2247 replies to this topic

[jklymak]

Unfortunately, I think the only way for amalgamation to work is if Vic exerts leverage on the citizens of the other munis such that they demand a say in Vic's affairs. I'm not sure exactly how that could be accomplished. Really high parking tickets that are deeply discounted if your home address is in town? High business taxes? I'm not sure. But if the rest of the region is made to help pay for downtown they will eventually want a say in running it. Until then, I don't see how its in their interest.

[Ms. B. Havin]

I don't remember where that post was Ms B, if you can recall I will transfer it!

Not sure what post you're referring to Caramia, unless it's the one at the end of the last page:

As far as I can tell if someone lives in some other municipality than Victoria (Saanich or Oak Bay or wherever in the CRD) that person can only vote in the municipality he lives in and can't vote in Victoria. But that same person can run for mayor or council in Victoria. Someone can own property or a business in Victoria and pay taxes to the city but can't vote in Victoria. They can run for mayor of Victoria or for council tho. That's crazy but it's true. Did Peter Pollen ever live in Victoria or was he in Oak Bay? There were probably others, too. Some of the councillers don't live in Victoria either. Why do we allow that?

My sarcastic question (following up from Holden's question whether that means he -- resident of City of Victoria -- can run for mayor of Langford) was 'what about "importing"/drafting someone from somewhere really different to run Victoria?' (reference to T.O.'s David Miller).

The real question is, why do some people get to represent us (as councilors, mayors etc) even though they don't live here and can't vote here, while other people have real interests in the city of Victoria (they pay property taxes on businesses they own, for example), which they should have representation for (be able to vote their candidate), but because they live in OB or Saanich or wherever, they get taxed without representation and without a vote in the matter?

Too bad the local papers have never taken this up -- although then we might get just some boring kind of 'both sides of the story' take that would put everyone to sleep...

[Nparker]

..if the rest of the region is made to help pay for downtown they will eventually want a say in running it. Until then, I don't see how its in their interest [to amalgamate].

Well put jklymak. This is what I meant about an amalgamation prebicite being difficult to get supported. Amalgamation will be seen by much of the region as costly and unecesasary. The fact the 75% of the population of the CRD fails to pay for the ammenities they enjoy and benefit from in the city of Victoria (tourism, the arena, theatres, Dallas Road etc.) is lost on those same citizens. I'd love to see charges levied on non-Victoria citizens for the use of city resources, but it's never going to happen...except through amalgamation. A classic Catch-22 situation.

[Ms. B. Havin]

I want to repeat my question:

... why do some people get to represent us (as councilors, mayors etc) even though they don't live here and can't vote here, while other people have real interests in the city of Victoria (they pay property taxes on businesses they own, for example), which they should have representation for (be able to vote their candidate), but because they live in OB or Saanich or wherever, they get taxed without representation and without a vote in the matter?

[Mike K.]

This isn't just limited to Victoria. Metro Vancouver's candidates do not need to be residents of the municipality they're running in.

[jklymak]

I don't think it makes any sense for non-voters to be allowed to run for office.

In Canada, we base the vote on residency, not what taxes we pay and where. I think giving businesses a separate vote is a slippery slope backwards to property and wealth requirements for the vote. We got rid of that stuff a long time ago!

[davek]

I want to repeat my question:

... why do some people get to represent us (as councilors, mayors etc) even though they don't live here and can't vote here, while other people have real interests in the city of Victoria (they pay property taxes on businesses they own, for example), which they should have representation for (be able to vote their candidate), but because they live in OB or Saanich or wherever, they get taxed without representation and without a vote in the matter?

Allowing non-residents to stand for office increases both competition and voter choice, which is probably good for residents. If the voting majority feels an Oak Bay resident would be the best person for Mayor of Victoria, they should have that option.

I think there is a case to be made for allowing non-resident property owners to vote, but it gets complicated when one has to decide how many votes a corporation would be entitled to. I think they are able to promote their interests through campaign contributions, and politicians must be particularly attentive to the needs of business. Still, there is some degree of injustice, which I think is best handled by cutting way back on the size and scope of government.

[Holden West]

Cut back the size and scope of municipal government? They're already overworked as it is. Sure, amalgamation would get rid of redundancy but with all the government offloading to the municipalities these days, I can't see how the size of local government could possibly be reduced any more without drastically altering the benefits we receive. I always find libertarians and conservatives vague on this point.

[G-Man]

Allowing non-residents to stand for office increases both competition and voter choice, which is probably good for residents. If the voting majority feels an Oak Bay resident would be the best person for Mayor of Victoria, they should have that option.

I think there is a case to be made for allowing non-resident property owners to vote, but it gets complicated when one has to decide how many votes a corporation would be entitled to. I think they are able to promote their interests through campaign contributions, and politicians must be particularly attentive to the needs of business. Still, there is some degree of injustice, which I think is best handled by cutting way back on the size and scope of government.

