Quote:
Originally Posted by dreambrother808
He's just saying that Vancouver should speak for Vancouver, Surrey for Surrey, etc. Is there a political voice within Vancouver that could be drowned out by amalgamation? Duh... Yes. This may not bother you in particular since your views tend to sway in that direction but for a great many other Vancouverites this would not be a positive direction for our city. That's all.  |
It's not just Toronto either (which I think everyone - most Torontonians included - agrees is a complete embarrassment). Hamilton has been having similar problems - so much so in fact that almost everyone who weighs in on the issue, urban and suburban alike, agrees that amalgamation was a mistake.
The fiscal incentive for amalgamation is, generally speaking, supposed to be two-fold: Cost-savings stemming from more efficient governance (didn't happen), and a larger pool of tax revenue (which leads to suburbanites resenting higher property taxes to support city transit they'd never use, urbanites resenting the fact that they generally foot the bill for suburban greenfield development and infrastructure, and civic political representation skewed heavily in favor of the less densely populated suburban districts). Much like their neighbours to the northeast, an amalgamated Hamilton is a relatively paralyzed Hamilton.