Amalgamation

[Spokes]

Amalgamation

“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.”

http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/election/Amalgamation.jpg

http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/election/KitchenerCityHall.png + http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/election/WaterlooCityCentre.png

Groups

Yes | No

Let’s Talk KW (http://letstalkkw.com/) | KW Merger FACTS (www.kwmergerfacts.ca)

Results

Kitchener (http://app.kitchener.ca/election/election_results.htm) | Waterloo (http://www.waterloo.ca/election2010/results.html) | Combined

Yes: 23116 (65.0%){br}No: 12458 (35.0%){br}{br}Total Votes: 35574 | Yes: 9262 (34.6%){br}No: 17478 (65.4%){br}{br}Total Votes: 26740 | Yes: 32378 (52.0%){br}No: 29936 (48.0%){br}{br}Total Votes: 62314

[Spokes]

Proposals to remake local government to be tabled today in Cambridge
September 22, 2008 | Record Staff Web Edition

CAMBRIDGE -- Proposals to remake local government will be unveiled today at the Cambridge Holiday Inn at 4 p.m.

Nobody is giving any hints about what the report will say, said Jim Erb, spokesperson for the volunteer citizens for better government.

“It will be black print on white paper,” he said.

Citizens for better government started work in March 2005, with the mindset that a single government would be more efficient and work better than the eight local councils now running Waterloo Region.

The group held public meetings and spoke at public gatherings in an effort to engage the public in the process. It promised to release a final report reflecting public opinion

The push to erase local municipal boundaries also prompted Cambridge city council -- a steadfast opponent of amalgamation -- to form its own citizens committee. The Cambridge committee recommended tinkering with the existing system, with a long range plan to dismantle regional council and give all taxing and spending powers to cities and townships.
Early on, the citizens for better government group said it intended to lobby Queen’s Park for reform of regional government before the 2010 local elections, so changes could be in place then.

Erb refused to say what will be done with his group’s final report.

“That’s what’s going to be released tomorrow (Tuesday),” he said.

All local and provincial politicians have been invited to the meeting. Erb doesn’t know how many will attend.

The meeting is open to the public, Questions will be allowed from the audience, Erb said.

http://news.therecord.com/News/article/418817 (http://news.therecord.com/News/article/418817)


Waterloo Region should become one city, report says
It also recommended that regional councillors sit on local councils.

September 23, 2008
By Jeff Outhit, Record staff
Web edition

WATERLOO REGION — Waterloo Region should be turned into a single city, by merging eight municipal governments and slashing politicians by half.

So says Citizens for Better Government, a group that’s been campaigning for municipal reform since 2005.

It’s not new advice. Calls to create a single city in this region go back to 1995. Politicians have always rejected them, with strong opposition from Cambridge.

The difference this time is that it is a citizen-led group making the call, rather than a panel of politicians or appointed experts.

Tuesday afternoon, at a gathering in Cambridge, the group released a 52-page final report titled Finding a Better Way.

Citizens for Better Government, which includes some businesspeople, contends the current government system impedes progress for 516,000 residents.

The group’s report criticizes the system as confusing to the public, costly for taxpayers and hard for citizens to influence.

Residents are governed by three city councils, four township councils, and a regional government. The region provides 70 per cent of services but “remains largely invisible.” This system was established in 1973.

Finding a Better Way argues that a single city would:
• Reduce public confusion about who does what and increase political accountability.
• Reduce government costs by $10 million a year through reduced duplication and staffing.
• Provide public services more consistently and efficiently.
• More strongly influence provincial and federal governments.

Transition costs to a single city are estimated at $28 million.

“A single city model,” the report says, “would have one overall vision, provide efficient and consistent delivery of universally-needed services, have little or no administrative duplication and overlap, reduce costs and ensure clarity of responsibility.”

Citizens for Better Government says it has more than 200 members. It is led by a steering committee of 22 who signed the report. They are from all municipalities in the region and include business people and former municipal councillors.

The group’s report calls for:
• 26 ward councillors plus a mayor, down from 51 municipal politicians today.
• Wards that would span current borders in some places. Rural wards that would be overrepresented compared with urban wards, similar to regional council today.
• Community councils that would be appointed in former municipalities, to advise city council on local issues such as traffic, street naming, business licences, neighbourhood planning and recreation.

If municipal and provincial politicians balk at a single city, the group suggests two other reforms:

• Keeping Waterloo regional government. Merging Kitchener, Waterloo and Woolwich to create a city of 400,000. Wellesley, Wilmot, North Dumfries and Cambridge would remain as today.
• Eliminating regional government and creating two cities: Cambridge, and everybody else. North Dumfries could join either city.

The report asks municipal and provincial politicians to consider and respond to the recommendations and “hopefully act.”

It does not propose a timeline or a process for this. The next municipal election is in 2010.

jouthit@therecord.com

http://news.therecord.com/News/article/419294 (http://news.therecord.com/News/article/419294)

[Spokes]

Kitchener calls for amalgamation talks

October 06, 2008
By Terry Pender
RECORD STAFF

KITCHENER — City councillors are calling on their counterparts around the region to begin talks aimed at amalgamating some or all municipalities in Waterloo Region.

Coun. Berry Vrbanovic called for the meeting after listening to a presentation Monday night from Citizens for Better Government, a volunteer group that wants a bigger and simpler form of municipal government in the area.

Mayor Carl Zehr will invite the mayors of other municipalities to create an informal working group to discuss the report prepared by Citizens for Better Government.

The working group would have two or three members from each municipality in Waterloo Region. The mayors and regional chair would also be at the meetings.

Vrbanovic said the discussions of the working group should lead to a meeting of all councils in the region to determine future actions, Vrbanovic said.

“What’s important to remember is that nobody is talking about the region taking over the municipalities, or one municipality taking over another municipality,” Vrbanovic said.

“Whatever ends up happening is really the existing municipalities, in whatever option you talk about, ceasing to exist and a new entity being created.”

Zehr spoke in favour of the move as well. Nobody talked about the lack of response to a similar invitation Zehr made a few years ago.

Coun. John Gazzola was the only member of council to vote against the move.

Amalgamation is not a pressing issue among residents, he said, and the report by Citizens for Better Government does not demonstrate that amalgamation will lead to a better, less expensive or more accountable form of government.

Some of the information in the report is “sketchy,” he said.

“This to me isn't broken. Why are we trying to fix it?”

tpender@therecord.com

http://news.therecord.com/article/425483http://news.therecord.com/article/425483 (http://news.therecord.com/article/425483)



Waterloo will talk about regional reform, not amalgamation

By Liz Monteiro, THE RECORD
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
RECORD STAFF

WATERLOO - The City of Waterloo will create a task force to talk about municipal reform -- but not amalgamation, according to the councillor who proposed it.

Councillors voted unanimously last night to create a committee -- with representatives invited from all municipalities in Waterloo Region -- to find ways to increase efficiency.

"It is not a discussion of amalgamation," said Coun. Jan d'Ailly, who proposed the task force with the goal of getting the most bang for tax dollars.

"How can we better improve our services and save costs for our citizens?"

Jim Erb, chair of Citizens for Better Government, said he was pleased with the decision.

"It's a great step," he said after councillors held a committee meeting.

"At the end of the day, we may not get what we asked for, but more co-operation and creating more efficiencies in areas such as libraries, water and emergency services -- then I'm pleased."

Citizens for Better Government supports merging eight local governments and cutting the number of municipal politicians. The group says $10 million could be saved by amalgamation.