Really Davek I think you are joking this time right? Should we be allowed to elect a Prime Minister from Mexico or wherever too if we think that they are best?

[VicHockeyFan]

I don't think it makes any sense for non-voters to be allowed to run for office.

In Canada, we base the vote on residency, not what taxes we pay and where. I think giving businesses a separate vote is a slippery slope backwards to property and wealth requirements for the vote. We got rid of that stuff a long time ago!

If that is the belief of the majority (that candidates should be residents), well, then don't vote for them if they are not. Simple.

[Caramia]

Yes Ms B I was responding (late) to the post on the last date reminding me that I had not transfered that review of the Bish article you posted a link to quite awhile back. I did a search and found that review... here it is:

Very interesting reading Ms B.

The report defends an un-amalgamated municipal structure, citing evidence that smaller, more flexible local governments are more cost effective, and more representative then their larger brethren, especially since about half of the services that have economies of scale are handled by the CRD in Victoria's case. Bish points out that in most of our municipalities you do not need to be wealthy or capable of mounting a mass media style election in order to become a councilor. To me that is a significant benefit.

The downside is that these smaller scale governments do not tend to embark on larger projects, and that economic development can become stalled by tax imbalances and rezoning red tape. However these problems can be fixed through other means than amalgamation. Another downside is that because of the decentralised and amateur nature of these smaller councils it is very difficult for lobby groups representing best-practices in regional urban planning to gain a voice in any kind of significant way. I think our fragmented transportation planning problem is the poster child for this frustration in Greater Victoria.

Here is the section I found especially interesting:

Quote:
First, many municipalities in the capital region have the practice of zoning most land into its existing use--and to do so some have hundreds of zoning categories. This means that every significant change in a business land or building use requires a rezoning process, which not only adds time and cost to the process but creates considerable uncertainty with the politics of the rezoning. Several municipalities also have very strong policies against any kind of home based business. These policies on zoning and home based businesses may have a benefit of providing community input on every land use change but they are policies that make business creation, change and expansion more costly. These policies, however, do not require a regional government to change. They do not even require that all municipalities have more business friendly land use policies. They are, however, important enough to merit review in the region if economic development is to be promoted.
I'd like to keep our local municipalities and also our neighbourhood associations, but with a downplayed role, while shifting the ability and authority to get certain things done (like transportation and policing resource deployment) to the CRD.

I know there are some, like Mr Hartnell, who provide catchy sound bites claiming that the CRD is a non representative organisation. In answer, I reference the CRD's website:

Quote:
The CRD is governed by the Local Government Act and run by a Board of Directors. CRD Board members also sit as members of the Regional Hospital Board.


The Board is made up of Municipal Directors, who are appointed annually by their councils, and Directors from the Electoral Areas, who are elected for a three-year term. The 22-person Board is charged with guiding the efficient and effective management of issues that cross the boundaries of a single municipality or rural area. Board meetings are held once a month and are open to the public.


Representation on the CRD Board balances the need to reflect varying population bases across the region with different community interests. Each local government gets one vote for every 5000 population. Each local goverment gets one director for every 25,000 population. If a member municipality has more than one director, then the number of votes are divided as evenly as possible.
The CRD can be envisioned as a wholesaler of services, with municipalities acting as retailers and voters as shoppers. While the shoppers don't directly determine what the wholesalers provide, they certainly do determine what the retailers will buy, which in turn impacts what the wholesalers offer. For instance, all municipalities want an abundance of safe clean water. The CRD has an entire department focused on providing just that through watershed managment. Should DUNE style recycling suits come into vogue, and gathering around the community well suddenly become a huge and necessary part of daily social interaction, taxpayers will stop wanting to turn on a tap in their home, municipalities will stop wanting water for their pipes, and the CRD will start selling off watersheds.

[davek]

Really Davek I think you are joking this time right? Should we be allowed to elect a Prime Minister from Mexico or wherever too if we think that they are best?

No, you shouldn't be. If Canadians think someone from Mexico or wherever is the best candidate for Prime Minister, and tries to elect that person, then someone who is very powerful and who knows what is best for your country should not allow it. Perhaps the UN, or the EU? I'd suggest the US, but we're already busy with other countries...

