When Ellen and I went to Waterloo city council to talk about the whole ghetto thing, we were suprised to find ourselves in the middle of a two-hour debate on amalgamation.
Amalgamation debates are something you get used to in this town. Frankly, I’m amazed we managed to avoid the amalgamation fever of the 90s. Everybody knows about the Toronto megacity, but the fever also led to such strange political entities as The “City” of Kawartha Lakes.
Tim Jackson of Tech Capital Partners and Iain Klugman of Communitech went to city council to propose, not the amalgamation of the whole Region of Waterloo this time, but the amalgamation of the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo.
Except what they proposed wasn’t actually amalgamation, but a plebiscite on the next municipal ballot asking voters whether they were in favour of the two cities talking about amalgamation.
And here’s where it gets a little dicey. Who has a problem with the cities talking about amalgamation?
I remember, however, a referendum in Québec a few years ago, where the question wasn’t “Should Québec be a sovereign nation independent of Canada?” The question was “Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership?” Which is why we have the Clarity Act.
I missed Tim Jackson’s presentation, but when pressed, Iain Klugman made it clear that he felt that a “Yes” vote on this plebiscite was mandate to amalgamate the cities and no follow-up referendum was needed after the cities were finished “talking”.
Furthermore, the province gets to dictate the question after the city votes to have one on the ballot. Waterloo doesn’t get to make its own Clarity Act. And, except for the general distaste for the idea in the Region, there’s nothing stopping the province from forcing amalgamation at any time. Although I fear I might be drifting into conspiracy theories, a “yes” vote on a wishy-washy “talk about amalgamation” vote might be all the political clout they’d need to just amalgamate, regardless of what comes out of talking.
And finally, as far as I can tell (and I could be wrong here—like I said, I missed Tim Jackson’s presentation), the only reason TCP and Communitech are pushing for amalgamation is they think it makes their job marketing the region to the world a bit easier.
I don’t think I need to say I have some problems with this proposal. There was significant resistance from people at the meeting. And an unfortunately anonymous and confusingly named group called One Waterloo has popped up online to oppose it.
On idea of amalgamating cities, I’m a bit more on the fence. Kitchener and Waterloo are one community in a sense that, say, Kitchener and Cambridge aren’t. But the history of amalgamation in this province has created more losers than winners, and I think in general, smaller, decentralized organizations are easier to manage and therefore more efficient than bigger ones.
I don’t see a problem with the current set-up, except that it would make sense to upload more services (like fire or water) to the Region. I don’t think democracy or neighbourhood concerns would be better served by a huge municipal council in downtown Kitchener. I don’t think Communitech’s marketing problems are a good enough reason to tear down and rebuild a system that seems to be working. And most of all, I would like to see amalgamation come about because it’s clearly what citizens want, and not because some group managed to hoodwink them into giving the province an excuse to go ahead and make it happen.
And I hate that I probably come off as crazy by writing that, but that’s the only way I could interpret Mr Klugman’s statements to council a couple weeks ago.
Waterloo city council will debate and put the ballot question to a vote tonight.
Hey Darcy,
Good post, but I think there’s an element that’s been under-stated in your post. Your comment about marketing is right…approximately.
Generally speaking, our community has very well-run services - and I don’t think that an amalagamated K-W would make much difference there. However, for the local people and organizations that have to deal with partners/funders/customers/associates outside of the area, it can make a huge difference.
From the chamber of commerce attracting doctors, to CTT attracting business to the area and schools attracting prospective professors, we have a large cadre of organizations that have to market us to the outside world. Most of the people that signed the letter work in that arena in one manner or another, and I believe that’s where most of the support for the dialog comes from.
As a community, our region supports ~1/2 million residents…that’s in line with Vancouver, and bigger than Quebec City. Those are the communites we’re competing with on cultural, economic, environmental and social levels. I’d argue that even if more distributed government is easier to manage, a more cohesive community is easier to market - and it’s a real challenge that we have to face.
Either way - whether the communities amalgamate or not, I’d like to see the cities support a structured and open dialog, as opposed to simply waiting for delegations from either side to storm city hall, which seems to have been the historic pattern.
~ Joseph
I have some sympathy with this sort of argument, and let me be clear that I’m all for dialog. I agree with Jeff Henry’s point, however, that the question should be put forward after we know what we’re getting into, and it needs to be a clear, yes/no, amalgamate/don’t amalgamate question.
Québec City is a city of 500,000 in a metropolitan area of over 700,000. Vancouver’s an independent city of 500,000 in a region of 2 million. When people think about the size of “Vancouver,” they’re thinking 2 million, not 500,000.
You could amalgamate all of New Bruswick into one giant metropolis of 700,000 people, but that isn’t going to attract any more doctors, businesses or anything else. You just get one giant “city” that’s impossible to administer.