Kitchener has said it wants to continue talking about reform, but Cambridge and North Dumfries are against amalgamation talks.

The Waterloo task force will prepare a list of projects in which cities and municipalities can find more cost-savings in their operations. The first meeting is planned for March.

Coun. Angela Vieth said she was concerned some municipalities may not want to participate. "What if the townships don't want to play?" she said.

Some residents spoke against setting up a task force, suggesting members would talk about amalgamation regardless of their brief.

Victor Hiebert told councillors that one massive city would reduce access to government.

To date, there have been no proven cost-savings, he said.

"Kitchener will dominate," he predicted if the region became one city. "Cambridge has bowed out. Waterloo should bow out too."

Robert Fleming said it would be "repugnant" to have city staff and politicians proceed with dissolving the city without input from citizens.


http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/481363

[Spokes]

Amalgamation may be back on the table, but only for two cities
January 08, 2010 | By Terry Pender, Record staff | http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/653071

KITCHENER — Amalgamation may be back on the local political agenda, but only for two cities.

Councillors for Kitchener and Waterloo will be asked Monday to support a referendum, to be included in this fall’s municipal elections, about holding merger talks between their two cities.

High-tech executives are scheduled to appear as delegations in both Kitchener and Waterloo with a simple request — that both city councils ask the Ontario government for permission to include a single question on this fall’s ballots.

The question: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No.”

Unlike previous attempts at amalgamating the eight municipal governments of Waterloo Region, this one focuses solely on the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo.

The latest group to push for the talks includes Ian Klugman of Communitech and Tim Jackson of Tech Capital Partners. Part of the push includes an open letter delivered earlier this week to the mayors and councils of Kitchener and Waterloo and signed by more than 50 leaders in business and the arts, including Sandvine president Dave Caputo, Open Text executive chair Tom Jenkins, David Marskell, executive director of the Waterloo Region Children’s Museum and Jamie Grant, general manager of the Centre in the Square.

“I suspect there will be some questions but I also suspect there will be some support,” Kitchener Mayor Carl Zehr said in an interview Thursday.

“How can you say ‘no’ to engaging in some dialogue?” Zehr said.

In the 1990s, the Conservative government under then-premier Mike Harris forced amalgamations in Sudbury, Ottawa, Toronto and Hamilton, among other cities. But that government would not force the issue in Waterloo Region.

In 2006, a push for amalgamation came from a group called Citizens for Better Government. That, too, was unsuccessful in advancing the issue among the region, the three cities and the townships.

This latest move is focused solely on Kitchener and Waterloo.

Zehr is on board all the way — holding a referendum, holding talks and creating one city out of two.

“If we cannot have a one-tier system, then at a minimum, Kitchener and Waterloo should look at merging, because it makes eminent sense,” Zehr said.

In Waterloo, Coun. Mark Whaley gets excited about “extending Waterloo’s borders to the 401.”

When Whaley was first elected in 2003, the two cities were not co-operating.

“Today, we have almost 60 joint service initiatives,” Whaley said, “and I have voted for every one of them.”

Holding a referendum and then merger talks is a natural evolution, he said.

“We are talking about a dialogue on merging our cities to provide better services,” Whaley said.

Whaley does not want to see the current push for a municipal merger get bogged down in holding talks with municipalities that are not interested in even talking about it.

“Why try to partner with people who do not want to partner with you?” Whaley said.

Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig has been one of the most vocal opponents of amalgamation into a megacity. Craig and his council were not included in a letter from those pushing for the merger of Kitchener and Waterloo.

The open letter delivered to council members said, in part:

“How effective is our messaging to regional, provincial and national audiences? Are we maximizing our potential for provincial and national funding and for investment attraction? Is our current twin city structure the right plan for ensuring a sustainable and prosperous future?”

“Past efforts to address these questions have yielded no conclusive community viewpoint because the discussion has never properly begun. The only way to have this important conversation about our future is to give it the attention it requires, warrants and deserves — by asking the Province of Ontario to create the environment required for effective dialogue and debate through posing a direct question to the people of both cities during the 2010 municipal election,” says the letter.

[Spokes]

This is good news. Like Zehr says though, how can you say no to them talking about it.

My only concern though is if Kitchener and Waterloo amalgamate (which is a logical choice) then what happens on a regional level? Do things fall apart? Will Cambridge and the Townships always feel like they are being "ganged up against" by a joint K-W? Joining Kitchener and Waterloo could have a tough effect on Regional politics. I don't know a ton about how it works, would it?

[YKF]

I think it only makes sense for Kitchener and Waterloo to amalgamate. We're practically one city.

[Spokes]

Ya I think so too. I think the two cities working together would be very successful. I can only assume they would create a framework that would allow for Cambridge and the Townships to join in at a later date?

One of the things I like is that the referendum question is very simple. Unlike the electoral system reform referendum question in the last provincial election.

The clearer it is, the better off we'll be.

[Spokes]

Referendum on merger talks needs provincial government support or it will not happen

January 09, 2010
By Terry Pender, Record staff

KITCHENER — Getting permission from the province for a municipal-election referendum on whether to hold merger talks between Kitchener and Waterloo could be difficult.

A group of high-tech executives and business leaders will ask city councillors in the two cities on Monday to support making a formal request of the Minister of Municipal Affairs for a ballot question in the Oct. 25 municipal elections.

The question is simple: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No.”

The politics around the question are anything but simple.

Waterloo Mayor Brenda Halloran said she will support asking for the referendum, but she has doubts about whether the province will approve one.

“From what I understand, and I have heard from various political people, is that there is really no political will at this point in time for the provincial government to engage in any further discussions about amalgamating communities,” Halloran said.

Halloran is supported by retired University of Waterloo political science professor Bob Williams, now a consultant specializing in municipal politics, who said, “This is not a provincial priority.”

There is a bitter legacy from the forced amalgamations of Sudbury, Ottawa, Toronto and Hamilton that occurred under the former Conservative government of then-premier Mike Harris, Williams said.

Kawartha Lakes was created by forced amalgamation in the late 1990s. The residents there voted in a subsequent referendum to de-amalgamate and the Liberals indicated they would honour that vote, but they reneged on that commitment, Williams said.

Simcoe County, created in 1848, has undergone a lot of development, but the Liberal government has refused to get involved in any reforms that would amalgamate the City of Barrie and Simcoe Country in order to better control that development.

“They have shied away from it,” Williams said.

Regional Chair Ken Seiling said the provincial government’s withdrawal from municipal reform has left a lot of people frustrated.

“Because traditionally, change does not take place unless the province has a hand in it, one way or the other,” Seiling said.

So, the city councils of Kitchener and Waterloo must convince the minister of the municipal affairs to inject himself into an area of local politics that has always bristled with challenges.

Provincial legislation specifically forbids municipal governments from holding referendums on municipal restructuring, or even the consideration, investigation, discussion or negotiations about restructuring.

The only way around that is to convince the Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson to give permission for a referendum question, Peter-John Sidebottom, a local government adviser at the ministry of municipal affairs, said.

If the minister agrees to place the question on the ballots, then it becomes the minister’s question and the results have no force and effect.

“It is not binding on the legislature, it is not binding on the minister, it’s not binding on the municipalities,” Sidebottom said.

The taxpayers in Kitchener and Waterloo provide more than 60 per cent of the tax dollars collected by Waterloo Region.

But if the two cities merged Waterloo Region could continue, Seiling said.