[Nparker]

The only reason the CRD exists at all is because we have to have some sort of regional adminstration that does not exist in the current multi-municipality model. There would be no need for the CRD after amalgamation, as all planning and services would be governed and managed regionally. Neighbourhood and current municipal representation would still exist as the new city of Victoria would more than likely have population-based districts with representatives from each making up the new single government. Each district representative would have equal voice on the new council and represent the wishes of their constituents. In theory it would function like our provincial and federal governments only on a much smaller scale.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Great letter on amalgamation in today's T-C:

Single city in capital would reflect reality


Times Colonist

Published: Saturday, May 10, 2008
In a recent article, former Saanich mayor Hugh Curtis noted the tremendous community pride in Saanich as a municipality. As a fourth-generation Victorian who has lived most of my adult life in Saanich I have to respectfully disagree.
The community I live in is not defined by the municipal borders of Saanich. I have always been very proud to be "from Victoria." When I use that term, I am referring to the broader community.
Most Saanich residents will tell you that they live in Victoria. If you ask them what part of Victoria they will refer to their neighbourhood such as Gordon Head or Cordova Bay.
The municipal boundary between the City of Victoria and the District of Saanich is completely irrelevant to everyday life. Politicians' efforts to pretend that Saanich is a separate community are generally based on selfish reasons (why should we help pay for policing downtown, etc...).
Amalgamation likely will not cut the tax burden, but the whole could be so much more than the sum of the individual parts. Imagine one medium-sized city that we could all be proud of, managed as one logical whole, whose mayor would represent a large enough community to gain some respect in dealing with senior levels of government.
Nathan Webster
Victoria
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2008

http://www.canada.co...9a-dad65735981c

[Nparker]

This writer makes some good points. Sadly I don't see the local power structure giving up without a huge fight. Amalgamation will have to be FORCED on the region, and I don't think the current Provincial Government has this as much of a priority.

[Phil McAvity]

I agree with the guy except for this, "Amalgamation likely will not cut the tax burden". It seems to me turning 13 little governments into one big government could only reduce the tax burden. It would also be a good time to do some streamlining at the municipal level.

[Mike K.]

Trust me, Phil, they'll find a way to increase the tax burden

[yodsaker]

Ask people in cities like Toronto, Montreal and Halifax what they think about the A-word and I'll bet most of them think its a mess.
Taxes will go up and service levels will go down.
Example: my wife grew up in an independent Montreal suburb before amalgamation.
Her family could inform the local police when they were going on holiday and they would check a litle more carefully on their rounds because they knew people were away.
Amalgamation came and the local cop shop and fire hall were closed.
People no longer knew personally their local police, firefighters or other municipal workers.
Response times went from 5 minutes to an hour or more because resources were diverted to the central area.
Taxes went up sharply to pay for central area problems.
Staff with no knowledge of the local community were rotated in from other parts of the now-larger city.
No more friendly faces down at the town hall when your streetlight burned out.

Most importantly, VOTES were diluted substantially.
So, count on having less access to your elected representative whom you can fire in an election if s/he doesn't perform.
I don't want politicians from the western communities or Sidney deciding priorities for my neighbourhood any more than I want to be invloved in theirs. Example: the recent library strike brought to light that some members (including the chair) of the library's governing body were from municipalities that are not members of the GVPL system. WTF???!!!
The good news of course is that you will be even more at the mercy of unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy (the true enemy) and enjoy much more of "Press 1 for...." or "Take a number..."
If you enjoy being nothing more than a digit in the system then go for it, but leave me out.

[Baro]

Victoria is a slightly unique case in that it's not some big city wanting to further amalgamate its neighbours. It's a single natural medium city that's artificially separated into tiny inefficient fiefdoms. This isn't Victoria trying to unite with Duncan and Sooke or all the way up to parksville to form some Toronto style mega city. Victoria is a fairly compact little urban center that's divided by nothing more than lines on a map.


Victoria, Oak bay, South Saanich, and Esquimalt are amalgamated in every way but politics. You can't tell they're separate entities unless you look it up or have to deal with the bureaucracy.

If amalgamating the greater Toronto area could be akin to taking a city block and making all the houses on it one lot, amalgamating Victoria would be taking a house where the kitchen and den were on separate lots than the bedroom and garrage. We just can't compare the creation of mega-cities or even just amalgamating greater metro areas to amalgamating Victoria's core municipalities.

[Nparker]

Victoria is a slightly unique case in that it's not some big city wanting to further amalgamate its neighbours.....We just can't compare the creation of mega-cities or even just amalgamating greater metro areas to amalgamating Victoria's core municipalities.

Very well put Baro. I totally agree. Amalgamation in the CRD just makes sense. I have stated before that although I favour amalgamation of the 13 CRD municipalities into one, I would be satisfied to see the current situation "tidied up" into 3 groupings:

• the core (Victoria, Oak Bay, Saanich, Esquimalt
• West Shore (View Royal, Colwood, Metchosin, Langford, the Highlands and maybe Sooke)
• the peninsula (Central Saanich, North Saanich and Sidney)

A few of the current borders betweeen these communities would need to be adjusted (such as the northern parts of Saanich becoming part of the peninsula, and about half of View Royal as part of the core), but more or less I think the above groupings would be a good start. Now how do we go about making this happen?