Jump to content

      



























Photo

Amalgamation


  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

#101 mat

mat
  • Member
  • 2,070 posts

Posted 10 November 2008 - 07:21 PM

Here is my response to not having amalgamation - have the City of Victoria stop any regional work on transit outside of the city. Block any talk of rail, rapid transit, etc unless we get an agreement to have the other municipalities pay for the homeless problem.

Why should people in Victoria pay for transit improvements for people getting away from the downtown? In the city we use the buses, we have no need for any of the transit dreams out there.

Either Stew Young stumps a good share of the cash for the homeless or the City should stop all rail transit plans.

People expect the City to cover all the costs of having the downtown AND stump up for regional stuff. Time to call a halt.


Bernard - BS, meant in all its negative connotations. That is so friggin NIMBY, and isolationist in the worst way it begs questioning your intellect. Getting away from downtown means also coming into downtown - to the banks, government offices and major retail outlets that provide the tax base to fund city services.

Central Victoria has a real need for regional integrated transport - your argument is so untrue and baseless.

#102 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 5,056 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 10 November 2008 - 07:36 PM

Then why is not all the CRD on the hook for the issues of downtown?

I know my argument is totally NIMBY, but if people want to have Oak Bay and Colwood etc and refuse to create a rational local government why should Victoria not be NIMBY as well?

We have to amalgamate and we have to do something to push the bantustan presidents in this region to accept the end of their little fiefdoms. Victoria is willing to amalgamate. The City should withhold regional cooperation until the others agree to amalgamate.

#103 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 5,056 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 10 November 2008 - 07:38 PM

By the way, I am in a pissy mood about the stupidy of allowing 13 local governments and no one willing to raise the issue in the election in a meaningful way outside of Victoria.

We are stuck with this mess for at least another couple of terms.

#104 mat

mat
  • Member
  • 2,070 posts

Posted 10 November 2008 - 07:57 PM

By the way, I am in a pissy mood about the stupidy of allowing 13 local governments and no one willing to raise the issue in the election in a meaningful way outside of Victoria.

We are stuck with this mess for at least another couple of terms.


Well - there we are in entire agreement, and thanks for bringing it up. Other than some very involved candidates from Oak Bay (Corey Burger...any others), VV, especially, is Victoria City Centric, and it does not have to be that way. I live in Saanich, and have advocated to local candidates to get involved online here, and on any other regional discussion board, to no avail. Same with friends in Esquimalt. That is a real indicator that very few candidates are willing to bring up regional cooperation - or even discuss the CRD boards. One of the reasons is a lack of transparency - we do not know who is responsible for certain policies and funding.

We must face facts - there will not be amalgamation of the core CRD in a reasonable period of time (not in our lifetime). So, all that can be done is work with, and advocate candidates like Susan Woods, Rob Randall and others who realize this situation and have stated their goal of extended regional cooperation and accountability.

#105 Lover Fighter

Lover Fighter
  • Member
  • 653 posts

Posted 11 November 2008 - 06:19 PM

I have to disagree with you mat.
People say all the time that amalgamation will never happen in our lifetime. The truth is, the longer the core municipalities go without amalgamating, the harder it will be to do so.

The problem with the Victoria amalgamation issue is that the BC government is one of the only Canadian provinces that won't initiate it. There are incentives in place (something like 50$ per amalgamated resident I think) but the process has to be completely from the bottom up. But of course, we're stuck in lazy old Greater Victoria, where people fear change more than they fear actual problems.

#106 mat

mat
  • Member
  • 2,070 posts

Posted 11 November 2008 - 07:23 PM

I have to disagree with you mat.
People say all the time that amalgamation will never happen in our lifetime. The truth is, the longer the core municipalities go without amalgamating, the harder it will be to do so.

The problem with the Victoria amalgamation issue is that the BC government is one of the only Canadian provinces that won't initiate it. There are incentives in place (something like 50$ per amalgamated resident I think) but the process has to be completely from the bottom up. But of course, we're stuck in lazy old Greater Victoria, where people fear change more than they fear actual problems.


I think you just agreed with me!

You correctly pointed out some of the barriers to even contemplating a referendum on core CRD amalgamation. Personally I feel it is the residents of Saanich who generally view the issues, and problems, of Victoria as 'not our problem'. One of the main reasons is that services here (I live in Saanich) are really quite excellent - a police and fire dept. force that is very responsive (and without the political and legal infighting of Vic City), some of the best rec. centres in the region and a council that is progressive on 'green' issues. Saanich has it good. (here I agree with Bernard on the perception, but not his answer to the problem)

So, in this situation candidates, and incumbents, who deal with regional issues must be realistic - Susan Woods said it well a few months back.. we can agree on amalgamation as a solution to many issues, but understand enhanced cooperation is all we can hope and lobby for. (paraphrased out of memory)

#107 Lover Fighter

Lover Fighter
  • Member
  • 653 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 12:27 PM

Well I guess I disagree with your pessimistic outlook!

I live in Saanich and based on people I know who live here, I'd say this is the municipality most likely to vote "yes" on amalgamation with Victoria (out of the 3 bordering municipalities). The Saanich Civic League is the first real anti-amalgamation group I've seen in Saanich. Other than that, people generally are more in favour of associating with Victoria than trying to create a distinct Saanich identity.

I would love to form a simple cross-municipality slate to run in the next municipal election where councilors would run in each of the 4 elections with amalgamtion as their key issue. Although it would probably be near impossible to get someone like this elected in Oak Bay.

