74 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

Of course an amalgamated Victoria would not have the majority population in the suburbs, at least not in MY model. I envision the 4 core municipalities (Victoria, Oak Bay, Saanich and Esquimalt) as one "city" (lets call it Vobse) the Saanich peninsula as another (with a southern boundary taking in part of what is currently rural Saanich), and the West Shore (View Royal through to Sooke, although perhaps the former could be part of Vobse with some boundary changes). Correct me if I am wrong but I think this would leave the "core" with the largest overall population, and the one with the most services. The suburbs would still be substantially smaller.

In my model, the downtown would finally get supported financially by the population that actually uses it. The 3-city model might also mean that the region actually has some clout when it comes to provincial and federal funding, instead of the "every man for himself" concept we have now.

I am also unsure why so many people think that amalgamation somehow means that the residents of Sooke will be able to control all the decisions made downtown or in Sidney. I would imagine that each region of the current municipalities would have representation at the new "city" level, and there would still be something akin to the CRD to oversee the big regional issues (water, transportation, policing etc.). In time of course I would like to see these 3 mini-cities become one, but like G-Man I tend to have my own socialist leanings.

The bottom line is the current model does not work well regionally. Each of our present mini-empires is too insignificant to have any real power provincially or federally, and the myriad of inconsistent rules and regulations to govern far less than 500,000 citizens is absurd. If the 5 boroughs of New York can have one government for 9 million people, surely to gawd the 350,000 residents of the capital region can function under 3 local power structures, if not one.

[Phil McAvity]

"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."

I'd like to see some proof of that because how could reducing 13 governments into 1 government NOT reduce it's size and expense?


"In the absence of competition, government just keeps growing"

Sad, but true. Yet another compelling argument for the free market.


"Victoria's strong local governments are a very effective counterweight to the tyranny of the majority and the region benefits greatly from them."

Spoken like a true Canadian. Democracy should be discarded and we should embrace this bizarre ideology that the minority are somehow the only ones that really matter. God forbid we should actually take a stand on something thus be seen as less than collaborative to benefit the majority. Does the region (and the province) benefit greatly from a far greater tax burden though? I don't think so.


Spanky123-Were you serious about Toronto's amalgamating hurting the city? Ever since they did that, the city has been on the up and up. In every way and from every source i've seen, that city has gotten better and better in the past few years.


From everything i've seen, Stew Young has led the charge out west and Colwood has followed his lead. His largely free enterprise, minimal red tape mentality has seen the municipality improve significantly.

Unfortunately, Victoria is too near-sighted to notice.

[davek]

I'd like to see some proof of that because how could reducing 13 governments into 1 government NOT reduce it's size and expense?

Reducing the number of local governments reduces competition, creating a monopoly. A monopolistic government has less incentive to control costs and expansion. Comparing the local tax burden of Toronto to Victoria should provide the numbers you are looking for, if you can find any figures.

"In the absence of competition, government just keeps growing"

Sad, but true. Yet another compelling argument for the free market.

And a compelling argument for a free market in local government. The more centralized the government, the less competition.

"Victoria's strong local governments are a very effective counterweight to the tyranny of the majority and the region benefits greatly from them."

Spoken like a true Canadian. Democracy should be discarded and we should embrace this bizarre ideology that the minority are somehow the only ones that really matter. God forbid we should actually take a stand on something thus be seen as less than collaborative to benefit the majority. Does the region (and the province) benefit greatly from a far greater tax burden though? I don't think so.

The benefit of the majority is not always the supreme consideration. It may benefit the majority in Langford to exercise control over the minority in Colwood, but they don't yet have that right and Colwood probably shouldn't give it to them. If Colwood residents place themselves in a situation where they have less local control, what benefits will they derive that they could not obtain while still being independent? Cost savings? Doubtful. Less competition means higher prices, not lower. Even if independence costs them more, it's probably worth it to them. After all, I could save money by living with my parents, but I'd have to give up some of my independence.

The good news is that strong local government is supportive of democracy, liberty, and free markets, so we can enjoy it while it lasts in Victoria.

[m0nkyman]

Spanky123-Were you serious about Toronto's amalgamating hurting the city? Ever since they did that, the city has been on the up and up. In every way and from every source i've seen, that city has gotten better and better in the past few years.

You're kidding. Right?

[spanky123]

You get the savings by consolidating services which most people agree is an appropriate thing to do.

You do not get savings by consolidating oversight and in fact if you look at Toronto you will note that since amalgamation there has been one financial debacle after another because of lack of oversight.

[Galvanized]

Halifax Regional Municipality was created in 1996 from 4 municipalities including Halifax, Dartmouth, Bedford and the rural County of Halifax. I haven't heard of major problems like Toronto there except for the fact the staff from the rural areas that were amalgamated demanded the same pay as their urban counterparts causing much of the projected savings to go down the toilet. They recently contributed amalgamation as a contributing factor in the location of several sewage treatment facilities which I guess would be a success in terms of regional planning. Anyone out there live in Halifax in the mid to late nineties who might have more insight?

[jklymak]

I think the argument for amalgamation goes well beyond arenas or libraries. Saanich and Oak Bay get a free ride on social and policing issues, which are two biggies. These are regional problems that are focused downtown.

[Nparker]

I agree completely. AMALGAMATION NOW.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Toronto is the scary deterrent, but Toronto's amalgamation shouldn't be compared to what we need here. If we could amalgamate the four core municipalities, that would be fine for now. And manageable.

We don't need North Saanich, or even West Saanich and Central Saanich, with their much different tax rates and service needs. But OB, Esquimalt, and at least that bottom half of Saanich (up to where Highway 17 really starts) -- that makes sense.

