74 replies to this topic

[amor de cosmos]

Langwood? Colford? Mayors mull merge

Councils will be asked to put question to voters in November

Bill Cleverley, Times Colonist
Published: Friday, February 08, 2008

The time is ripe to ask Colwood and Langford residents if the two municipalities should merge, the communities' mayors say.

"It's something that's always been there, and I think now is the right time to do it," Langford Mayor Stew Young said yesterday.

Both Young and Colwood Mayor Jody Twa said they would seek their councils' support to put a question on the November municipal ballot asking voters if they want to pursue amalgamation.

"I think we need public buy-in -- that's the only way to be successful," Twa said. "So we really do need to have a general question if we do want to start pursuing that."

Young said he believes support for the exploration would be high -- in the 80-per-cent range. Typically, the province provides funds for incorporation or amalgamation bids -- as is now being done with Metchosin and East Sooke -- with grants to explore the implications of a merger on costs such as road maintenance, policing and recreation.

Young notes that Colwood and Langford already share in many services, such as policing via the West Shore RCMP and recreation through the Juan de Fuca Recreation Centre. The two municipalities are also undertaking a joint Official Community Plan review.

However, there are differences between the municipalities. Langford has aggressively pursued big-box business and commercial development, while the more residential Colwood has struggled with major redevelopment proposals such as the $1-billion makeover of Colwood Corners. Colwood is staffed by a unionized workforce, while Langford operates with non-union staff and contracts out services wherever possible.

Both Twa and Young said the differences can be overcome.

etc

http://www.canada.co...a9c291c1&k=6847

[Nparker]

2 down, 12 "mini empires" to go. I hope this goes through (although I can hear the mournful cries now), as it jut might show the rest of the region that amalgmation is not a 4-letter word.

[spanky123]

This way Jody and Stew can ensure unrestricted access to both Bear Mountain and Colwood Corners!

How about Dogwood for the new name?

[aastra]

Things happen quickly in the west comms. They've only been debating this merger since when...the 1960s?

[Nparker]

How about Dogwood for the new name?

Perhaps "Barewood" might nicely reference the current development trend and Bear Mountain in particular.

[davek]

This is not a win-win proposal. There is nothing that prevents the municipalities from accomplishing their mutual goals while still in their present political configuration. Amalgamation will make it easier for the politically powerful to extend their authority over larger areas and make it easier for majorities to force their will on communities that currently enjoy local control.

[Nparker]

Perhaps then we can subdivide rather than amalgamate the current 14 municipalities. Maybe each street can be its own autonomous community. After all I don't want the people 2 blocks away extending their authority over me. The one thing the capital region is lacking is enough government, so I see this as a total win-win scenario.

[davek]

Although I doubt anyone would desire neighbourhood autonomy on a street or even block level, your proposal is not as extreme as you might imagine. In California, Texas, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and other rapidly growing areas, community governance is central to the new urban model. The regulation of land use and the provision of "micro" common services such as garbage collection, street cleaning, and private security patrols are looked after at the neighbourhood level. Anything that involves significant economies of scale (water, sewer, arterial highways, etc.) is provided at the regional or metropolitan level.

An examination of cities that have amalgamated their local governments should prove instructive to anyone who thinks amalgamation reduces the size or financial burden of government. In the absence of competition, government just keeps growing. Victoria's strong local governments are a very effective counterweight to the tyranny of the majority, and the region benefits greatly from them. They play a significant role in making Victoria the nicest place in Canada to live, and shouldn't be discarded.

[spanky123]

I think that you make a good point Davek. There is logic in combining services (ie policing, refuse collection, maintenance, fire fighting, etc) that are shared across communities, but there is a big risk in trying to do the same with politics and decision making.

We only need to look at Megacity (Toronto) to see the disaster that full amalgamation caused several years ago.

[davek]

I think that you make a good point Davek. There is logic in combining services (ie policing, refuse collection, maintenance, fire fighting, etc) that are shared across communities, but there is a big risk in trying to do the same with politics and decision making.

We only need to look at Megacity (Toronto) to see the disaster that full amalgamation caused several years ago.

Right. Highway planning is one thing, but by what logic should Bear Mountain residents have any say in land use by Esquimalt Lagoon residents, or vice-versa?

[aastra]

Victoria's strong local governments are a very effective counterweight to the tyranny of the majority, and the region benefits greatly from them. They play a significant role in making Victoria the nicest place in Canada to live, and shouldn't be discarded.

