Amalgamation
 

Alright guys, I've been wondering what the pros and cons of amalgamation are. This has been an ongoing debate in Waterloo Region and I figured Hamilton and Toronto forumers might be able to offer a little wisdom on the subject, seeing as though both have had the experience.

From what I've gathered, most people who oppose it do so for reasons of community identity. Cambridge is the most heavily opposed, since it has the lowest taxes, is debt-free, and has already gone through the amalgamation experience. Many people still identify with the 3 towns that were once separate and the "Cambridge" branding has not changed that. On the side of those who are pro amalgamation, they believe it will cut beauracracy, lower taxes, and increase efficiencies. It is also supposed to aid in creating a co-ordinated metropolitan vision, unlike the current system where local municipalities have their own agendas and negative relationships with adjacent, competing municipalities.

Anyways, please give me your thoughts. They'd be much appreciated.

off the top of my head, I can't think of 1 good reason to do it.
local municipalities still have their own agendas, community identity is a big one, taxes don't always go down now that there is a bigger area to serve. In Hamilton's case, the old city pumps out a nonstop flow of money to keep servicing some of Canada's best farmland in order for it to be converted into highways and sprawl.
We also screwed ourselves here by giving the suburbs more representation than the city.
Remember, just like we see in the big box craze, bigger is NOT better.
I live in downtown Hamilton and would vote for a completely clean de-amalgamation in a heartbeat (not the goofy versions proposed by the suburbs over the years where Hamilton still pays for a pile of their never-ending roads and highways).

Amalgamation has been delightful!......NOT!

Hamilton got royally screwed by Mike Harris. Ottawa and Toronto both got representation by population after amalgamation. Not Hamilton, instead we have system of like 6 suburban councillors and 6 urban councillors. Horrible as suburban councillors especially with a Mayor from the suburbs like former Mayor Bob Wade from Ancaster and former Mayor Larry Di Ianni from Stoney Creek can form a majority.

Just make sure you never let this happen as you'll be stuffed with suburban agendas. Why else hasn't the city killed the area rating tax system, it's a system where the suburbs don't pay so much towards municipal services like public transit, ambulance, fire station, water, roads, etc. Urban ridings pay full and yet some of these urban ridings have the highest poverty rate in Ontario yet these suburban ridings, which have wealthier residences, doesn't seem to mind letting urban ridings subsidzing municipal services.

Sure you gain more political power but really it isn't worth it, especially in Hamilton's circumstance.

I think we have 15 councilors...8 from the 'city' and 7 from the suburbs. Problem is two-fold:
1. The city population is 350,000. Suburbs population is around 160,000. not even close to fair representation.
2. Hamilton Mountain is a sprawling bedroom community and it's politicians are more apt to vote for another highway interchange to a suburban Walmart than a light rail downtown. So, even though they are 'former city of Hamilton' councilors, they really think and act like suburban councilors.
Life in Hamilton's lower city can be almost virtually ignored by the majority of council....Cambridgite, you mention about the old system where individual municipalities only looked out for themselves. Now, its ward councilors doing the same thing. no difference at all.
I have no clue about Toronto or Ottawa's experience.

Hamilton Mountain councillors do support a North/South rapid transit line. Majority of the time you wouldn’t even notice if Tom Jackson represented a Mountain riding based on his voting history of supporting any urban issues. I would say neighbourhoods from the Mountain Brow to Fennell are probably more urbanized than some neighourhoods of Eastern Hamilton especially near the Escarpment.

I'd rather reform things as thus:

Get rid of area rating.

Transit levy has rural rate and urban/suburban rate. If you ain't in the middle of farmland ur paying for transit.

2 councilors for Flamborough, 2 for Ancaster, 3 for Stoney Creek, 1 for Dundas and 1 for Glanbrook

add 4 councilors to undermount and 2 to the mountain.


That would mean:

9 Suburban Councilors
14 Urban councilors

And have councilors elected by STV for their region.

Cambridgite do you want me to ask questions in this thread? or is this meant to just collect opinions of Hamiltonians and then we'll have a debate in the Waterloo thread?