“It would just mean that one municipality would have a larger number of seats, it would change the voting balance on council,” Seiling said.

Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig disagreed, saying the merger of Kitchener and Waterloo would destroy regional government, which now provides all of the large, expensive services such as police, water and sewage treatment, ambulance and transit.

“It puts into question whether we need a regional government so we need to be prepared down here in Cambridge ahead of time and I am quite prepared to move forward on that and make sure our municipality is not compromised in any merger,” Craig said.

“If a merger were to take place in Kitchener-Waterloo, you would at the regional council table have a dominant municipality that controls every vote and would in fact become the real elephant in the room,” Craig said.

Craig wants assurances that talks about a merger of Kitchener and Waterloo will not be expanded to other municipalities in the region.

Iain Klugman, president of Communitech, said the group of more than 50 executives who are seeking the referendum, want a complete debate about the issues around merging the cities.

“We are at one of those turning points in the history of our community,” Klugman said.

Tim Jackson, co-founder of Tech Capital Partners; Tom Jenkins, executive chair of Open Text; and Dave Caputo, president of Sandvine are among the high-tech leaders who signed the open letter to the mayors and councillors in Kitchener and Waterloo. Other business and arts leaders include Mike Milloy of Gateman-Milloy Inc., architect Roger Farwell, lawyer Jamie Martin, architect Sunshine Chen and Centre in the Square general manager Jamie Grant.

“We would be thrilled with getting this question on the ballot and then groups and individuals will emerge and participate in the discussion . . . ,” Klugman said.

tpender@therecord.com

http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/653724 (http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/653724)


The fact that we need provincial approval worries me a little bit.

I understand why they've shied away from the amalgamation issue. Its a negative thing associated with the Harris regime that a lot of communities were forced to do. That's not the case here though. We are bringing up the issue. We are asking to TALK about the issue. It isn't a provincially mandated issue, but one that we are chosing to talk about on our own. This is something they should let happen.

[Spokes]

Kitchener and Waterloo merger generates a lot of talk at city celebration

January 10, 2010
By Kevin Swayze, Record staff

WATERLOO REGION — Merging with Kitchener was the hot topic at the City of Waterloo’s annual celebration of civic pride.

“Amalgamation is the big thing,” said Mayor Brenda Halloran, at the end of the council’s New Year’s Levee at RIM Park.

One after another, taxpayers asked Halloran about new suggestions to start talks with Kitchener about a marriage. After three hours, she estimated at least 50 people quizzed her about proposals from a business lobby group to begin the process with a referendum question in the October city vote.

Many of the questions came from people who feared amalgamation was already a done deal. It’s not, Halloran said.

“What the concern is for me is the misunderstanding. That tells me we need better communication as to what the question is.”

Local high-tech executives plan to be at meetings of both Waterloo and Kitchener city councils Mondayasking that the province put a question to voters Oct. 25: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No.”

Halloran supports a referendum question about starting merger talks — and wants another referendum if there’s ever a detailed plan to make it happen. She wants to hear the opinion of taxpayers.

“I think we should definitely have referendums for questions this big,” she said.

More than 1,000 people attended the annual Waterloo city party. Free skating, musical and dance entertainment, face painting, coffee and snacks, were offered, along with a chance to buttonhole council members.

Naomi Furmston of Waterloo was standing in line to get a balloon animal tied for her son. She hadn’t heard of the merger suggestion, but likes the idea.

“When you go to Elmira to swim, you pay a non-resident fee. When you go to Kitchener to skate, you pay a non-resident fee . . . and you only live 10 minutes away in Waterloo,” she said.

Many people — like her, she said — already think of Kitchener and Waterloo as a single city.

“I don’t see any huge difference,” said Max Gwynn, of Waterloo.

“When I tell people I’m from Waterloo, I sometimes say I’m from Kitchener-Waterloo.”

Even so, he wasn’t ready to support the idea without hearing research and arguments for and against the change. He likes Waterloo as it is.

Already, Gwynn has tongue-in-cheek family talks over the breakfast table about what to call a new, amalgamated city.

“We said things like Kitcheloo, or K-Dub,” he said.

Barb Gaul already thinks of Kitchener-Waterloo as one city, but her husband is dead-set against amalgamation. They live in Waterloo.

“Kitchener has its traditions. Waterloo has its traditions. What sense is there in merging them?” said Bill Gaul.

There are more important referendum questions to be asking: like if most people support spending $800 million on a light rail transit system. He’s sure most people don’t.

“It’s one city,” said Naibin Sun, of Waterloo.

He lived in Kitchener until five years ago and doesn’t see much difference between the two cities — except that Kitchener’s roads are in better shape.

Outside Kitchener city hall, there was also support for merger talks.

Sonya Taha hadn’t heard about revived discussions about local government mergers when asked by The Record. The idea, however, appealed to her as she waited to skate with her children on the outdoor rink.

“I think it should be done, because I consider K-W one city. I don’t think there’s a big difference.”

Nathan Gwinn of Kitchener said politicians should get on with the obvious improvement.

“It should have happened a long time ago,” he said.

“There is no dividing line between the two cities. Just the signs.”

Atie Muller of Kitchener wouldn’t miss having two mayors and two councils running the urban area she moved to nine years ago.

“I do like amalgamation, definitely,” she said. “What difference is there?”

kswayze@therecord.com

http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/654242 (http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/654242)

I for one am like a number of the people in this article. I don't see a real difference between the two cities, so I'd like to see them joined. If the province says no to letting us vote on this issue, I'll be extremely upset. They're essentially saying we shouldn't have any say in our own future. The same thing goes for if people say no to TALKS. That is simply not allowing different options to be heard.

[Spokes]

Here's a copy of the letter that was circulated to the two councils:


As Kitchener and Waterloo emerge from the recession and we look to the future, we’re writing today to request an opportunity for our community to engage in a discussion about how best to prepare ourselves for ongoing sustainability and prosperity, by taking stock of our unique strengths and building on our unique opportunities.

Over the past few decades, the socioeconomic dimensions of our community have changed considerably. Once small villages, our combined population today approaches 400,000 citizens. As an urban centre we’re considered one of the fastest-growing and most economically diverse in Canada. We have enjoyed long-term success in advanced manufacturing, insurance, automotive and financial services, while our burgeoning technology sector has achieved international recognition and been identified as a leading economic growth engine. Our universities, college and major research centres are award-winning institutions. We have one of the youngest median populations in Canada, one of the largest new immigrant populations in Canada, and a well supported entrepreneurial culture.

Our collective story of hard work, innovation and multiculturalism provides a strong foundation for opportunity. And yet, in having two separately branded cities, uncertainties about our future remain:

Have we created the opportunity for confusion, or competition, rather than endorsement, support, camaraderie and growth? Do arbitrary geographic divisions here make sense in an increasingly global economy? Have we truly considered how to best leverage our assets to ensure ongoing quality of life? How effective is our community messaging to regional, provincial and national audiences? Are we maximizing our potential for provincial and national funding, and for investment attraction? Is our current twin city structure the right plan for ensuring a sustainable and prosperous future?

Past efforts to address these questions have yielded no conclusive community viewpoint, because the discussion has never properly begun. The only way to have this important conversation about our future is to give it the attention it requires, warrants, and deserves — by asking the Province of Ontario to create the environment required for effective dialogue and debate through posing a direct question to the people of both Cities during the 2010 municipal election.

