Amalgamation of Metro Vancouver's municipalities

[Metro-One]

That is exactly how i have envisioned how metro Vancouver should be divided Go_Leafs_go02. Love it

Anyways, there really would not be any need for amalgamation if the province / translink and other such regional forces were a little more strong in regards to getting regional wide services built.

[geoff's two cents]

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.

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

That is exactly how i have envisioned how metro Vancouver should be divided Go_Leafs_go02. Love it

Anyways, there really would not be any need for amalgamation if the province / translink and other such regional forces were a little more strong in regards to getting regional wide services built.

. . .Or if they had the political say-so to implement a sustainable revenue model.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

That is exactly how i have envisioned how metro Vancouver should be divided Go_Leafs_go02. Love it

Anyways, there really would not be any need for amalgamation if the province / translink and other such regional forces were a little more strong in regards to getting regional wide services built.

Good points, and thanks for the compliments. It actually was pretty easy to do. Separate most using strictly geographical or zoning boundaries. Most are separated by water or a small creek, and the rest are separated with a swath of forest or agricultural land, or in a few cases, where residential backs up to industrial.

[DKaz]

The suburbs are fine thanks, us Tri-cities and Ridge Meadows guys are pretty moderate, it's Surrey and Langley I'm worried about.

go_leafs_go02 I also like your idea.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Does it bother me that I don't get a vote or say in Surrey's municipal affairs while living in Vancouver? No. Surrey can speak for Surrey and that doesn't bother me. Their voice is no less than mine, it's just not as relevant to Vancouver-specific issues and vice versa.

If you prefer a suburban political mentality over an urban one, then why don't you just move there?

Because there are plenty of people in the City of Vancouver who feel the same. For some reason there tend to be a lot of single people in the downtown core who feel their views represent the majority of the city, when in fact they don't.

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by DKaz

The suburbs are fine thanks, us Tri-cities and Ridge Meadows guys are pretty moderate, it's Surrey and Langley I'm worried about.

go_leafs_go02 I also like your idea.

Half of Surrey's ridings went NDP in the last federal election, and it's hard to imagine Langley being included with Vancouver in any amalgamation. Even if it is, that's not nearly enough votes to overthrow the left-wing majority in Metro Van.

Your fears are totally baseless.

[Bcasey25raptor]

I'd like to see Vancouver amalgamate it's surrounding municipalities in a way that makes the "city" of Vancouver Larger than Calgary.

[red-paladin]

It is unlikely to ever happen as regional identities and interests are pretty loud, and all those municipal governments will fight it. Also, Vancouver really doesn't want to be 'diluted' by a bunch of suburban people that will overrule their interests, like has happened in Toronto.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

It is unlikely to ever happen as regional identities and interests are pretty loud, and all those municipal governments will fight it. Also, Vancouver really doesn't want to be 'diluted' by a bunch of suburban people that will overrule their interests, like has happened in Toronto.

I'd think burnaby would be a relatively easy sell.

Regional identities can still exist if they are amalgamated. Also Vancouver as a region is more socially and politically liberal than the greater Toronto Area so I doubt we'd see a dramatic difference in politics if burnaby, new west, University endowment lands, and richmond were amalgamated.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

I'd think burnaby would be a relatively easy sell.

Actually, Burnaby would be the toughest to amalgamate. The current system benefits Burnaby the most, and this is why Derek Corrigan holds his powerbase so well. The city essentially has none of the problems that the rest of the region is facing when it comes to transportation, jobs location, and so on, despite its extremely left wing government. They have the advantage of geography, critical educational institutions, some big name high tech firms and two Skytrain lines. Why would they want to give up control over that?

[GMasterAres]

I don't think it will ever happen especially for the reason of "we want our population to be larger than Calgary." The main reason is that it doesn't actually benefit anyone. We already have Metro Vancouver that is supposed to see the 'greater regional good' for things like sewage, transportation, utilities, and emergency services. So what benefit would it serve?

All I can see it doing is making bigger less functional government. Cities like Toronto and New York have councils that rival our Provincial legislature in size and we know how dysfunctional that level of government is.

You also have an example like Delta where it is really 3 small towns together as one and politically it is nearly always a North Delta vs Tsawwassen vs Ladner fight because each area has distinct characteristics. Spend money in one area and the others cry foul. Imagine that 10 fold.

Services wise too it doesn't help anything because it the majority of Metro Cities, sizes of departments are directly proportioned to the population they serve. So if you have an Engineering in Burnaby with 100 people in it and one in Vancouver with 200, you merge the two cities together, and due to the increase land size and complexities, you'll probably need 300 engineers so you'd reduce no jobs as people often state is a major benefit of amalgamation.

You still need the same fire truck count, police officers, etc. because the size of the cities hasn't changed. And even at a council level, you need a larger council to govern such a larger area.