Ask relevant questions if you feel I've missed something important. It's important that we learn from other cities and what they've gone through before we hop on the amalgamation bandwagon.

you should probably ask other cities too...I don't think Hamilton's model is worth following at all.
So far you've only heard from us city dwellers. I can promise you that folks in the suburbs hate it as much as us.

If you drive a few kms outside Cambridge to the boundary with Hamilton, some signs in people's yards will tell you how much rural people like amalgamation.

Hmm, other than Toronto and Hamilton, what other large cities have amalgamated in the past 15 years? My God, Calgary's mono-centric unicity model is such a blessing...

Yeah, I never realized how close I lived to Hamilton until I recreationally went running down highway 8 and was like 'holy crap! I ran all the way to Hamilton!' :haha:

So what do these signs say?...For sale: estate residential? :haha:

Ottawa and Montreal. Montreal is interesting because they un-did the amalgation, which I'm sure urban and suburban Hamiltonians would love to do.

I can't think of anyone in Hamilton who has benefited from amalgamation other than the higher levels of government because it gave them an excuse to reduce financial support to the city. Most residents hate it because they feel their region got the short end of the stick. The reality is, we all did. Only problem is the whole system made us all mad at each other instead of at the higher levels who kept pushing for it...

As an urban resident, I firmly believe the suburban regions are heading down a long road to nowhere. But I also believe that if they think it's sustainable, they should be allowed to do it... on their own dollar. Meanwhile, suburban and rural residents feel that they shouldn't be sending any money downtown. I tend to disagree because I think a healthy core benefits the entire city whereas a healthy big box centre or subdivision is detrimental in the long run. But if I lived out there, I'm sure i'd want to feel like every tax dollar was spent in my neighbourhood and not 30 km away on the other side of town.

I think the real key to effective government is creating divisions that are small enough that you can achieve accurate representation of the community's ideals. In other words, bigger is absolutely NOT better. When it gets too big, nothing ever gets done because too much time is wasted fighting about it.

Halifax (1996), Gatineau (2002), and Sudbury (2001) were all amalgamated in the last 15 years. Winnipeg (1972) and Thunder Bay (1970) were amalgamated earlier, and Kawartha Lakes (2001), though not a major city, was amalgamated at the same time as Ottawa and Hamilton

The worst amalgamation was Chatham-Kent. Completely nonsensical and it literally destroyed my hometown, Wallaceburg.

I don't think we'll see any amalgamation under Dalton's watch. Back in the 2004 election Dalton made an elelction promise to support the de-amalgamation process, never happened. That's one of the major reason why Ted McMeekin won in a by-election for the Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale riding. Instead Dalton along with Ted McMeekin announced before the election to create a community council for each wards in Hamilton that will have limited powers.

Only some of the suburbs de amalgamated from the Montreal. Mostly English suburbs pulled out. Montreal is now in the situation where some suburbs pulled out, and other stayed, and parts of the city are now seperated from one another by now seperate suburbs again :) So you have to drive through seperate municipalities to get to another section of Montreal city. Its weird.

I think amalgmations have shown everyone that we do not live in seperate towns and cities, and that our metro regions are one city. Why should people in Stoney Creek be upset they are part of Hamilton city? It was all one city before anyway(just with seperate councils). There is to much division in our metro regions, and merging can help push a united front to city building and make everyone work together.

"It is also supposed to aid in creating a co-ordinated metropolitan vision"

I agree, some local history is lost, but does the gain (mentioned above) outweigh this negative? It's a tough decision, but I personally believe it does (or at least can).

I agree, and in some cases taxes might even rise. A local example is when the Region of Waterloo took over Kitchener Transit and Cambridge Transit. Iirc, Cambridge taxes rose after that amalgamation since it had previously been underfunding transit, and needed to be brought up to the new regional service level.


What % of municipal services did the old Hamilton-Wentworth provide?

What was the councillor breakdown of the old Hamilton-Wentworth?

Here in Waterloo Region, our regional council (5 Kitchener, 3 Cambridge, 3 Waterloo, 1 for each township = total of 4, 1 regional chair) voted in favour of spending millions of dollars in Downtown Kitchener for the new McMaster/UW Medical School. Plus, this same council is in-favour of spending millions on an urban Rapid Transit line, including our chair who is from the town of Elmira (pop. ~10,000).