James Bow's Columns

[Spokes]

James Bow's Columns

The following will be an archive of all of James Bow's Columns he's written for Wonderful Waterloo and a place to feel free to comment on and discuss them.

[Spokes]

A Man of Two Cities
By James Bow | September 20, 2010

I moved to Kitchener on July 5, 1991. I've been thinking about this date of late because a milestone is approaching. Given that I was born in Toronto on April 19, 1972, I am rapidly reaching the day when I will have officially lived in Waterloo Region for exactly half of my life.

I love living in the Region of Waterloo. It's a vibrant, developing city, with safe streets and a diverse community of residents. There are plenty of things to do, plenty of places to take my kids, and plenty of places to go while I can live my life. Transit has improved, as has the possibilities to both bike and walk. I have no problem telling people that I live in Kitchener, or Waterloo, and I have no trouble believing this, myself. One problem, though: I still think of myself as a Torontonian.

For the first nineteen years of my life, I grew up in downtown Toronto, and I guess it's true that you can take the boy out of Toronto, but you can't take Toronto out of the boy. I return to my home town frequently. I maintain two (http://bowjamesbow.ca/) blogs (http://transit.toronto.on.ca), both of which often talk about matters of interest to Torontonians.

I see no conflict in saying that I am both a Torontonian and a Waterloo resident. Both cities have played a great part in my life, and are thus incorporated into my being. Walt Whitman once said, "I am a man, I contain multitudes"? However, I can't help but feel that I need to work on my connection to my current home town. It shames me to say that I know far more about the agenda of the next meeting of Toronto city council, than I do of the agenda of Kitchener's council. And I fear that this may be the default state of many residents in Waterloo Region.

Part of this is actually to the credit of our local councils. Under mayor Zehr and chairman Seiling, local politics here has been boring, and both men appear set to be re-elected this October as the competent managers that they are. I'm sure that residents of the City of Waterloo are glad that their council is no longer making national news anymore, and that the scandal of RIM Park is behind them. Maybe we'd like life in Waterloo Region to be more exciting, but we tend to not like the sort of things that can make the political life of a city exciting.

Part of the disconnect between locals and local politics is also just the way this country is built. The Greater Toronto Area has a total population of around five million, half of those living in the City of Toronto itself. Waterloo region has a population of just half a million. The majority of this nation's media -- at least, those we have access to here in Waterloo Region, are based in Toronto. CTV conducts a lot of its operations in Kitchener, but with its audience spread nationwide, it tends to give more play to the politics of the largest city in the land than of a smaller, upstart region.

All of these things are understandable, but it's still a sobering reflection. When I moved to Kitchener, one of the issues talked about by locals in their paper or on their local stations was whether Waterloo Region could maintain its separate identity, or whether it would be absorbed into the Greater Toronto Area as a bedroom community, as has been the case with Georgetown, Burlington or Guelph. Nineteen years later, those concerns remain.

I don't see Waterloo Region being subsumed into Toronto's suburbs anytime soon. The region's economic clout in the tech sector makes our area a place to live and grow. GO Transit's plan to link Toronto and Kitchener by train talks about bringing commuters into Waterloo Region rather than taking them out of it. The Canadian Tech Triangle is a strong brand that brings in investment from around the world. That won't change.

But the Region of Waterloo will always have to work hard to make itself heard above the media babble emanating from the Greater Toronto Area. The Waterloo Region Record does an admirable job of maintaining this region's identity, but I feel as that CTV (being broadcast from here) and possibly the local radio stations should step up, promoting themselves as offering more local content and more discussion of local issues. Has anybody promoted themselves as the voice of Waterloo Region?

It's communication that makes a community. People build their sense of community by talking about it with the people they live and work with, and the white noise of Toronto is one of the things that people cannot help talking about. For Waterloo Region to foster its sense of self as a community, it has no choice but to make some noise.

[panamaniac]

A Man of Two Cities
By James Bow | September 20, 2010


......The Waterloo Region Record does an admirable job of maintaining this region's identity, but I feel as that CTV (being broadcast from here) and possibly the local radio stations should step up, promoting themselves as offering more local content and more discussion of local issues. Has anybody promoted themselves as the voice of Waterloo Region? ........