To that end, we urge the councils of Kitchener and Waterloo to pass a resolution that will set the stage for this important conversation; one that asks the province to place a question on the municipal ballot in the 2010 election that asks:

Would you support members of Council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the Cities of Kitchener and Waterloo?” Yes or No.

We’re asking for your support to have this conversation; so that the people of this community can come together to effectively frame our own future.

Respectfully,

Dave Caputo, lain Klugman, Mary Bales, Aggie Beynon, Hulene Montgomery, David Strucke, John Whitney, John Baker, Larry Blundell, Cameron Hay, Stephen Basco, Carol Leaman, Dave Bullock, Dennis Watson, Ginny Dybenko, Don Bourgeois, Sunshine Chen, Dennis Grimm, Gerry Remers, Peter Sweeney, Peter Barr, Greg Barratt, Alan Quarry, Mike Milloy, Randy Fowlie, Ray Simonson, Mary D’Alton, Tim Jackson, Jamie Martin, Tom Jenkins,Brian Doody, Steve Bryant, Jan Varner, Brad Marsland, Howard Armitage, David Kruis, Marc Morin, Savvas Chamberlain, Yvan Couture, Rick Stroobosscher, Joan Fisk, Roger Farwell, Bruce Gordon, Eugene Moser, Steve Farlow, Jamie Grant, Murray Gamble, Jacqui Murphy, Mark Bingeman, Andrew Bass, David Fedy, Tom Beynon, Andrew Abouchar, Rosemary Smith, Ken Coates, Len Ruby, David Petras, Neil Aitchison, David Marskell, Rod Foster, Phil Deck, Joseph Fung, Ted Hastings, Jane Jantzi, Jim Stirtzinger, Frank Boutzis.
http://news.therecord.com/Opinions/Editorials/article/653419 (http://news.therecord.com/Opinions/Editorials/article/653419)

[Spokes]

A good editorial from Saturday:


A timely call for merger talks

January 09, 2010

An old word has roared back into Waterloo Region for a new decade and with lots of new twists. The word is amalgamation. But before you groan that we’ve been there and tried that too many times with too much aggravation, look what’s on the table and who put it there.

Instead of trying to roll the region’s eight governments into one — which has been unsuccessfully tried — today’s advocates of change are putting their energies into merging just Kitchener and Waterloo.

It’s a new generation and a new group of community leaders, in large part from our high-tech sector, in the driver’s seat this time. One of the generals leading the charge is Tim Jackson, a founder of Tech Capital Partners and vice-chair of the University of Waterloo Research + Technology Park Accelerator Centre. Instead of building their case on saving tax dollars, Jackson and his colleagues are arguing that one larger, merged city will have a bigger voice and make a greater splash in the globalized economy than two smaller communities frantically competing against each other.

It’s too soon to know what this plan would mean and if it’s the right fit for the people of Kitchener and Waterloo, as well as their fellow citizens of Waterloo Region. It’s not too soon to applaud the 52-people who have signed a letter calling for a referendum this fall to empower the two cities to hold merger talks. Nor is it premature to say that the municipal ballots in Kitchener and Waterloo in this October’s municipal elections should include the following question.

“Would you support the members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No?’’

This referendum, with these words, should proceed. The councils of Kitchener and Waterloo should endorse the referendum. The government of Ontario, which has the final say, should approve it. Then, let democracy rule and the voters of these two cities decide. While the provincial Liberals have not encouraged municipal amalgamations since taking power six years ago, they have consistently affirmed that they will listen and respond to local requests for change. So for now, the Liberals should listen, and help the people of Kitchener and Waterloo plan their future.

For more than 150 years these two communities have been hamlets, villages, towns and cities living side-by-side and gradually growing into each other to the extent that you need a sign or a map to tell you when you’ve left Waterloo and entered Kitchener. People across Canada refer to Kitchener-Waterloo even though, officially speaking, such a hyphenated entity doesn’t exist.

Many people live in one of the cities but work in the other; Waterloo citizens use Kitchener’s libraries, catch a concert at Kitchener’s Centre in the Square or cheer the Rangers at the Kitchener Aud. Citizens of Kitchener play at Waterloo’s RIM Park, take a course at one of Waterloo’s universities or shop in Waterloo’s downtown. In many day-to-day practical ways, the two cities already act like one.

On its own, a merged Kitchener-Waterloo wouldn’t become Utopia. A merged city would still be the lower tier in a regional municipality where the regional government still spends most of the money and would deliver many of the most important services, such as policing, public transit, water and sewage treatment and social services. Moreover, a merged Kitchener-Waterloo could upset the delicate balance between the northern and southern parts of the region and leave a disgruntled Cambridge feeling alienated.

The proponents of amalgamation contend that a city of nearly 400,000 people would command more attention in Canada and around the world than two smaller cities both vying for government grants and corporate investments. As a single city, with a diverse and rapidly growing population as well as a diversified economy with a surging high-tech sector, a merged Kitchener-Waterloo could aspire to become a respected and recognized player in the global economy.

Other benefits of a merger are easy to see. Several years ago, Kitchener and Waterloo briefly explored co-operating with their library services and teaming up to build a grand, main library branch to serve both communities in this information age. The idea went nowhere; each city pursued more modest improvements to their libraries. And each threw away the opportunity to better serve its citizens in this information age. There is a strong argument that a united Kitchener and Waterloo could provide stronger support to the arts community and deliver to the public stronger cultural and recreational services.

But perhaps we run ahead of ourselves. It is a new year, a new decade. It is the right time to look at the world and our little part of it in new ways. Hurray for the people calling for the Twin Cities to become the one city. Let the conversation, let the debate begin. And let the will of the people be done.
http://news.therecord.com/Opinions/Editorials/article/653578 (http://news.therecord.com/Opinions/Editorials/article/653578)

[Spokes]

Kitchener ready to put merger talks on ballot; Waterloo not so sure

January 11, 2010
By Terry Pender, Record staff

WATERLOO REGION — When it comes to talking about amalgamation, Kitchener says “yes” while Waterloo says “maybe.”

City councillors in Kitchener voted Monday in favour of holding a referendum in this fall’s municipal elections on whether to hold talks aimed at merging the two cities.

“This is an opportunity for citizens to really give a clear indication about their beliefs and their direction on this dialogue,” Coun. Berry Vrbanovic said Monday.

But Waterloo city councillors have a lot of questions about holding a referendum and asked staff to file a report for the meeting scheduled for Jan. 25.

“I think we need to give it some time,” Waterloo Mayor Brenda Halloran said at the end of a two-hour discussion that included several public delegations opposed to a referendum.

In a presentation to Waterloo city council, Tim Jackson, the president of Tech Capital Partners, said now is an appropriate time to ask the voters of both cities if they want their municipal councils to talk about a possible merger.

Jackson is among a group of businesspeople trying to kick start the issue of merging Kitchener and Waterloo. The group wants the councils in both cities to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs for permission to put a question on this fall’s municipal election ballots.

The question: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No.”

The Minister of Municipal Affairs, Jim Watson, does not have to put the question on the ballot. The cities can only ask.

“It would be tough for the minister to ignore the will of two elected councils,” Jackson said to Waterloo city council.

Among the Waterloo residents opposed to the move is Jeff Henry, who told Waterloo city council a referendum would only build and solidify divisions.

“I don’t think a plebiscite is the right approach to this matter,” Henry said.

Added Stan Rektor: “I think council should do the right thing and drop this issue.”

And former Waterloo city councillor Mike Connolly said: “Can you honestly say you’ve been approached by many people on this subject?”