I think people are overestimating the importance of a number on a road sign. I doubt reshuffling the deck chairs will fundamentally change the perceived size of our region externally. Breaking a system that works might change other perceptions, however.
Yes, we probably need some sort of consistent marketing image for the region, and we’d all benefit from that. We have a regional government that could be doing that. I’d say they should be doing that, and the cities ought to let them.
I support any form of amalgamation. Basically, anything interesting about this area is about Waterloo Region (GRT, etc), the individual cities contribute very little. Also, moving more things up into the Region saves bureaucratic overhead (at least in theory).
Hey Darcy,
Thanks for the reply - it’s not just about marketing a number of a road sign, it’s about the logistics.
For example - all three major municipalities and the Region each have Economic Development offices. Although they work together frequently, because they report to different councils/boards, they are unable to act on a single unified strategy - instead there are 4 different strategies, all pulling in slightly different directions, trying to tackle the same problem.
It’s not as though an amalgamated city would cost us less to operate, rather we’d be able to get more done with the resources we’re already spending.
The reason for pushing for dialog rather than a straight-up amalgamation question, is to be able to review and hypothesize on how we could resolve situations like the one I outlined above. In the current climate, though, this type of conversation is almost taboo, because the different levels of government and different organizations are worried about stepping on toes.
I agree: reshuffling of chairs won’t change the perception of size. It will, however, let our municipal services do their jobs better.
And where you’re assuming that amalgamating Kitchener and Waterloo would break a system that works… a) I’m skeptical that it would actually “break” anything, and b) I think you’d be hard-pressed to say the system really works 100%.
Finally - your closing remarks suggesting we put more responsibility in the hands of the region is in direct contrast to your earlier point about the superiority of decentralized control. Doesn’t that flip-flop alone indicate to you that it’s something worth discussing?
~ Joseph
Joseph,
I suppose I’ve talked more about what I have a problem with than what I actually believe. So it’s understandable that I’m not really doing a very good job of getting that across.
I believe in evolution over revolution. We’ve been slowly pushing services up to the Region for ages now and I’m happy to see that continue where it makes sense. “Where it makes sense” is the operative phrase. I don’t think it makes sense for the region to care all that much about what individual neighbourhoods look like or what crosswalk goes where. I do think it makes sense for the region to be our marketing umbrella. Or to run transit. I think it takes time to figure that out.
I don’t think the Regional government as it is currently is the same sort of organization you’d see in an amalgamated city. Right now, it’s mostly a bundle of services. I agree with Stephen at some level: what the Region does it does fairly well. I’d like to see that continue.
I also believe that the cities should be talking about amalgamation. Kitchener wants amalgamation (even though they oppose regionalizing services). Why aren’t they asking for discussions? I don’t think they need a plebiscite to talk. I do think they need a plebiscite to go ahead with amalgamation.
Also, there’s a tiny part of me that doesn’t want to live in a city named after the guy who invented concentration camps. I’d rather live in a city with an ABBA theme tune.
I think the biggest problem that I have with the amalgamation issue is the suddenness that amalgamation usually takes. Having lived through Kingston’s, and watched Toronto’s and Hamilton’s from the sidelines, I don’t think it ever goes well.
What has gone quite well for this region is regionalization. Since I’ve lived here (10 years), I’ve seen transit, police, and other services pushed up to the regional level, and when its done one service at a time, it spreads out the pain, as the regional government can focus on stabilizing one service at a time, instead of doing 50 all at once.
What drives me nuts is watching Kitchener call for amalgamation while at the same time refusing to regionalize water delivery, etc. The goal of amalgamation should be to slowly push the tax split more to the regional end, and slowly make the municipal governments less and less relevant.
If the cities have problems with the way the region is structured, then they should work with the region to restructure. But I have a funny feeling this is all about egos and not giving anything up.
Cheers,
Eric
I think the arrangement that we have here and now is just about perfect and doesn’t need to be radically changed. The idea of two-tier government is that we still have lower-tier cities that are closer to the communities they represent, while at the same time having an upper-tier regional level where the communities can debate issues which are common to the region.
For instance, public transportation and economic development are regional issues. Speed bumps on local roads aren’t. We have people living in Cambridge and commuting to Waterloo on the iXpress every day, so people in Cambridge care about the transit moves in Waterloo, and vice versa. International investment that is attracted to Waterloo Region benefits the whole region, whether it locates itself in Elmira, Ayr, Waterloo or Kitchener. We don’t need the various smaller municipalities fighting over the scraps; it’s better to cooperate in this field, and the regional government provides that.
At the same time, people in Elmira DON’T care about traffic calming measures in North Dumfries and shouldn’t be subjected to that on their agenda. These local issues should be kept at the local level where they are more manageable, and where the lower-tier council can be more responsive.
Once you have this arrangement, you can fiddle with it, but you shouldn’t radically change it. I think keeping Kitchener and Waterloo separate provides good balance on regional council. A Kitchener-Waterloo would dwarf Cambridge, and further alienate that community from the region.