You have not been here long enough to remember when CKCO promoted itself as broadcasting "from the heart of central Southwestern Ontario". Seriously - pretty accurate, but it still cracks me up when I think about it. :RpS_biggrin:

[Spokes]

Yes or No: That is the Question
By James Bow | October 12, 2010

This election, I'll be voting 'no' to a question that technically isn't on the ballot. I will be voting 'no' to amalgamation.

On October 25, amongst votes to select our mayors, our local and regional councillors and whether or not to fluoridate our water, the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo have put the following question on their ballot:




"Do you support the members of Kitchener and Waterloo councils engaging in discussions about the advantages and disadvantages of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No."

It's not quite the question that appeared on the Quebec referendum ballot in 1980, which used over a hundred words and a bevy of semi-colons to try and soften the truth that it was asking voters on whether or not to separate from Canada, but it is similarly deceptive. The way the question has been worded, it seems madness to oppose it, doesn't it? I mean, why should I be opposed to a discussion about anything? Why should I be opposed to politicians looking for ways to improve how the electorate is governed?

But is that really the question that's on the ballot, here? Reading this, one has to ask, what prevents the politicians of Kitchener and Waterloo from engaging in a dialogue with their counterparts on improving how residents are governed in our two cities? Since when to politicians need a public mandate to talk about anything? If anything, it takes the force of a referendum to get politicians to shut up.

Given this, and given that those who are pushing this measure most strongly are avowed supporters of amalgamation, I cannot help but feel that if this referendum yields a mandate to talk about amalgamation, the supporters of this measure will interpret this result as a mandate to bring amalgamation about. One cannot help but wonder, if supporters of amalgamation have to be so dishonest in trying to manipulate a mandate out of the public, just how strong their position in favour of amalgamation actually is, or how much it actually resonates with the voting public of Kitchener and Waterloo.

Nothing is set in stone, and the cities and townships in the Region of Waterloo as well as the region itself should meet periodically to review the structure of the region, and consider ways that governance and the delivery of services can be improved. The Region of Waterloo has done this in the past, with such changes as the uploading and merging of Kitchener and Cambridge Transit into Grand River Transit highlighting that the Region is flexible, and improvements can be made short of full amalgamation.

Indeed, I believe that, as a two-tiered urban county, the Region of Waterloo works as it was designed to do: keeping local issues local, while allowing all voters in the region a say in how their region is governed. It is unfair to ask residents of Elmira to sit through council meetings cluttered with discussion about speedbumps in Ayr, but those same residents in Elmira and Ayr deserve a say on whether public transit reaches their communities, or that their communities collaborate in attracting investment from outside of the region.

Not only is the Region of Waterloo comprehensive, in that it encompasses the vast majority of the economic interests that make up the Region of Waterloo, it's also well balanced. The populations of the cities of Waterloo and Cambridge roughly equals that of Kitchener, and the townships themselves manage to maintain an influence on regional priorities. My greatest fear is that amalgamating Kitchener and Waterloo will upset that balance. Cambridge has always been a bit ambivalent towards the region, maintaining as it does significant cultural, economic and geographic differences that sets it apart from Kitchener. How will Cambridge react if suddenly regional council is dominated by a city named Kitchener-Waterloo, taking in more than half of the region's population? How much influence could the townships retain in dealing with a partner that was so much larger than they are?

To me, the natural outcome of such an alteration would be either the separation of Cambridge from Waterloo Region -- which would diminish Waterloo Region's economic clout in southwestern Ontario -- or the eventual amalgamation of Cambridge and the townships into a single-tiered city of Waterloo Region, producing a council that would burden residents of Elmira with issues of speed bumps in Ayr and similar discussions not relevant to their concerns in an unwieldy council agenda.

In considering the amalgamation question on the ballot, the phrase that comes to mind is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Previous campaigns to try and amalgamate all or part of Waterloo Region have shown little support from the voters at large, and the system has only needed minor tweaks to improve operations over time. The fact that proponents for amalgamation are trying to do an end-run around voters, here, campaigning for talks rather than amalgamation itself, shows that they know this to be true.

A vote against engaging in a dialogue about the merits of amalgamating Kitchener and Waterloo is not a vote against reviewing the structure of the region as a whole and making the smaller tweaks that are necessary to keep our successful formula fresh and responsive to local voters. Voters wishing to preserve a system which isn't broken should vote no to the question behind the question on the ballot. They should vote 'no' to the question on the ballot.