John Dietrich, the president of the Waterloo firefighters union, told councillors the amalgamation of cities failed just about everywhere it was tried.

“It is very disruptive,” Dietrich said.

Coun. Angela Veith wanted to end the issue yesterday, making it clear she is opposed to a merger or even talking about one.

“I don’t believe individual taxpayers will be better served,” Veith said.

Iain Klugman, the president of Communitech, appeared before Kitchener’s finance committee Monday asking councillors to support putting the question on the ballot.

“This will trigger the kind of debate and discussion this issue warrants,” Klugman said.

Coun. John Gazzola was the only member of Kitchener city council to vote against the referendum.

“I have been on council eight years and I don’t know if I have had three people ask me if we should be amalgamating or merging — that’s not a hot issue,” Gazzola said.

Years ago, Gazzola moved a motion at council seeking information from the province about the benefits and costs associated with the merger of other cities. The province never responded.

“It’s not really a burning issue in a lot of places,” Gazzola said.

Coun. Kelly Galloway said the referendum is about holding discussions on merging the cities.

“Ultimately the outcome will either be ‘yes,’ or ‘no,’” Galloway said. “It will open the door or it will close the door. If it closes the door it will be closed for a really long time.”

Coun. Geoff Lorentz, said it is important to take another serious look at the issue of merging the Twin Cities.

“We have chased this thing so many times, in so many different ways, but we really haven’t had a mandate,” Lorentz said. “I think this is a real opportunity to let the people speak, let’s hear what they have to say. I really do see it as a barometer.”

Cambridge council also talked about the Kitchener-Waterloo merger referendum question Monday night.

“I wish them all the luck,” said Coun. Ben Tucci. “I look at the motions and question why they don’t ask the real question. Put a question on about amalgamation of K-W and I suspect the answer would come back as a resounding ‘No.’ At least in Waterloo.”

Mayor Doug Craig said he wants Cambridge to stay out of the Kitchener-Waterloo debate, but said “I think we will have to take some steps” if the referendum gets provincial approval.

He refused to say what Cambridge could do if the referendum goes ahead. He rejects putting a merger question on the Cambridge ballot, to counter a K-W question.

“I don’t want this to blow up into an issue down here,” he said.

Craig fears a combined Kitchener-Waterloo would have a majority of votes on Waterloo Regional council — to the detriment of Cambridge and the townships.

Craig said a referendum question isn’t needed for cities to investigate cross-border issues like amalgamation.

“You don’t need a vote to start talking about it,” Craig said.

With files from Kevin Swayze, Record staff

tpender@therecord.com

http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/654895 (http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/654895)

[Spokes]

The cities are discussing it. We can have our own little poll.

What do you think? Should Kitchener and Waterloo engage in Amalgamation talks?

[Spokes]

Slow down!
Council puts brakes on rush to put amalgamation question on ballot

By Greg MacDonald, Chronicle Staff
Jan 13, 2010

A push for Waterloo council to put an amalgamation question on next fall’s ballot was met with a resounding “maybe” from city councillors.

Council was reluctant to throw its full support behind the proposition, which was brought forward by members of the local high-tech and business communities.

Instead, they delayed their decision two weeks in order to get more information and more input from the general public.

“I think it’s important for us and for the public to see a staff report and make comment,” said Coun. Ian McLean.

Kitchener council, meanwhile, supported the motion and will request the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing put the question on the ballot.

The amalgamation issue, which was last pronounced dead last January after the Citizens for Better Government released a report recommending merging the entire region. It was resurrected unexpectedly last week.

A request was put forward by a group that wants the amalgamation question answered once and for all.

Tim Jackson, a partner with Tech Capital Partners, believes the reason the issue has gone flat so many times is that there was never an endgame in view.

“Waterloo and Kitchener are great cities and as we come out of the recession, we feel it’s an appropriate time to ask the citizens of both cities to contemplate what we could be if we came together,” he said.

“Having a plebiscite allows the community to have nine or 10 months to debate with an absolute outcome at the end.”

Jackson suggested a question that would allow for amalgamation discussions to begin, but wouldn’t lead to amalgamation outright. That caused some confusion.

“We don’t have control of the question anyway,” said Coun. Scott Witmer. “The (ministry) could change it to say amalgamation, yes or no.”

Council was split on whether to allow the referendum. There were also questions about whether the province would allow it to take place.

Complicating the matter was the fact that councillors and staff would not be allowed to comment or provide information on the question.

That’s because, like in the recent decision on the fluoride plebiscite, provincial law prohibits the city from taking a stand.

That led some councillors to wonder how people would make a decision.

“How can people make a decision if they can’t get the information?” wondered Coun. Diane Freeman.

Coun. Angela Vieth hasn’t heard any hue and cry for amalgamation.

“I have not had any calls from constituents asking to assimilate their Waterloo with Kitchener,” she said.

“I don’t think anyone gains from reduced representation and I don’t think the taxpayers benefit from increased bureaucracy.”

But Coun. Mark Whaley thinks this is a question that finally needs a resolution.

“For the six years I’ve been sitting on council, the amalgamation question has hung over the community like a dense fog that doesn’t allow any sun,” he said. If a question was allowed, there could be some relief, he added.

The public was also split on the matter, with the representation at Monday’s council meeting tipping closer to the nays than the yays.

“I’ve been through this before,” said former regional councillor Mike Connolly. “There’s no public appetite to revive the subject of amalgamation.

“We’re still in a recession . . . now is not the time to get sidetracked.”

But the fact that there is such a wide variety of perspectives on amalgamation is precisely why the cities need a vote, Jackson said.

“We need an answer,” he said.

Councillors voted to return to the matter in two weeks.

Whatever the outcome, the debate will be lively and long, Whaley said.

“I’ll see you in two weeks,” he said. “I’m bringing my sleeping bag and pillow.”

http://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news/article/199588 (http://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news/article/199588)

[Spokes]

“How can people make a decision if they can’t get the information?” wondered Coun. Diane Freeman.

They will have to educate themselves. They will have to find information on their own and make an educated decision rather than being spoon fed information. Exactly what SHOULD happen in an election.

[Spokes]

Minister rarely agrees to referendum questions

January 12, 2010
By Terry Pender, Record staff

WATERLOO REGION — Time is on their side.

Waterloo city councillors stalled the latest push for merger talks by calling for a detailed report about asking the Minister of Municipal Affairs to place a question on the ballot for this fall’s municipal elections in the Twin Cities.

A group of more than 60 businesspeople wants councillors in both cities to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs to place the following question on the ballot for the Oct. 25 elections: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No.”

City councillors in Kitchener voted in favour of the move on Monday, but Waterloo councillors asked for a staff report that is scheduled to come back for a meeting on Jan. 25.

“I was pleased with the thoughtfulness that council gave to this important question,” Iain Klugman, president of Communitech, said. “We have some time.”

Klugman said the group of businesspeople does not view the move as a set back.

“Not at all, these are important matters that really deserve the consideration,” Klugman said.

When the Minister of Municipal Affairs is being asked to place the question on the ballot, the deadline is not until Sept. 1.

Kitchener and Waterloo need the minister to place the question because municipal mergers are the sole jurisdiction of the provincial government. City councillors are forbidden from holding referendums related to negotiations, consideration or investigation of municipal restructuring.

When a city council is holding a referendum on an issue within its own authority, such as fluoridation of drinking water, the ballot question is to be made public at least 180 days before election day—that is sometime in April.