Sub-standard downtown arena and sub-standard central library being a couple of the great benefits?

If you're talking about the municipalities then I agree with you. But if you're talking about the city-neighbourhoods-pretending-to-be-municipalities, then I just can't agree.

[davek]

Sub-standard downtown arena and sub-standard central library being a couple of the great benefits?

If you're talking about the municipalities then I agree with you. But if you're talking about the city-neighbourhoods-pretending-to-be-municipalities, then I just can't agree.

Although the arena and the central library aren't to everyone's liking, they do indeed demonstrate a benefit of divided government. Their current state shows how little they are valued by residents in the other municipalities. If there were a centralized government, it would simply help itself to monies from people who are demonstrating quite clearly that they don't care enough for the arena or library to pay for it. Competing municipalities helps limit the ability of government to help itself to the contents of citizen's money.

[FunkyMunky]

...the tyranny of the majority...

It's much better to be subjected to narrow self-interest than the greater good.

[aastra]

Their current state shows how little they are valued by residents in the other municipalities. If there were a centralized government, it would simply help itself to monies from people who are demonstrating quite clearly that they don't care enough for the arena or library to pay for it.

Yep, the folks in Oak Bay and Esquimalt have demonstrated very clearly how much they care about downtown Victoria. That's the problem. They care enough to use it and enjoy it, but they don't care enough to pay for it.

If folks from Oak Bay were barred from attending events at the arena or from working/shopping downtown, methinks we'd all find out real quick just how much they really care.

[davek]

It's much better to be subjected to narrow self-interest than the greater good.

They are the same thing. The food we eat, the movies we watch, the music we listen to, and most material things that brings us health, comfort, and joy are provided by people acting in narrow self-interest. People act for the greater good out of narrow self interest. Canadians are amongst the wealthiest, healthiest, and happiest people on the planet, because of your respect for the right of individuals to pursue narrow self interest.

Arguing that the collective good is justification for centralizing power doesn't stop at the municipal level. If it's good for Langford and Colwood, it's good for Vancouver and Victoria. And that means it's good for Ontario and B.C., and for the U.S. and Canada. I don't know anyone in favour of that.

[G-Man]

^ You have to be kidding comparing amalgamteing to munis that together would be well under 100 000 people to Toronto is beyond bizarre. The economy of scale alone would make it worthwhile. Let alone from a contractor or developers point of view of not having to get licenses at multiple locations or know the bylaws of everyone of the 13 munis.

Call me a socialist (oh right I kind of am) but I like the idea of spreading things around a bit and not pandering to every narrow interest or municpality. The fact that View Royal gets the same votes at the CRD as Saanich is strange.

[davek]

Yep, the folks in Oak Bay and Esquimalt have demonstrated very clearly how much they care about downtown Victoria. That's the problem. They care enough to use it and enjoy it, but they don't care enough to pay for it.

If folks from Oak Bay were barred from attending events at the arena or from working/shopping downtown, methinks we'd all find out real quick just how much they really care.

For every Oak Bay or Esquimalt resident that uses the arena or the central library and subsidizes neither, there is a Victorian who uses neither and subsidizes both. The solution in both of these cases (and many others) is the elimination of taxpayer subsidies.

[davek]

^ You have to be kidding comparing amalgamteing to munis that together would be well under 100 000 people to Toronto is beyond bizarre. The economy of scale alone would make it worthwhile. Let alone from a contractor or developers point of view of not having to get licenses at multiple locations or know the bylaws of everyone of the 13 munis.

Call me a socialist (oh right I kind of am) but I like the idea of spreading things around a bit and not pandering to every narrow interest or municpality. The fact that View Royal gets the same votes at the CRD as Saanich is strange.

Langford and Colwood have been coordinating their by-laws for some time, as well as their OCPs. A contractors license purchased in Victoria is good in all other municipalities. None of this required amalgamation, nor would any thing else that is mutually acceptable. Amalgamation is a means of concentrating power and increasing the reach of government. It is being sought by those who have found that they cannot advance their agenda through persuasion, and now want to use force. All, of course, in the name of the greater good.

[G-Man]

I like government.

[m0nkyman]

Experience has shown that when the suburbs are the majority in an amalgamated city, the core gets shafted repeatedly. The votes aren't downtown. Kiss any chance of arenas, art galleries, sane rapid transit and other civic improvements goodbye, as the suburbs vote the money towards roads and suburban community centres.

Amalgamation is as nice a theory as communist central planning...