To read the rest of James’ columns click here. (http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/showthread.php/679-James-Bow-s-Columns)

[KevinL]

Sorry James, I have to disagree. Regardless of your views on referenda, what it takes for politicians to talk, or how you can extrapolate the question, I look on this (and I think much of the electorate does as well) as being no more or less than it is: a mandate for extensive, practical talks on the up- and down-sides of a merger.

I'm sure there will be many who do as you fear, saying a Yes vote on this is a Yes vote on the merger itself. But the question itself has been kindly bolded by you, above: it is for discussions, nothing more. Anyone who tries to ascribe more to that will be easily shouted down by the plain truth.

[pnijjar]

We'll see how effective it will be to shout down anybody -- especially if it is not an election year. Nothing in this referendum says that we will have a say if the two cities (urged on by the Let's Talk people) do decide to amalgamate.

[ericcbow]

The question is much more than just a mandate for practical talks. Both Tim Jackson and Stephen R. Bryant in articles on the firing of the WPL chief librarian were reported to have said that they felt a yes vote on the question would be a mandate for Council to go ahead with actual amalgamation. The Waterloo Chronicle reports Jackson said “we do not believe we would have been able to execute the plan that we collectively have decided is the future of the community.” Note well, "Community" is not qualified by the word “library”. Interesting words coming from the man who wants to amalgamate Waterloo with Kitchener. Seems Jackson was using his position as Chair of WPLB to promote amalgamation and getting "the Question" on the ballot.

[garthdanlor]

The question is much more than just a mandate for practical talks.

The question will give nothing more than a mandate for discussion and, quite frankly, our councils do not need a special ballot question in order to do this. This is chicken politics. It is already their duty as councillors to investigate ideas/plans/policies to determine whether these will be of benefit to their constituents, and to implement if deemed beneficial...that is why they are elected in the first place. On rare occasions (as in the case of amalgamation) a referendum can be justified over the implementation of such plans but is certainly not justified just to enter into discussions. Why would anyone be afraid to talk about an issue? Having two referenda over the same issue will only lead to an unnecessary increase in bad feelings.

[ericcbow]

It is already their duty as councillors to investigate ideas/plans/policies to determine whether these will be of benefit to their constituents, and to implement if deemed beneficial...that is why they are elected in the first place.

I agree it's their duty and as James says we don't need "the question" to mandate our council to talk about improvements to the current setup. This Kitchenerite is also voting "NO" to the question.

[garthdanlor]

I agree it's their duty and as James says we don't need "the question" to mandate our council to talk about improvements to the current setup. This Kitchenerite is also voting "NO" to the question.
The problem with that logic is that, due to the cowardice of the councils, the ballot question is now a reality. By voting "NO", you are handcuffing council and preventing them from investigating a possible improvement to local government and thereby preventing them from performing their duty. Again, why are you afraid of discussion? That is all that this question will mandate.

[ericcbow]

garthdanlor, It is my opinion that this question is an attempt to move the amalgamation issue from the citizens to the politicians. A “yes” vote on the wishy-washy “talk about amalgamation” question just might be all the political clout supporters of amalgamation need to just amalgamate, regardless of what comes out of talking. Consider that the people who urged Kitchener and Waterloo to vote to have the question put on the ballot are the same people who fund and support the lobby for amalgamation of the two cities. They are also the same people who are currently working hard to get pro-amalgamation councillors elected. As a Kitchener citizen I have some misgivings about amalgamation. As a Kitchener taxpayer I certainly don’t want Kitchener to assume the debt that Waterloo has accumulated. I also believe that if it isn’t broken, why fix it? Both Kitchener and Waterloo seem to be working quite well as separate cities and members of a working regional municipality. I do not believe that what’s good for business is necessarily good for the ordinary citizen. That answer your question as to why I'm voting no?

[Urbanomicon]

I also believe that if it isn’t broken, why fix it? Both Kitchener and Waterloo seem to be working quite well as separate cities and members of a working regional municipality.

This is sort of like saying "My toilet's water valve is leaking and it is costing me a fortune in water, but it still works so why fix it?"