In all municipal election referendums, the city must give at least 10 days notice that it intends to adopt a question for the ballot. The city must provide a neutral description of the consequences of adopting or rejecting the question and an estimate of the costs for implementing the results.

After all that, nobody can be held to the results because “a minister’s question can’t bind anybody,” Peter-John Sidebottom, the local government adviser at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, said.

It is very rare for a city to seek permission from the minister for a referendum.

“As far as I know there is only one question the minister himself has placed on a ballot anywhere,” Sidebottom said. “That was in Kawartha Lakes and it had to do with dissolving Kawartha Lakes as it exists today and reverting back to the 16 municipalities it used to be.”

The Town of Ajax held a referendum in the municipal elections of November 2000 on a proposed amalgamation with Pickering. Ajax did so without the province’s permission too.

“You have to look at how the Act is written and how our question was worded,” Marty de Rond, the clerk for the Town of Ajax, said. “We drafted our question to make it a matter of our own council’s authority.”

The referendum question in Ajax read: “Are you in favour of the Town of Ajax initiating negotiations on amalgamation with the City of Pickering?”

“Could the question be challenged? Yes. Would it be successfully challenged? I think that’s debatable. Did the province care to challenge it or anybody else? No,” said de Rond.

The vote in Ajax in November 2000—71 per cent opposed and 29 per cent in favour.

De Rond said nobody has raised the subject of amalgamation since that vote.

tpender@therecord.com

http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/655529 (http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/655529)

So wait...do we actually have to formally ask the province now? Or could we do it on our own like Ajax did?

[Spokes]

K-W merger could work, critic says
January 15, 2010 | Terry Pender, Record Staff | http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/656855

KITCHENER — One of the most vocal critics of forced municipal amalgamations believes a voluntary merger of Kitchener and Waterloo deserves a close look.

“If it were approved in both places that would be an example of a voluntary amalgamation, of which we don’t have many recent examples in Canada, and it would make it different from all the others,” Andrew Sancton, a University of Western Ontario political scientist, said.

Sancton wrote a booked called Merger Mania, which was published in 2000, that was very critical of the forced amalgamations in cities such as Sudbury, Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal.

Those forced amalgamations resulted in increased debt for the cities to pay for the cost of the shotgun mergers — $30 million to create the City of Greater Sudbury and $100 million to create an expanded City of Ottawa. Taxes were increased and some services reduced. The efficiencies and savings touted by the former Ontario government of then-premier Mike Harris never materialized.

But Sancton notes there are big differences here.

Firstly and most importantly, the merger would be voluntary and based on a referendum held in both cities during the Oct. 25 municipal elections.

Secondly, Sancton said you have to compare the level of services provided in both cities, the wages for municipal employees in both cities and the salaries of administrators. If all of those are roughly equal then a merger could be effected that does not result in large tax increases for some property owners.

“The key thing is they are both urban areas, you are not trying to put together urban and rural and widely disparate communities,” Sancton said.

“Of all the proposals I have heard about in recent years this one potentially makes the most sense,” Sancton said. “I am not saying it is bound to succeed or anything, but there is a certain logic to it. I don’t quite understand what has kept Kitchener and Waterloo apart for so long.”

A group of more than 60 leading businesspeople is calling for a referendum in this fall’s municipal elections. The question: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No.”

City councillors voted to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs for permission to hold the referendum. Waterloo councillors are waiting for a staff report on the issue before voting on it. The minister must place the question on the ballot because municipal mergers are the sole jurisdiction of the provincial government.

“It’s a bit hard for me to understand why anybody would be opposed to having a vote or referendum on the question,” Sancton said.

Sancton stresses his opposition in the past has been to amalgamations forced on cities by provincial governments, some of which brought together urban areas with small towns and rural townships with varying levels of services and taxation.

“I don’t think there are examples of forced, legislated mergers that lead to any significant savings and certainly most of them lead to excess costs, new costs and problems and splits between urban and rural areas,” Sancton said.

“I would think a merger between Kitchener and Waterloo would have fewer of the pitfalls than other places have experienced,” Sancton said.

About 15 years ago there was a referendum held in two cities in British Columbia—Abbotsford and Matsqui. The voters in both jurisdictions voted in favour of amalgamation. They also voted in the same referendum to call the united city Abbotsford, which is 80 kilometres east of Vancouver on the Fraser River.

“I think it has been a marvelous success,” Abbotsford Mayor George Peary said. “We are now a vibrant city of 135,000. We are British Columbia’s fifth largest city.”

Abbotsford was about one quarter the size of its sister city prior to amalgamation. Taxes there went up by 25 per cent over five years following amalgamation, but the residents got access to a modern water system.

Prior to amalgamation both cities shared a fire, library and recreation services. But each had its own council, mayor and local administration.

“My sense is very few people would revert back to the former way,” Peary said. “We are stronger and better because of the courageous steps taken by the taxpayers and the few politicians who were prepared to say, ‘We can work better as one.’ ”

[Spokes]

Anti-merger advocate sees ‘a certain logic’ to marriage of Kitchener, Waterloo
January 16, 2010 | Jeff Outhit, Record Staff | http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/657482

WATERLOO REGION — Politicians expressed delight and dismay after a leading antimerger expert said it may make sense to merge Kitchener and Waterloo.

Political scientist Andrew Sancton sees a “certain logic” to a voluntary local merger. “I don’t quite understand what has kept Kitchener and Waterloo apart for so long,” said Sancton, a University of Western Ontario professor.

Sancton has long criticized forced municipal mergers as costly failures, and he’s uncertain whether a local merger will succeed. But he struggles to understand why anybody would oppose a proposed October referendum, asking the public to endorse merger talks.

The referendum has been endorsed by Kitchener council and is under review by Waterloo council. Here’s how key players reacted:

• Kitchener Mayor Carl Zehr, who favours a merger: “In an ironic way, Mr. Sancton has perhaps helped the discussion, because people will say, ‘Well, maybe it is right, maybe some people are right that this is one of the most logical ones to occur.’ . . . It encourages me.”

• Waterloo Mayor Brenda Halloran, who favours a referendum: “I think that’s a really positive sign. I think that it shows that people should be willing to revisit issues. I think people should be really encouraged to be open-minded, to really think it through.”

• Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig, who opposes a merger: “I think the interpretation is very clear. Mergers are bad, but if you have to go any particular route, this particular situation would be the least of all the evils. I don’t personally see any logic in it.”

• Entrepreneur Tim Jackson, speaking for business leaders who propose a referendum: “You’ve got people on both sides of the issue saying this is something worth having a conversation about. When someone like that comes out and says, ‘There may be some merit one way or the other,’ it’s definitely time for his conversation to happen.”

• Waterloo Coun. Karen Scian, who opposes a referendum: “He’s talking about a completely hypothetical situation because we’re not allowed to merge as cities, without the province doing it. There’s no concept of voluntary merger involved in these conversations. So what he’s saying really I don’t think applies to our situation.”

• Waterloo Coun. Jan d’Ailly, who’s undecided on a referendum: “I think it’s another piece of information. Certainly, if you have two very, very like cities and they’re on their own, you could certainly see where he comes from. However, I think we have to look at it in terms of the context of Waterloo Region as a whole.”

• Waterloo Coun. Mark Whaley, who favours a referendum: “He says himself, first of all, this is a time for the citizens to be asked. This is one of the few cases where the citizens are actually being asked. And I think that’s really positive. And might lead to a conclusion that has buy-in by the residents going in.”