So there is absolutely no benefit to the region. I think separate cities with Metro Vancouver as an over-arching authority on regional things works perfectly fine. Our only real issue regionally is having a Provincial Government that doesn't want to govern aka tell New Westminster to suck an egg about the NFPR several years ago and state "Sorry, it is for the greater regional good." Or come up with a funding source for Translink the regional transportation authority THEY are in charge of. Or how about getting to finally replacing some of our 900 year old Hospitals they constantly promise to do things about like St. Paul's Downtown.

[spaceprobe]

i think the main metro vancouver needs to do as a region is to have a regional approach to attracting business. It should not be Vancouver vs burnaby vs surrey, etc....and each council shouldn't be conducting separate trade missions. As one large economic unit...vancouver could be more successfull in attracting business...and there wouldn't be any poaching from one city to another.

the other regional thing we need is a more integrated police force, and probably a more integraded education system.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by spaceprobe

i think the main metro vancouver needs to do as a region is to have a regional approach to attracting business. It should not be Vancouver vs burnaby vs surrey, etc....and each council shouldn't be conducting separate trade missions. As one large economic unit...vancouver could be more successfull in attracting business...and there wouldn't be any poaching from one city to another.

the other regional thing we need is a more integrated police force, and probably a more integraded education system.

I seriously don't understand why north america splits it's cities up like they do.

Toronto realistically has 6 million but the city is only 2.8 million.

Vancouver realistically is 2.5 million people, not 600k like the census states.

Why do we have a metro area instead of one large city? What purpose does that serve?

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

I seriously don't understand why north america splits it's cities up like they do.

Toronto realistically has 6 million but the city is only 2.8 million.

Vancouver realistically is 2.5 million people, not 600k like the census states.

Why do we have a metro area instead of one large city? What purpose does that serve?

Its not a North America only phenomenon. All population centres around the world have this city / suburb / metro relationship. Its just part of the modern way of life, ever since the Indusrial Revolution, with the invention of trains, cars and modern day freeways.

The existence of several cities within a metro was because at the time those towns, cities and villages were formed, they were not only done by separate founders, but because back in the day, they really were separated from each other due to geography and distance.

Advances in transporation systems allow the movement of goods and people between those cities seem like shorter distance. I betcha 100 years ago, going from Gastown to Surrey by horse was quite a trek, no different than a plane ride from Vancouver to San Francisco today. But no one is saying Vancouver and San Francisco is the same city just because they can be accessible by a plane ride, same when Vancouver and Surrey can be accessible by car.

Vancouver DOES NOT have 2.5 million. Metro Vancouver, which consist of Vancouver and its suburbs, do.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Vancouver DOES NOT have 2.5 million. Metro Vancouver, which consist of Vancouver and its suburbs, do.

I meant the metro area. To me the entire GVA = Vancouver.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

I meant the metro area. To me the entire GVA = Vancouver.

GVA =/= Vancouver. There is no disputing that. So by definition, Vancouver has a population of 600k. Metro Vancouver = Vancouver and its suburbs = population of 2.5 million. That's the way it is legally, politically, economically and geographically.

[andasen]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

GVA =/= Vancouver. There is no disputing that. So by definition, Vancouver has a population of 600k. Metro Vancouver = Vancouver and its suburbs = population of 2.5 million. That's the way it is legally, politically, economically and geographically.

Economically... no.

Culturally and economically Vancouver == Metrovancouver.

In terms of identity those mean a lot more than abstract legal boundaries. Mind you those have important political implications but for everyday purposes your point is 100% disputable.

[GlassCity]

Yeah, I don't get that. It's not like if someone asked you how many people live in Vancouver you'd say 600,000. Go to downtown Vancouver and tell me that that city is the same size as Madison, Wisconsin.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by andasen

Economically... no.

Culturally and economically Vancouver == Metrovancouver.

In terms of identity those mean a lot more than abstract legal boundaries. Mind you those have important political implications but for everyday purposes your point is 100% disputable.

Economically...yes. For example, Electronic Arts Canada is based in Burnaby, not Vancouver, despite what the media makes you think (they even go far as saying EA itself is Vancouver based even though the company is based in Redwood City, a suburb of San Francisco). At the same time, Lululemon is based in Vancouver, not Burnaby.

Culturally, in a way yes as well even though I didn't bring it up. I think its pretty obvious that Vancouver has a little bit of subculture that is distinct from those in Surrey or Delta. Though its a bit of a grey area since its possible to go from one burb to another and still practice the Vancouver subculture.

Regardless, the population count for the city of Vancouver should not include the population count for the whole metro if one were to ask, "How many people live in Vancouver?" Those boundaries exist for a reason, and is properly recorded as such. You may think that just because you live in a suburb of Metro Vancouver (i.e. Surrey, Burnaby, Coquitlam), and you tell outsiders that you're "from Vancouver", doesn't make it techically true. I'm sure your property tax bill or driver's license will say otherwise....and those ultimately govern over whatever perception you may have.