Amalgamation

[Rainrider22]

The Gong Show is the idea of changing what inst broken by Ford.  The small efficiencies that will be gained financially will be lost on  the amount of money that will be spent to change over forms, addresses, websites, street signs, Every emergency and operational plan... the follow out is huge. for what ?  This isn't just about Waterloo Region, this is 82 upper and lower tier municipalities.   You are talking about reprogramming addresses in emergency communications systems, reprogramming all the RMS systems at all levels, hospital, coding for payments, coding for OHIP, coding for birth certificates.....  This is not a small change for some savings of a few millions dollars....  the list and impacts will go on and on ....

You can read myriad studies of the impacts of the extremely extensive municipal restructuring in the '90s, and see that, in at least some cases, efficiencies really were found.

Additionally, the costs you are talking about are one-time costs. The efficiencies, to the extent they can be realized, would be ongoing.

Yes, in some cases.  Are these efficiencies worth the loss of self identification and pride in community.  Then there is the loss of fair representation of local issues and even the ability to address more localized problems.  This is why we have local government.  To deal with local issues.  City issues vs rural issues are often opposing or conflicting...

[robdrimmie]

I'm not a big fan of amalgamation as a rule. I think that small (in terms of geographic area, not necessarily scope of function), well-run, local governments are the ideal. But if this does happen, I hope to enjoy the benefits that come from one entity being responsible for our roads.

[Rainrider22]

I'm not a big fan of amalgamation as a rule. I think that small (in terms of geographic area, not necessarily scope of function), well-run, local governments are the ideal. But if this does happen, I hope to enjoy the benefits that come from one entity being responsible for our roads.

Amen to that that.  And I think the region as a whole could benefit from an amalgamated Fire department.  The rural areas could have their volunteer service augmented with full time...

[tomh009]

Then there is the loss of fair representation of local issues and even the ability to address more localized problems.  This is why we have local government.  To deal with local issues.  City issues vs rural issues are often opposing or conflicting...

There is no reason why a single level of government cannot fairly deal with a rural portion as well. Already the cities balance urban vs suburban vs industrial areas. Local councilors represent their constituents at the municipal level. There is no fundamental reason why it would need to be a separate level of government. As an example, Woolwich already has to balance urban/suburban Elmira issues with rural issues.

That said, I am no fan of forced amalgamation. But hopefully this study is not just a formality.

[KevinL]

I agree that a single, unified transportation department would be far preferable, to ensure a unified vision on street design, traffic calming, trail and cyclepath networks, etc.

[Rainrider22]

Then there is the loss of fair representation of local issues and even the ability to address more localized problems.  This is why we have local government.  To deal with local issues.  City issues vs rural issues are often opposing or conflicting...

There is no reason why a single level of government cannot fairly deal with a rural portion as well. Already the cities balance urban vs suburban vs industrial areas. Local councilors represent their constituents at the municipal level. There is no fundamental reason why it would need to be a separate level of government. As an example, Woolwich already has to balance urban/suburban Elmira issues with rural issues.

That said, I am no fan of forced amalgamation. But hopefully this study is not just a formality.

Woolwich is a bad example.  Elmira is not urban what so ever.  I know the Mayor very well and we have discussed their issues at length.  The things that are important to them are very small town issues.  

I also have a place up north in a rural area and know many of the people who live there full time.  When you hear what is important to small town Ontario, it is totally different than city.

[tomh009]

So what you are saying is that a single level of government cannot reasonably consider urban, suburban and rural priorities? Or metropolitan, mid-size city and far north issues? Or maritime, industrial heartland and prairie farmland priorities?

[danbrotherston]

So what you are saying is that a single level of government cannot reasonably consider urban, suburban and rural priorities? Or metropolitan, mid-size city and far north issues? Or maritime, industrial heartland and prairie farmland priorities?

Yes, not efficiently anyway.

This is why we have lower levels of government.

[tomh009]

So what you are saying is that a single level of government cannot reasonably consider urban, suburban and rural priorities? Or metropolitan, mid-size city and far north issues? Or maritime, industrial heartland and prairie farmland priorities?

Yes, not efficiently anyway.

This is why we have lower levels of government.

So we should really have more levels of government, not fewer? An urban government separate from the suburban one? Maybe a smaller unit yet who can consider the priorities of the Victoria Park heritage district without worrying about other areas? Where does one draw the line?

[danbrotherston]

Yes, not efficiently anyway.

This is why we have lower levels of government.

So we should really have more levels of government, not fewer? An urban government separate from the suburban one? Maybe a smaller unit yet who can consider the priorities of the Victoria Park heritage district without worrying about other areas? Where does one draw the line?

You're implying there should be an easy obvious rule that always applies?  It depends entirely on the specific contexts, and on what specific trade offs you want to make, there are no easy answers.  I don't know where to draw the line, but people who study this for a living probably have a good idea what the right answer is.  What I can say is that I see our region/city functioning better than areas that were amalgamated, and I also see specific reasons why our government here works well, that I would fear it would work more poorly if it was amalgamated.

By the way, I do in fact have more levels of government, I have one between the city and me, namely, the building I live in.

[ijmorlan]

You're implying there should be an easy obvious rule that always applies?  It depends entirely on the specific contexts, and on what specific trade offs you want to make, there are no easy answers.  I don't know where to draw the line, but people who study this for a living probably have a good idea what the right answer is.  What I can say is that I see our region/city functioning better than areas that were amalgamated, and I also see specific reasons why our government here works well, that I would fear it would work more poorly if it was amalgamated.

And on top of this, it’s obvious that the Ford government is not the one to make any changes, even if changes are needed — one can have many valid opinions on the Toronto council shrinkage, but no-one can in good faith believe that the way they made the change was reasonable.

[neonjoe]

I would say that places like Breslau and Mannheim don’t have their own identies but are essentially exurbs of Kitchener. These places would almost make sense for annexation if not amalgamation. They are closer to Kitchener than the main cores of Woolwich and Wilmot.

[panamaniac]

I would say that places like Breslau and Mannheim don’t have their own identies but are essentially exurbs of Kitchener. These places would almost make sense for annexation if not amalgamation. They are closer to Kitchener than the main corbes of Woolwich and Wilmot.

I've often wondered - did the creation of the Region come with a rule prohibiting further annexations?  I've long wondered why Breslau/YKF and Mannheim haven't been absorbed by the City.

[ijmorlan]

I would say that places like Breslau and Mannheim don’t have their own identies but are essentially exurbs of Kitchener. These places would almost make sense for annexation if not amalgamation. They are closer to Kitchener than the main corbes of Woolwich and Wilmot.

I've often wondered - did the creation of the Region come with a rule prohibiting further annexations?  I've long wondered why Breslau/YKF and Mannheim haven't been absorbed by the City.

I would also be interested in a general run-down of what the rules are in this area. My impression is that in the past cities could decide to expand their boundaries into neighbouring townships, and while the townships could complain they couldn’t refuse outright. But I get the impression this is no longer a unilateral option for cities.

[Rainrider22]

So what you are saying is that a single level of government cannot reasonably consider urban, suburban and rural priorities? Or metropolitan, mid-size city and far north issues? Or maritime, industrial heartland and prairie farmland priorities?

Then I guess we should just get rid of all local government and go with just the Provincial model..