Amalgamation

[freshcutgrass]

Speaking personally, I have been against amalgamation from the beginning, and especially so under Miller. Not just because of differing priorities, but because the efficiencies supposedly gained from amalgamation haven't seemed to materialize.

The projected savings not only happened, but exceeded provincial estimates.

The reason they may not be perceived as happening can be attributed to a few factors....such as the additional downloading of services from the province and the fact that 73% of the budget at the time was already amalgamated under the upper tier, leaving only 27% of total gross expenditures to derive any amalgamation savings from ($1.5 billion at the time).

 

[yonderbean]

Interesting comment from the Star today basically arguing that the Ford meltdown could help spur de-amalgamation.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/05/29/how_the_rob_ford_crack_scandal_could_save_toronto.html

 

[King of Kensington]

I don't know...the city is increasingly united in its opposition to Ford.

 

[adma]

Deamalgamation is still a chicken solution--and as I've always said to those who say "Etobicoke can keep Ford": no, not even Etobicoke deserves Ford.

In fact, I'd offer that "deamalgamation" is a dumbed-down panacea which an in-depth restructuring can overcome, in a best-of-all-worlds way...

 

[Dan416]

I'm not in favour of deamalgamation. But a reorganization I could live with. If we brought back "Metro" Toronto, we could expand its boundaries as someone else said to take over Peel, York, Durham, maybe Halton. Then the cities underneath could continue to exist (e.g. Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughan, Pickering, etc) and the old cities in Toronto brought back in modified form (City of Toronto, Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough only).

 

[freshcutgrass]

If we brought back "Metro" Toronto, we could expand its boundaries as someone else said to take over Peel, York, Durham, maybe Halton. Then the cities underneath could continue to exist (e.g. Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughan, Pickering, etc) and the old cities in Toronto brought back in modified form (City of Toronto, Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough only).

But you aren't thinking this through.

How are you going to reorganize the upper and lower tiers? Metro and the 905 Regions have an opposite approach with Metro having a strong upper tier and the 905's have a weak one.

Sorry....the scale of Metro works as a "city", and can attribute its success to the timing of creation and the fact a lot of it was built from scratch under Metro. Trying to pull it off on the scale of the GTA is too large. And there's little point to it as everything is pretty much built out. All the 905 would do is sink the 416 under its inefficient design.

We are lucky the "old" city of Toronto wasn't sunk by the former boroughs.

 

[FutureBuilder]

But you aren't thinking this through.

How are you going to reorganize the upper and lower tiers? Metro and the 905 Regions have an opposite approach with Metro having a strong upper tier and the 905's have a weak one.

Sorry....the scale of Metro works as a "city", and can attribute its success to the timing of creation and the fact a lot of it was built from scratch under Metro. Trying to pull it off on the scale of the GTA is too large. And there's little point to it as everything is pretty much built out. All the 905 would do is sink the 416 under its inefficient design.

We are lucky the "old" city of Toronto wasn't sunk by the former boroughs.

The former boroughs were just fine before.

I just find it funny the downtown super smart "elites" are going to struggle to ever have one of their "own" put in as mayor. I would think given this fact they would be for taking apart the "mega city".

 

[freshcutgrass]

I just find it funny the downtown super smart "elites" are going to struggle to ever have one of their "own" put in as mayor. I would think given this fact they would be for taking apart the "mega city".

Try and imagine for a moment...the concept that not everyone is a conservative-thinking narcissist, and doesn't cultivate an "us and them" attitude of Toronto. What an odd bubble you seem to live in.

The former boroughs were just fine before.

At which point in the changing fluid entity which was Metro?

But you are missing the point I was making....the upper and lower tiers of Metro and the 905 Regions (Peel, York, Durham) are very different. Under a new GTA-wide two-tiered system they would have to be consistent.

If you are the dyed-in-the-wool fiscal conservative I imagine you to be, then you would not be in favour of the two-tiered system.

 

[King of Kensington]

I don't think it would be that difficult. The "regions" generally have the same responsibilities that Metro had.

 

[FutureBuilder]

Try and imagine for a moment...the concept that not everyone is a conservative-thinking narcissist, and doesn't cultivate an "us and them" attitude of Toronto. What an odd bubble you seem to live in.




At which point in the changing fluid entity which was Metro?

But you are missing the point I was making....the upper and lower tiers of Metro and the 905 Regions (Peel, York, Durham) are very different. Under a new GTA-wide two-tiered system they would have to be consistent.

If you are the dyed-in-the-wool fiscal conservative I imagine you to be, then you would not be in favour of the two-tiered system.

You can call me what you like. I dislike unnecessary taxes and waste. However I understand transit costs big $$$ and we need new revenue sources apart from the laughable "private sector involvement" some people claim. I am a realist.

905 and 416 are nothing alike and an even bigger "mega city" makes absolutely no sense.

The Swiss have their "Canton system" which works beautifully. I do not think bigger is better.

 

[King of Kensington]

I suppose there's a sort of "canton system" at work in London and Montreal...

 

[freshcutgrass]

I don't think it would be that difficult. The "regions" generally have the same responsibilities that Metro had.

Not even close really. And that's before we even consider the context of the how, why and when they existed....which is very different. You can't redo Metro, as it had a lot to do with what was going on during its lifespan of 1953-1998. You can't really apply that to the 905 Regions or even Toronto (any more).

I dislike unnecessary taxes and waste.

Then you won't like a two-tiered municipal government. It can have advantages, but it is more of a luxury...which costs money.

905 and 416 are nothing alike and an even bigger "mega city" makes absolutely no sense.

Let's celebrate the fact that we totally agree on something!!!!

 

[FutureBuilder]

I suppose there's a sort of "canton system" at work in London and Montreal...

I can't comment because I have no idea. But I do know in Switzerland if enough citizens sign a petition, then a referendum on the issue must be held. And citizens can even vote by phone from what I know. That is a pretty raw form of democracy. But it obviously works for them.

 

[junior43]

The former boroughs were just fine before.

I just find it funny the downtown super smart "elites" are going to struggle to ever have one of their "own" put in as mayor. I would think given this fact they would be for taking apart the "mega city".

I find this odd about the urban being out populated compared to the 'burbs. It may be true right now. But what about all the condos being built? I haven't done the math, but I would have to guess that the core is growing faster than the burb's combined. My thinking is, urban may be smaller now, but in 5-10 years, the urban base will be larger.

Also, parts of the 'burbs will become more urban. As an example, in SW Scarborough, I know of 3 or 4 condos being built on former strip mall lots - and they're all fairly close to transit hubs as well. So my thinking is they'd be more urban viewed than suburban.

A question. Let's say we were de-amalgamated. What would happen if Scarborough council was completely against a transit city project? Easy example would be a surface LRT that Scar wants buried. Would this be easier to get through (as a surface LRT) during amalgamation, or de-amalgamation?

I can't recall how these things played out pre-amalagamation.

 

[RC8]

They'd have to pay for it (or most of it) themselves, so they would support LRT over subways.

Right now suburban councillors are very generous with other people's money, but once they are dealing with their own, they will become as mindful as anyone. If they choose to build a subway, they will have to come up with a plan to fund it.