Toronto, from what I've read, amalgamated too quickly, without enough preparation and thinking through. Plus, it was foisted on the municipalities by the province in a way that got everyone's backs up.

It doesn't have to be a "made in Toronto" solution.

[Nparker]

See my "3 Cities" post above. In a nutshell, from 13 to 3 now and maybe down to one in the future.

[aastra]

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.

That's a good point. For example, I've never had need of the fire department's services. But I'm still paying for them, like a sucker.

[G-Man]

^ On a related note I once set off a fir alarm by mistake and had to PAY for it. What a rip!

[aastra]

That's how they get you.

[davek]

That's a good point. For example, I've never had need of the fire department's services. But I'm still paying for them, like a sucker.

In areas where fire fighting services are not provided by taxpayers, almost everyone opts to pay for private service, even though they have never needed it. The same is true for car insurance, life insurance, and theft insurance. No one pays for a library or arena because they feel they may need it one day.

[davek]

There are examples of amalgamation outside of Toronto, and none of them look good;

http://www.fcpp.org/...tion FEB 04.pdf

Here is something a little more recent;

http://www.fcpp.org/...hp?StreamID=650

If amalgamation worked, I'd be happy to endorse it, but it doesn't appear to, and there's no reason to believe matters would be different here.

[G-Man]

Again I would suggest that no one wants a single entity but what is your argument against 3 regional munis. Show me an example of that not working in Canada.

[davek]

Again I would suggest that no one wants a single entity but what is your argument against 3 regional munis. Show me an example of that not working in Canada.

Going to three LGs is better than one, but it's really just a matter of degree. Instead of 13 LGs becoming one, it's four LGs becoming one (times three). Competition is still decreased, so costs will still rise and performance will still fall. It wouldn't be as bad, because the three new LGs would be competing with each other, and they would still suffer some consequences for misbehaving.
Three regional munis would be fine if they were restricted to water, sewer, arterial highways, that sort of thing. There are economical benefits and political clout to be gained from that. Unfortunately, LGs have too much power over too many things, and irresistible incentive to abuse that power.

[Fergus]

I fail to understand the competition analogy for local governments. What exactly do municipal governments compete against one another for? Most people don't move frequently to create a free market analogy, and there are many factors that influence a decision to move from or to an area or stay put. I don't know many people who "shop" for municipalities.

Taken further, do those opposed to amalgamation in the name of some sort of free market ideology also oppose corporate mergers? If municipal government is indeed analogous to a free market, than so too are amalgamation and merger. A free market (which to be technical we don't have) would have no barrier to mergers.

I object to the argument that concern about the tyranny of the majority is anti-democratic. In fact, it's extremely democratic. The point of democracy is that everyone should have a voice, and safeguards have long been in place in our democracy to ensure that there are some reasonable limits to the power of the majority. In fact, I believe that is typical of the world's democracies and can site examples.

I don't think I can agree with the extremes of amalgamation or division. Taken to an extreme point (all decisions being made by one global government or citizens each being their own governments) neither makes much sense.

I don't think it's fair to use the experience of one amalgamation and then assume that all experiences of amalgamation must be similar. I'm sure there are better and worse ways to go about it.

The basic question is whether Greater Victoria has too much government, too little, or just enough. I am on the side that says too much. I have read that Greater Victoria has the most government per citizen anywhere.

I've encountered the idea of privatizing basic services like police, ambulance, and fire before, and I must say I find the very idea horrific. I don't want my neighbour to opt out of police or fire protection or have a billing dispute. What happens to my house if his fills with drug addicts or it burns down and the firefighters refuse to extinguish it due to a billing irregularity? Fire and police protection on a property by property basis is a hopeless fantasy that endangers us all. The idea of somebody dying on her floor because the ambulance won't come is screwed up. This really isn't the world I want to live in.

Have the proponents of this really thought this out? If a dangerous criminal moves into his house, he can't get the police to remove him, but if I complain about the same fellow causing trouble in the neighbourhood, they'll come running? Will we have ambulance fraud where I call an ambulance to my house to pick up my neighbour, who I've snuck in and claim is a resident? How is this workable?

Use the markets for what they do best, but recognize that a pure free market approach is mythology. I've heard way too many arguments about the all-powerful "invisible hand" from people who have never read or didn't understand Adam Smith's work to see it as anything else. It borders on religious for some people. A pragmatic approach benefits us much more.

[amor de cosmos]

the latest:

Colwood gets cold feet over Langford nuptials

Proposal to test views on amalgamation with neighbouring municipality rejected

Bill Cleverley, Times Colonist
Published: Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Colwood councillors have rejected a proposal to ask voters in the upcoming municipal elections whether the municipality should investigate amalgamating with Colwood.

Colwood Mayor Jody Twa and Langford Mayor Stew Young had floated the idea of putting a non-binding question on the November municipal ballot asking whether residents of the two municipalities wanted amalgamation explored.

But Colwood councillors were almost unanimous last night in opposition to the idea.

"I think if we put this on the ballot it would do nothing but distract staff and council and the rest of us from the good work that we're actually doing now. We're actually coming into our own," said Coun. Gordie Logan.

Logan said Colwood has been pursuing a course of integration with its neighbours as opposed to amalgamation and it is working in areas like fire services. "Certainly we're good friends with Langford. But just because we're good friends doesn't mean we ought to marry them."

Since the idea of putting the question on the ballot was first reported in the Times Colonist, Coun. Ernie Robertson said he has seen no groundswell of support from the public.

etc

[Mike K.]

"I think if we put this on the ballot it would do nothing but distract staff and council and the rest of us from the good work that we're actually doing now. We're actually coming into our own," said Coun. Gordie Logan.

Axe amalgamation because Colwood has several new housing proposals and finally completed that Ocean Boulevard connector?