followed the viral into the Nova Scotia Come To Life message, and were disappointed. The video testimonials mainly showcase entrepreneurs, doctors, and enterprises. No representative age group was showcased doing the things these expats fled the province to do elsewhere. This brings us to the third and final component of this campaign.

The product:

Regardless of how flashy the packaging is, the sale ultimately relies on the product itself. Does the product deliver as advertised? Is it reliable? Ultimately, the expat demographic left Nova Scotia for a reason. They are aware of the challenges, and are in touch with the motherland enough to know if these challenges have been overcome by the province/city or not.

So, you want people to ‘Come To Life’ in Nova Scotia? Many believe all Nova Scotia has to do is actually provide the product they are peddling, not just market a false image with pretty packaging and slick marketing. What if HRM City Council actually spent time implementing this fantastic 5-year Economic Strategy they came up with in 2005?

I will leave you with this MSN conversation between me and one such expat that might shed light on what I mean (look! He is using technology too!)

Jeff Lohnes graduated from Saint Mary’s University with an excellent record in student leadership and community involvement. Shortly after, he left for Toronto, where he currently works for the National Speakers Bureau as a Youth Market specialist.