Of the changes I would make, I’d restore the link between the two tiers. Regional councillors should also sit on their respective lower tier councils. The regional council should not be seen as a separate entity from the lower tier councils, but an extension of them. It is a boxing ring, and not a boxer in its own right.
I have lived in this area for almost for 50 years and cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want to even talk about this…the cultures, histories and all that it entails and more could be undermined with this nonsense… each community has its own special uniqueness and should be maintained and preserved…. the logistics and ramifications are staggering… someone has too much time on their hands to be actually considering this move… really, really, think about it…this is not about politics or ecomomy but of how it affects the human population of this clearly unique region….
Am I the only one who is pretty much sick of hearing about amalgamation? Have we not debated this to death? Have we not seen the major drawbacks in other regions that have tried this? Ask a Torontonian who remembers the pre-GTA merger if it wasn’t a more diverse and pleasant place to live. By combining the region into a mega city it is argued that we the taxpayers will save money and have a more efficient government. Prove it. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a more centralized approach to managing the cities would benefit anyone. This is change for the sake of change and it is detrimental to the region as it takes away important time and resources from other genuinely important issues. If you want to live in this region you have choices today. You can choose from three large cities that are self-governing, unique and responsible to their constituents. Today you know the name of your ward councilor. Your regional councilors are more like the managers of all the cities giving us an amalgamation effect. This situation engenders responsible governing since the politicians have fewer constituents and have a narrower focus on our daily needs. Amalgamation would eliminate the differences between the cities homogenizing us into what would essentially become the Kitchener system. Eventually the names Waterloo and Cambridge would disappear. So too would that unique feeling you get when you pass the hospital on King Street and find yourself in an entirely different city with it’s own cultural appeal. It has been submitted time and again that amalgamation would address the fundamental planning issues that plague this region. We have four planning departments who are sometimes at odds with each other in how to proceed with projects. I say ‘great’. Planning is one of the most important functions of our government and the more people fighting over details the better. I don’t want a very small group of people making decisions of this magnitude. I don’t want representation on planning ideas to be usurped by a group of people who don’t have to live with the consequences of their decisions. How can I be sure that a planner from Kitchener is even aware of the serious geological, demographic and social issues impacting me in Waterloo? How can a planner make responsible decisions if he isn’t living with the results? The question has been asked, ‘are the people of this region interested in amalgamation?’ and time and again the answer has been a resounding no. This small special interest group has reopened a debate at a level that it has no business being. They should feel free to send a letter to their respective councilors and be content with the answer instead of pressuring the cities to enter into a well-settled debate involving expensive public votes and using up precious council attention. Should circumstances and opinions change we will know. We don’t need a few people to tell the vast majority of us what to think. This is a non issue and it needs to go away before we waste any more time on it. This region has genuine, serious, complicated problems and we don’t need a distraction like this. It’s time for you ‘pro-amalgamation’ kids to grow up and face the fact that the vast majority of this region don’t want amalgamation with good reason. Considered reason. Quit whining and wasting everyone’s time. Go live in Toronto if that’s what you like and stop trying to ruin the good thing we got going here.
As someone that has been involved - or should I say DRAGGED KICKING AND SCREAMING into a forced amalgamation of the 90’s - all I can say is BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
I can also give you a heads up about referenda related to same.
In Victoria County, it took 3 years AFTER the forced amalgamation to finally get the Province to give the people a say in the matter. A Minister’s Question (Conservative Gov’t) allowed a deamalgamation question on the MUNICIPAL BALLOT in 2003. This followed an all-out committee to discern the “question to be asked”, an almost year-long debate on the Yes vs No responses (participated in by The Province, the YES side and the NO side) and finally the question on the ballot.
Despite the results of that ballot, a written promise by the then-opposition Liberals to honour that vote - a year before they became the Government (in large part DUE to the written promise) — it is now seven years later and that vote has STILL not be honoured.
The forced amalgamation has resulted in nothing but skyrocketing costs, taxes that have gone through the roof, user fees and more user fees on anything and everything, a complete and total disconnect between the constituents and the elected officials and a mega bureaucracy that would blow your mind.
Just ONE example: prior to amalgamation there was not a single person in the entire county that belonged to the esteemed “Sunshine Club” ($100,000.+ salary) — just ten years later, despite the fact our population nor landmass has not changed we now have TWENTY FOUR members!!!
The whole amalgamation debacle has pitted neighbour against neighbour, our economic development has plummeted to the worst it has ever been (In the years leading up to amalgamation our area won no less than SIX economic development awards — in the decade since amalgamation the best we have done is a “pretty flower” communities in bloom award.) Our volunteer base has disappeared, as highly paid “staff” have taken over.
One size fits all by-laws and planning do NOT fit!
I could go on for another ten years, but let me finish by saying once again … PLEASE TREAD CAREFULLY!!!!!