Vancouver Amalgamation

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by officedweller

There's also the question of having a ward system of municipal voting or an at-large system.
An amalgamated entity (even if just a few municipalities) may be too geographically spaced to have an at-large system.
Then you get into polutical dealing with ward councillors voting in blocks with other ward councillors...

If this city dislikes its Colleen Hardwicks and Jean Swansons now, they'll really dislike them when they have safe seats.

[chowhou]

I'm not a huge fan of wards but if Metro Vancouver were to have a ward system with similar citizen:representative ratios as Calgary, Edmonton, and Toronto, (80k-100k) the former City of Vancouver would end up with about 8 wards. I hate Swanson and Hardwick but I'd never intentionally design a system to ensure my political enemies are purged. The creme de la creme and poverty industry wards should be drowned out by councillors from the ~30 other wards. It's not like Holyday or Perks have caused chaos and stagnation in Toronto the way Hardwick and Swanson did for four years.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Less a "purge" as much as not having localized niche special interest groups dominate the council; likewise, the downtown councillor would likely try and make their ward a car-free zone at the rest of the city's expense.

IMO as long as Neighbourhood X gets to attend open houses and public hearings for Neighbourhood Y, then Y gets a say in who represents X. We're one city, not eight smaller ones; Point Grey and South Van already tried being their own cities and didn't like it.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Less a "purge" as much as not having localized niche special interest groups dominate the council; likewise, the downtown councillor would likely try and make their ward a car-free zone at the rest of the city's expense.

And if that councillor can convince 14+ other councillors from across Metro Vancouver that it's a good idea then it should happen, otherwise it won't. We live in a representative democracy; If a random MP from Vancouver Island tries to ban oil production in Alberta or what-have-you, it's not happening unless a parliamentary majority supports that.

IMO as long as Neighbourhood X gets to attend open houses and public hearings for Neighbourhood Y, then Y gets a say in who represents X. We're one city, not eight smaller ones; Point Grey and South Van already tried being their own cities and didn't like it.

Are we to expect the Port Coquitlam resident to attend the Vancouver city council public hearings, the Burnaby City Council public hearings, and Coquitlam city council public hearings to try to get their voice heard on transit? Or should they get to vote for an elected representative, given that we live in a representative democracy?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Are we to expect the Port Coquitlam resident to attend the Vancouver city council public hearings, the Burnaby City Council public hearings, and Coquitlam city council public hearings to try to get their voice heard on transit? Or should they get to vote for an elected representative, given that we live in a representative democracy?

Port Coq has a mayor, and he represents them on TransLink's governing body; even then, the Port Coq SkyTrain is a long way away. So in that regard, they already have an elected rep. If you're saying that Port Coq should be its own ward in a unified Metro Van council, that's another story.

By contrast, the loudest voices for a ward system appear to be West Siders who simultaneously want to affect what happens in the rest of the CoV, yet don't want the rest of the Cov affecting them in return.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Port Coq has a mayor, and he represents them on TransLink's governing body; even then, the Port Coq SkyTrain is a long way away. So in that regard, they already have an elected rep. If you're saying that Port Coq should be its own ward in a unified Metro Van council, that's another story.

Neither Vancouver and Burnaby residents nor their mayors and councils had much of a say when Richmond decided to unilaterally cancel the R7. These sorts of decisions affect everyone in the Metro Vancouver area, but all the little kingdoms and fiefdoms are completely unaccountable to anyone outside their borders.

By contrast, the loudest voices for a ward system appear to be West Siders who simultaneously want to affect what happens in the rest of the CoV, yet don't want the rest of the Cov affecting them in return.

Anyone who thinks about the ward system for more than a second should realise it doesn't mean suddenly an individual ward has unlimited power. Votes still require a majority between mayor and council. Frankly anyone who isn't hypocritical that supports proportional representation provincially should support wards municipally because it's the same in concept.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Neither Vancouver and Burnaby residents nor their mayors and councils had much of a say when Richmond decided to unilaterally cancel the R7.

That's an argument for a different governing system for TransLink (or at least a veto override) or for Richmond, where even the city staff disagreed with the decision.

Originally Posted by chowhou

Anyone who thinks about the ward system for more than a second should realise it doesn't mean suddenly an individual ward has unlimited power. Votes still require a majority between mayor and council. Frankly anyone who isn't hypocritical that supports proportional representation provincially should support wards municipally because it's the same in concept.

What it means is that unpopular councillors who're only liked in one specific part of the city get "tenure," rather than being cycled out next election; by the same token, it also means that the urban-suburban and east-west splits become more entrenched and more partisan.

Wards =/= prop rep. Ridings exist because Canadians don't want to vote for 19+ MLAs or 448 MPs at the same time, and prop rep exists because there's too many safe ridings and because the seats don't match the votes; municipal elections have neither problem, and wards would introduce a series of others.

[BaddieB]

Having many small cities is good because it provides a modicum of competition between governments and that is a good thing. For example, having several cities makes it so they need to compete for tax revenue, whereas if there is one big city there is less of an incentive to lower taxes beyond what the electorate feels about it. This is true for property taxes but also development taxes and taxes on businesses.

It also improves the power of my vote. I know I don’t get power for neighbouring cities but I think that’s fair given my vote goes a much longer way in the place I spend most of my time in. I don’t need to have municipal voting powers in Bowen Island or Langley City.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Having many small cities is good because it provides a modicum of competition between governments and that is a good thing. For example, having several cities makes it so they need to compete for tax revenue, whereas if there is one big city there is less of an incentive to lower taxes beyond what the electorate feels about it. This is true for property taxes but also development taxes and taxes on businesses.