However, by answering "Yes" to the amalgamation question, you would be saying "Let's look into the cost of replacing the toilet's float assembly and see if it will save us money in the long run."

As stated previously, I don't see how anyone can be against the question of looking at the advantages and disadvantages of amalgamation; this is something the polititions should be doing anyway without asking us. If they decide that amalgamation is the fiscally responsible way to go, then ask us if we want to go down that road.

To be honest, regardless of public opinion, eventually the provincial government (probably the next conservative government) will force amalgamation upon us, so why not look at it objectively now when we don't have a gun to our heads. At least then will will have supporting evidence one way or the other.

[ericcbow]

Urbanomikon, a leaking toilet IS broken even if it still flushes. The present Regional government is there to examine possible economies and yes even amalgamations of various municipalities and municipal services. We don't need to add another costly and time consuming committee. As for the provincial government imposing amalgamation, that's a matter of opinion and my opinion is they wouldn't dare after what happened last time in voting in Regions where amagamations were imposed. I'm still voting "NO"!

[panamaniac]

..........
To be honest, regardless of public opinion, eventually the provincial government (probably the next conservative government) will force amalgamation upon us, so why not look at it objectively now when we don't have a gun to our heads. At least then will will have supporting evidence one way or the other.

I don't take interest in provincial politics so have to ask on what basis you make this comment? I would think that if the current question is voted down, no provincial government would want to touch it with a barge poll. (I have no objection to talks on amalgamation pros and cons by the way and am even (very) slightly inclined to favour amalgamation, athought I don't think it would make much difference either way).

[IEFBR14]

on what basis you make this comment? ...
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." ...George Santayana

Amalgamation of Toronto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalgamation_of_Toronto)
Amalgamation occurred in 1998 when six municipalities comprising Metropolitan Toronto – East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, York, and the former city of Toronto – and the regional municipality of Metro Toronto was dissolved and amalgamated into a single municipality called the City of Toronto (colloquially dubbed the "megacity") by an act of the provincial government. This created the current City of Toronto. The new city of Toronto became the fifth largest municipality in North America after amalgamation, trailing Mexico City, New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles.

The merger was proposed as a cost saving measure by the fiscally conservative provincial government under Mike Harris. By the year 2000, the new city realized savings of $136.2*million (CDN) per year from amalgamation, and had incurred one time costs from amalgamation totalling $275*million (CDN).[14] Before amalgamation 73% of the expenses taken over by Toronto came from Metro Toronto, and were thus already integrated programs.[15] Additionally, municipal affairs minister Al Leach touted it as a measure that would produce a stronger, more unified Toronto better equipped to compete in a global marketplace.

The amalgamation was widely opposed in Toronto and the other municipalities.[16] This amalgamation was despite a municipal referendum in 1997 that was overwhelmingly against amalgamation, which resulted in over three quarters of voters rejecting amalgamation, with one third of eligible voters participating. Mayor Mel Lastman[17] of North York, and Barbara Hall of Toronto both campaigned against the merger, as did former mayor John Sewell. Subsequently, Mel Lastman defeated Barbara Hall to become the first elected mayor of the megacity. However, the municipalities in Ontario are creatures of the provincial government, which decided to go ahead with the merger despite local opposition. Opposition parties in the local parliament engaged in a unique form of filibuster, tabling thirteen thousand amendments to the amalgamation bill,[18] which lasted two weeks, but did not prevent passage of the bill.[my bold]

Earlier in this thread I argued that we shouldn't need a referendum to approve discussion. Our local politicians and bureaucrats should always be engaged in discussions about how to improve services through cooperation, cost-sharing and the like. If in their analysis both communities would benefit from amalgamation then let them put forward the evidence -- without the need for a referendum first -- so that we can debate their findings. Then let's have a referendum on whether or not to proceed with the actual amalgamation.

But maybe I too should heed Santayana's caveat, especially if there's any chance that Hudak's mob could get elected next year and ram amalgamation down our throats whether or not it makes any sense and even if we vehemently vote against it.

[garthdanlor]

To be honest, regardless of public opinion, eventually the provincial government (probably the next conservative government) will force amalgamation upon us, so why not look at it objectively now when we don't have a gun to our heads. At least then will will have supporting evidence one way or the other.
My sentiments exactly. Ultimately, we will be amalgamated one way or another (I'm still amazed that we survived the Harris amalgamations(too many Tory MPPs in KW at the time, perhaps...can't remember)). The amalgamation will be much less fractious if we choose it rather than having it forced upon us.