[Spokes]

Opposition already forming to amalgamation push

By Greg MacDonald, Chronicle Staff
Jan 20, 2010

No matter what the city decides next week when weighing whether or not to hold a referendum on amalgamation, the debate is already raging in the community.

No one’s more aware of that than Coun. Karen Scian, who has been polling her constituents for their views on joining with Kitchener.

Kitchener already plans to ask the province to put a question on the ballot in the spring and Waterloo council will decide Monday whether to endorse that process.

The results of Scian’s poll have been mixed to say the least. She sent out an e-mail to 150 people asking for their views, and figures she’s heard every opinion in the spectrum.

“It’s given me a lot to think about,” Scian said. “It’s illuminating how divergent opinions are on this.”

Scian has been posting responses on her blog at kscian.wordpress.com .

They range from the adamant — “My answer is emphatically — YES!” to “NO for me,” to anywhere in between.

Some highlights:

• “I am not opposed to having the question asked. I think Waterloo will vote overwhelmingly no and then we can put this to rest.”

• “I do not believe in the near future that Waterlooians will say Yes to amalgamation while Kitchener will always want amalgamation.”

• “I have been following this and am of the opinion it needs to be studied.”

• “I am wondering who the ‘Community leaders’ are? I know the business people behind the idea are only interested in business ventures getting more of a profile instead of the well-being of Waterloo. What is in it for Waterloo?”

• “All else being equal (e. g. I don’t feel I know what pros and cons would a merger bring), I feel normally bigger is better in terms of capacity to deliver services and efficiency to do it. For this overall reason, I feel looking more into a merger is a good idea and to not consider it further would be crazy.”

For the rest, see Scian’s blog.

Scian has received just under 40 responses

and she’s hoping to get more before Monday’s decision.

But the responses so far have already cleared up one of Scian’s concern, which was the lack of an organized opposition.

The amalgamation debate was brought back into the forefront by a group of businesspeople fronted by high-tech leader Tim Jackson.

Scian expressed concern that special interest groups would dominate any debate.

But the emergence of the website onewaterloo.ca has proven there will be at least two sides if an amalgamation question is asked.

The site was launched Sunday as an alternative, grassroots voice for the issue. It is clearly opposed to amalgamation and beseeches visitors to “Keep Waterloo Independent.”

The people behind the site declined an interview with the Chronicle.

But for Scian, their presence is reassuring.

“I’m starting to see the benefit of putting a question on the ballot,” she said.

Councillors will debate asking the amalgamation question during Monday’s council meeting, 6:30 p. m. in council chambers. To register as a delegation, contact the city clerk’s office.

http://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news/article/200201 (http://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news/article/200201)

[Spokes]

Glad to see she's getting in touch with people and making their voices public. Wish we saw more of that from councilors.

We need a big loud voice from the pro-amalgamation people at council.

[Ktown4ever]

Anyone know if this group that is pushing for the referendum question have a website?

[Spokes]

Anyone know if this group that is pushing for the referendum question have a website?

Not sure. But they should.
It's just a group of business people not really an official group.

[Greg Moore]

Found a link to an anti-amalgamation group. Interestingly, it appeared as a link while I was looking at my gMail inbox. I guess these people like spending their money on things like government waste. :)

http://onewaterloo.ca/
(http://onewaterloo.ca/)
http://www.damnimfunny.com/propagandaisfun.jpg

I find it humorous that there are no names on the "about" page and they use a gmail address. Way to step up a notch with integrity.

[Spokes]

The groups opposing all the things we want always unite and get their voice out there. People in favour of this need to do the same. There needs to be a counter movement to OneWaterloo

[Spokes]

Vote on merger referendum too close to call

January 22, 2010
By Terry Pender, Record staff

WATERLOO — The vote will be too close to call at Monday’s meeting of Waterloo city council on the question of holding a referendum on merger talks between the Twin Cities.

That’s the word from Coun. Mark Whaley, who expects a long list of residents opposed to a referendum to make presentations at Monday’s meeting.

“It may be defeated. What we are going to have is a passionate group on Monday night come and let us know what’s on their minds,” Whaley said.

“My understanding is that a lot people who are making a presentation will recommend that we don’t put this on the ballot,” Whaley said.

A group of more than 60 business leaders wants both Kitchener and Waterloo to seek permission from the Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs to hold a referendum in this fall’s municipal elections. The proposed question: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No?”

Kitchener city council has already voted in favour of the move. Waterloo city council asked for a report from staff.

That report, which was delivered to Waterloo city councillors yesterday, says a referendum would cost very little, perhaps less than $5,000, would not be binding on anyone, that only the provincial government can place the question on the ballot because municipal restructuring is its jurisdiction and that a question from the Minister of Municipal Affairs must be given to the city clerk by June 1.

Whaley, who has supported the call for a referendum, said he will listen carefully to the delegations at Monday’s meeting.

“I know where I stand today,” Whaley said. “I could be convinced otherwise by the presentation Monday night, I am not going into it close-minded.”

Whaley added: “Why can’t we have the entire community have their say on the issue by putting the question on the ballot?”

Coun. Diane Freeman said she is listening to what her constituents have to say about the issue.

“I would say I received about three emails saying: ‘Please give some consideration to putting the question out so people can answer.’ And I have probably received in excess of one hundred emails asking me not to do that,” Freeman said.

Tim Jackson, of Tech Capital Partners, is among the business people calling for the referendum.

Jackson said the staff report prepared for Waterloo city council essentially confirms what the group believes.

“That ultimately, at the end of the day, the minister is the one making the decision and the cost to the city to do this is nominal,” Jackson said.

“My sense is some of the councillors are still trying to get information and as recently as today spent time with some of them,” Jackson said.

“Some are solidly on board, some are still trying to make up their mind, and I think that in some cases we are making the argument that letting the people have a say is a way to get a final answer on this,” Jackson said.

“I am still optimistic that come Monday night council will ultimately let the citizens actually have a say as to whether they want this to move ahead or not,” Jackson said.

tpender@therecord.com

http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/660568 (http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/660568)

[Spokes]

Im going to be a bit upset if this doesn't pass. They need to put it to a referendum. Just hearing from delegations in council does not give a true feeling of what the people of KW actually want. Let all those able, vote on it. If they say no, so be it, if yes, then move forward.

[Spokes]

If people want to get in touch with Waterloo councilors and the Mayor they can (and should) send an email in support of amalgamation from here: http://www.playsinc.com/waterloo

[Duke-of-Waterloo]

You know, ironically enough, the website onewaterloo sounds like it is pro amalgamation. The "one" in my mind refers to a single municipality for the two cities.

[UrbanWaterloo]

Waterloo votes down merger question
By Brent Davis, Record staff - January 25, 2010
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/662204

WATERLOO — The prospect of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo may have died Monday night with Waterloo council’s decision not to ask for a referendum on the issue.

After hearing from several delegations — most of whom spoke against the idea — and speaking passionately about the issue themselves, councillors ultimately defeated the motion in a recorded vote.

A group of more than 60 local business and community leaders asked Waterloo and Kitchener to seek permission from the provincial Minister of Municipal Affairs to hold a referendum in this fall’s municipal elections.

The question the group proposed is: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No?”

Kitchener council has already voted in favour of the move.

Two weeks ago, Waterloo asked for more time to consider the issue. Last night, Mayor Brenda Halloran and councillors Mark Whaley and Ian McLean voted for the motion. Voting against were councillors Scott Witmer, Jan d’Ailly, Karen Scian, Angela Vieth, and Diane Freeman.