And if I may daydream for a moment here, I envision the new City of Victoria (with a population of approximately 225,000) electing 10 councilors in a ward system so there would still be 'neighbourhood' representation. And with a city this size, municipal political parties (probably mostly spin-offs of Vancouver parties) would organize which would engage more citizens in city matters.

#108 Coreyburger

Coreyburger
  • Member
  • 2,864 posts

Posted 14 November 2008 - 06:58 AM

Sorry, almalgamation simply doesn't work.You lose community representation and don't save any money.

#109 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 14 November 2008 - 08:00 AM

Well then let's save money by further chunking the city up. Let's have separate government, budget, and services for every neighbourhood, nay block! Why not, we'd gain more "community representation" and we'd save money (since we've established amalgamation loses money).

If amalgamation NEVER works then smaller must always be better right? If smaller isn't always better and bigger isn't always better then perhaps there may be an optimal size. Perhaps there is a chance victoria is under this optimal size and we should address it? Or do you think that we amazingly set up our city government at the exact perfect optimal level right from the start?

Cory, would you support a 1 block 1 city system in greater Victoria? If not would you support a 2 block system? What about 10 blocks? What size is too small, what size is too big? Are there perhaps some nuances to this issue or are you sticking with a blanket "amalgamation simply doesn't work" regardless of the situation?
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#110 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 14 November 2008 - 08:28 AM

^ Agree with Baro.

Corey, your statement sounds like boilerplate.

Just because Toronto didn't "work" doesn't mean "amalgamation simply doesn't work." Check John Weaver's letter to the editor (I posted it in [I guess] the other Amalgamation thread, not on the Election Issues forum).
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#111 Coreyburger

Coreyburger
  • Member
  • 2,864 posts

Posted 14 November 2008 - 10:03 AM

Baro, that is a reductio ad absurdum response. I am pointing out that we have 13 established governments with their own legal agreements, not to mention corporate cultures, etc.

As for it just being Toronto, I have yet to see a place where it works. And no, Calgary doesn't count, that is not a merger of equals, that is the swallowing of the small by the big.

#112 Lover Fighter

Lover Fighter
  • Member
  • 653 posts

Posted 14 November 2008 - 01:39 PM

Sorry, almalgamation simply doesn't work.You lose community representation and don't save any money.


I can' tell if you're actually trying make an argument in two short sentences or if you're just trying to rile people up.

Anyways, I don't think saving money is the issue when it comes to amalgamation in Greater Victoria.

I also never understand why amalgamation detractors only use forced amalgamations as examples of why it doesn't work. Ottawa, Halifax and Hamilton may have been failures but these were all initiated by the provincial government. Toronto is even a case of forced amalgamation that I don't consider a failure.

But we're in British Columbia, why don't we look at the similar situation of Abbotsford in the 1990s when it amalgamated with the much larger municipality of Matsqui (a municipality not unlike Saanich). The amalgamation process began in the cities themselves and was a success.

#113 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 14 November 2008 - 02:03 PM

I've yet to see a city as fractured as ours. At what number of separate governments would you if ever support amalgamation? 13 is ok but what if we had 20? At what level of disfunction would you support amalgamation? Or do you think everything is just fine how it is? If not, how would you address it?
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#114 Coreyburger

Coreyburger
  • Member
  • 2,864 posts

Posted 14 November 2008 - 03:41 PM

I support greater regional integration. I like the fact that we have a regional bus system and a regional library. I would love to see a regional parks and recreation system, that owned and controlled all of the parks and recreation centres. I like how Oak Bay has done police amalgamation, essentially out-sourcing the more difficult bits to Saanich. This keeps the foot/car patrols local while having serious crimes and dispatching, etc. done in coordination. Which keeps residents happy, because the patrols are the face of the police. They don't much care who investigates a murder.

None of these things require expensive and socially destructive amalgamation.

#115 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 14 November 2008 - 04:32 PM

I support greater regional integration. I like the fact that we have a regional bus system and a regional library. I would love to see a regional parks and recreation system, that owned and controlled all of the parks and recreation centres. I like how Oak Bay has done police amalgamation, essentially out-sourcing the more difficult bits to Saanich. This keeps the foot/car patrols local while having serious crimes and dispatching, etc. done in coordination. Which keeps residents happy, because the patrols are the face of the police. They don't much care who investigates a murder.

None of these things require expensive and socially destructive amalgamation.


As Lover Fighter pointed out, amalgamation doesn't equal "socially destructive" or necessarily expensive. (Especially not "expensive" if you factor in the costs of the negatives of being as fractured as we are here.) I really don't respect your opinion on this at all.

I'm intrigued by your vision of a "regional" ...system. Who would run this system? Would it be like the CRD (unelected)? A fourth level of government?

You know, I think you're being idealistic -- I'm perceiving a sort of "father knows best" thinking in what you're saying, as though "socially destructive" amalgamation is unacceptable because it's part of the messiness of politics generally, whereas some abstract, ideal notion of "regionalism" can smooth out all those nasty inter-political differences.

The problem is, it'll smooth things out or make them run through more and more bureaucracy, which isn't transparent and which contributes to a democracy deficit. People are already alienated from voting in municipal elections. Giving them another reason not to bother (because everything's taken care of through regional integration) doesn't strike me as especially wise.

It's funny that you object to amalgamation because it would take away local control, yet advocate for more powerful regional systems that are beyond voter control. The police example for Oak Bay doesn't necessarily scale, or apply to other aspects of local government.

Just my 2-cents.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users