It also improves the power of my vote. I know I don’t get power for neighbouring cities but I think that’s fair given my vote goes a much longer way in the place I spend most of my time in. I don’t need to have municipal voting powers in Bowen Island or Langley City.

Seems like the opposite to me, honestly. Each city seems to think that the other cities will provide the industrial land and they can rezone and raze theirs to collect the sweet DCCs and keep residential property taxes low. North Vancouver council was previously trying to tear down the Chemtrade plant for... reasons?

Cities aren't market actors, they're political entities beholden to the feelings of voters not market forces.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Seems like the opposite to me, honestly. Each city seems to think that the other cities will provide the industrial land and they can rezone and raze theirs to collect the sweet DCCs and keep residential property taxes low. North Vancouver council was previously trying to tear down the Chemtrade plant for... reasons?

Cities aren't market actors, they're political entities beholden to the feelings of voters not market forces.

I get your reply is more general than specific to Metro Vancouver but macro scale land use planning is under regional jurisdiction. Major changes to the RGS require the approval of all municipalities.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by madog222

I get your reply is more general than specific to Metro Vancouver but macro scale land use planning is under regional jurisdiction. Major changes to the RGS require the approval of all municipalities.

Not sure what the scale of a "major change" is, but Surrey seems to have no issues rezoning industrial land to employment, contrary to the RGS.

https://surreynowleader.com/2026/06/30/s...tudy-area-to-employment-from-industrial/

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Not sure what the scale of a "major change" is, but Surrey seems to have no issues rezoning industrial land to employment, contrary to the RGS.

https://surreynowleader.com/2026/06/30/s...tudy-area-to-employment-from-industrial/

The Council report says they're proposing a redesignation that has to be submitted to, and approved by, the Metro Vancouver Regional District Board for a Type 3 amendment to Metro 2050: Regional Growth Strategy to redesignate the Central Newton Industrial Study Area from “Industrial” to “Employment”. Only if that's approved can the Official Community Plan amending bylaw be approved by Council.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The Council report says they're proposing a redesignation that has to be submitted to, and approved by, the Metro Vancouver Regional District Board for a Type 3 amendment to Metro 2050: Regional Growth Strategy to redesignate the Central Newton Industrial Study Area from “Industrial” to “Employment”. Only if that's approved can the Official Community Plan amending bylaw be approved by Council.

Seems like a weird thing to do considering they withdrew from the Regional Growth Strategy.

[Tysonbrown]

why do we need to be Toronto? Cities that REALLY need almalgamation are Victoria and the other 12 municipalities.

[Migrant_Coconut]

I'd support a partition of Delta, myself.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Seems like a weird thing to do considering they withdrew from the Regional Growth Strategy.

Surrey voted to withdraw from the Regional Growth Strategy. It was grandstanding. It's not clear that provincial legislation governing regional districts actually allows a municipality to unilaterally withdraw from an adopted regional growth strategy. Surrey continues to object to regional boundaries and land-use restrictions, and continues to follow the requirements of the legislation at the same time.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Seems like the opposite to me, honestly. Each city seems to think that the other cities will provide the industrial land and they can rezone and raze theirs to collect the sweet DCCs and keep residential property taxes low. North Vancouver council was previously trying to tear down the Chemtrade plant for... reasons?

Cities aren't market actors, they're political entities beholden to the feelings of voters not market forces.

So cities don't want to zone for industrial land because residential is more lucrative...how exactly would the incentives change if there was amalgamation other than wishful thinking?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

So cities don't want to zone for industrial land because residential is more lucrative...how exactly would the incentives change if there was amalgamation other than wishful thinking?

It eliminates the tragedy of the commons. One amalgamated city can't look the other way and hope industrial land is preserved "somewhere else" like what is currently happening. You can see this with other "negative" things like social housing and Vancouver's pushback against the other municipalities offloading the responsibility over the years onto Vancouver.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by chowhou

It eliminates the tragedy of the commons. One amalgamated city can't look the other way and hope industrial land is preserved "somewhere else" like what is currently happening. You can see this with other "negative" things like social housing and Vancouver's pushback against the other municipalities offloading the responsibility over the years onto Vancouver.

New York City is amalgamated and has high demand for new housing supply. Per your logic, if New York City were fragmented into dozens of cities, they'd all pass the buck of providing new housing supply (something undesirable, but necessary). Yet, what ends up happening to the amalgamated city is because NIMBYs are spread throughout the city, they elect a regionally NIMBY government that still prevents new supply from being added. You didn't solve anything, you just prevented potential pockets of the city that are more YIMBY from offering alternative policy.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

New York City is amalgamated and has high demand for new housing supply. Per your logic, if New York City were fragmented into dozens of cities, they'd all pass the buck of providing new housing supply (something undesirable, but necessary). Yet, what ends up happening to the amalgamated city is because NIMBYs are spread throughout the city, they elect a regionally NIMBY government that still prevents new supply from being added. You didn't solve anything, you just prevented potential pockets of the city that are more YIMBY from offering alternative policy.

I don't know what you're trying to say. Yes, the amalgamated city of New York is able to plan housing supply throughout New York, but the local borough presidents tend to block developments they don't like. Before 1989 the borough presidents had even more power, NYC was only really truly amalgamated politically then, and only to the extent it is today.

https://www.silive.com/news/2026/08/bp-f...-for-18k-new-homes-on-staten-island.html

I understand the "Toronto is X so therefore we can't do Y" but are we really trying to say that any of the major Metro Vancouver municipalities are inherently "NIMBY cities"? West Vancouver and Anmore be damned.