[jamesbow]

This is sort of like saying "My toilet's water valve is leaking and it is costing me a fortune in water, but it still works so why fix it?"

However, by answering "Yes" to the amalgamation question, you would be saying "Let's look into the cost of replacing the toilet's float assembly and see if it will save us money in the long run."

My father is right: your analogy is an inaccurate one. A leaky toilet is a broken toilet and it needs to be fixed. Waterloo Region does not leak.

A more accurate analogy in considering how to alter the region is if we have a house, and whether we should update the wallpaper, or possibly knock down some walls, expand some rooms and shrink others, or possibly just take out the walls altogether and go with an entirely open concept (and one-tier) design.

And I would say to you, we don't need a popular mandate to talk about these sorts of things. And this is why I believe the referendum is a big red herring. Our politicians should ALWAYS be talking and considering ways to improve how Waterloo Region is designed. Should we amalgamate? Or should we instead just upload the local library systems to the regional level, as we did for transit ten years ago?

What one should not do is interpret a mandate to talk as a mandate to do, which is what I fear this referendum is all about. Certain people behind the "Yes" campaign have all but said that this what they see: a vote in favour for talks is a vote in favour for outright amalgamation, and I say that this isn't so, and it isn't being fair or honest to the voters of Waterloo Region.

Go ahead and get talking about how to improve the region. Go ahead and look at the benefits and drawbacks of full or partial amalgamation. Come up with a plan. THEN take it to the people. That's a completely different debate than what we're having, but it is to my mind a more honest one.


My sentiments exactly. Ultimately, we will be amalgamated one way or another (I'm still amazed that we survived the Harris amalgamations(too many Tory MPPs in KW at the time, perhaps...can't remember)). The amalgamation will be much less fractious if we choose it rather than having it forced upon us.

It fell off the table for a number of reasons.

1. Amalgamations were attempted in a number of other places across Ontario, including Ottawa, Haldimand-Norfolk and London. These proved to be quite unpopular with local voters and ate into Conservative support in rural areas. The Conservatives backed off in a hurry.
2. The Sweeny Commission (I believe) looked into the design of Waterloo Region and found it to be most effective in doing what it was set up to do in 1973. Go back to my original column for a description of how two-tier regional government works. Our system is designed to be both responsive to local voters AND comprehensive enough to deal with regional issues. It's unfair to ask residents of Elmira to sit through long regional council meetings talking about local issues with an agenda that's clogged up with local issues from Ayr, New Dundee and Breslau. At the same time, residents of Elmira and Ayr certainly deserve a say on whether public transit gets extended out to the townships or not.

Where regional government has shut down (Toronto in 1997, Ottawa, and so on), one of a number of things have happened. Either regional development has spilled beyond the regional boundaries of the two-tier system (see Toronto) and the regional government is now no longer comprehensive enough to provide regional leadership. Alternately, the region as designed has produced such a dominant player in local politics that the two-tier system simply won't work, as there's no balance between the various players (see London). Waterloo and Cambridge together have a population that closely approximates that of Kitchener, and the townships together are no slouches themselves when it comes to the population department, and can theoretically find themselves an urban partner to help advocate for their interests. Amalgamate Kitchener-Waterloo, and you produce a dominant player. You increase the sense of alienation Cambridge feels to the region, and you diminish the clout of the townships to irrelevance. I believe that people end up being served more poorly as a result.

There is no sign, yet, that Waterloo's economic interest is spilling beyond the boundaries of the region, so the region is still comprehensive. And the structure of the local governments is such that you have a good balance of interests, and no one party dominates the discussion. We're still functioning as we were designed to do, and any government would be a fool to just toss the baby out with the bathwater. And as you can see from how the discussion was handled back in 2000, even under a Conservative government, amalgamation is NOT inevitable.

That said, I would be open to changes. We should perhaps consider uploading the library systems to the regional level. I also believe that regional councillors should also sit on the local councils of the cities they represent. It's important to consider the regional government not as a boxer in its own right, but a boxing ring where the various members of the region meet to duke it out and settle their differences.