Freeman said the issue had been considered and rejected several times in the past, and only served to divide the community.

“We say things about each other that are hurtful and that are destructive,” she said.

Halloran, on the other hand, said it was necessary for the citizens of Waterloo to have their say.

“How do we move forward if we don’t allow people to have a voice?” she asked.

Prior to the vote, council heard from several members of the public.

“There is no groundswell of support from either the citizens of Kitchener or Waterloo,” argued Stan Rektor.

Several people voiced their concerns about differences between the two cities, especially when it comes to conflicting approaches to environmental preservation and urban development.

Rosemary Smith, executive director of the Kitchener and Waterloo Community Foundation, and a member of the group advocating for merger talks, had urged council to pass the motion.

“I believe it is a discussion we must enter into in earnest,” she said. “Help us set the stage for an important conversation about our future.”

After the vote, Smith expressed her disappointment with the results, but said there was still work to be done.

“The citizens of Waterloo have not yet spoken, and until they do, I think it’s still alive.”

[Spokes]

That's a real shame. I was hoping they'd let the people vote on this, not the small number that spoke at council or the small number that emailed their opinions, but everyone.

I hope Rosemary Smith is right that it's not dead, but I fear she's wrong.

[Greg Moore]

The frustrating thing to me was watching the news last night it was a train of 70 year old, or older citizens who were opposed. Guess what people? By the time any kind of meaningful amalgamation would get passed the drawing board, you'll be to old for it to affect your life.


Stodgy curmudgeons ftw. :mad:

[Spokes]

The frustrating thing to me was watching the news last night it was a train of 70 year old, or older citizens who were opposed. Guess what people? By the time any kind of meaningful amalgamation would get passed the drawing board, you'll be to old for it to affect your life.


Stodgy curmudgeons ftw. :mad:

It is, for the most part, the older people that express their opinion on a regular basis. People in younger generations need to do the same thing in large numbers

[Spokes]

Group will continue to push for KW municipal merger talks

January 27, 2010
By Terry Pender, Record staff

WATERLOO REGION — The group calling for a referendum on merger talks between Kitchener and Waterloo has no intention of giving up.

The latest push for municipal merger talks was staggered by Waterloo city council’s vote on Monday against holding a referendum on the issue in this fall’s municipal elections.

“More than anything we were disappointed with the outcome,” said Iain Klugman, a spokesperson for more than 60 businesses and community leaders who signed an open letter to the city councils in Kitchener and Waterloo calling for a referendum on merger talks.

A few weeks earlier, Kitchener city council had voted in favour of asking the provincial Minister of Municipal Affairs for permission to hold a plebiscite. The province must put the question on the ballot because municipal restructuring is the sole preserve of Queen’s Park.

“This was such a tremendous opportunity for the citizens of Kitchener and Waterloo to have the opportunity to have their say on whether they wanted to dialogue on this issue, whether this issue is important,” Klugman said Tuesday.

The coalition of business and community leaders intends to regroup and develop a new strategy that keeps the issue alive.

When asked if the group would organize a public education campaign or perhaps run pro-amalgamation candidates in this fall’s municipal elections, Klugman would only say, “All options are on the table.”

“That’s what we are in the process of discussing — where do we go from here?” he said.

Since the letter by the pro-talks group was made public earlier this month, Klugman said the group has received widespread encouragement from people in both cities.

“More than ever people want to have a say,” Klugman said.

After Waterloo city council nixed the idea of a referendum, the group received dozens of emails and calls of support expressing disappointment and frustration, Klugman said.

“We absolutely have to continue on,” Klugman said. “We are considering all the options right now. We are going to have to a plan put together very shortly.”

Their proposed question for the referendum was: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No.”

Several delegations appeared at Waterloo city council on Monday speaking against a referendum on merger talks. Kitchener Mayor Carl Zehr said Waterloo council allowed itself to be persuaded by a handful of anti-referendum delegations that pale in comparison to the more than 60 community and business leaders in favour of merger talks.

And, some of the comments irked Zehr.

“I was stunned by the result,” Zehr said. “I was very disappointed and shocked by some of the negative attacks that were made on individuals and Kitchener specifically.”

The proposed referendum only asked about holding merger talks, not about whether the cities should be amalgamated — a key point that was lost in the debate, Zehr said.

tpender@therecord.com
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/662942 (http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/662942)

I think Zehr's last comment is dead on. I think so many people failed to realize what the referendum was truly about, that it's about talks NOT about actually amalgamating now.

[Spokes]

I got this email from Jan d'Aily last night. Im glad that he wants to still talk about the merger, but why would he vote against it then?



Yesterday City of Waterloo Council voted against moving forward on the referendum. There were about 16 delegations who spoke to many aspects of the issue.

In voting no, I made an alternative recommendation to establish a task force which will address the issues raised and start the dialogue that is needed.

A summary of my comments at Council are below. Please feel to contact me if you would like to discuss further.

When any 50 residents come and make a proposal to Council, it is Council’s job to evaluate the merits of the request, have an opportunity to have a discussion on the topic, and not to jump to conclusions. For the Record to suggest that this Council is not being responsible because it did make decision on a merger referendum question the same day the formal request was made for a merger proposal that is just 2 weeks old, shows just how divisive this debate can be.

There are many people who oppose a merger, and see discussion of the merits of a merger as the thin edge of the wedge to start down that path to somewhere they do not want to go.

Equally, there are many who support a merger and see a discussion on the merits of a merger as the thin edge of the wedge to start down that path they want to go.

Collectively, we have to step back, take a collective deep breath, listen to each other, and figure out a way to move forward to deal with these issues in a constructive manner.

This is what I have heard tonight and over the past few weeks and years

The business community feels that we can be greater than we already are. There are issues with branding and other things that don’t work well.

There are challenges with getting funding for the arts and sorting out funding priorities between the different municipalities.

A process for discussion is needed that leads to a conclusion

Participation in the Citizens for Better Government process overall was quite low.

There are many differences between Kitchener and Waterloo, and many shared services

What we need to do is undertake a process to have the discussion without any preconceived outcome. We need a process that is seen to be open and transparent, and without preconceived outcomes, and where everyone can feel free to discuss the issues without agendas. It is unrealistic to have that happen discussing the merits of a merger.

Therefore, instead of a referendum, I recommend that we set up a (region wide) task force with a mandate to:
1) Identify the pros and cons of the current governance model
2) What are the problem area
3) What are the choices and options

I undertook that I would put together a more formal description of the task force I the next couple of weeks and present it to Council. I am committed to ensure that this process will get to a conclusion.

With the process, we will be able to have a discussion about what the issues are, so that everyone can understand what the issues are, and balance them off against what works and what does not work. This can be a true community dialogue where understanding can develop, and solutions found.

It is on this basis that I did not support the motion presented.

I would me more than happy to discuss this process with you, and any further ideas on moving forward.

Jan


Might be worth taking him up on his offer and have a meeting with him and/or the media (like the Barrel Yards Roundtable last year). Could be beneficial having a group do it.

[mpd618]

I got this email from Jan d'Aily last night. Im glad that he wants to still talk about the merger, but why would he vote against it then?

The crux of the issue is that a referendum question (however the minister chooses to word it) may well be interpreted as a mandate to go forward with amalgamation in some fashion, and because it is a referendum question, councillors would have to withhold comment on the issue and staff would not be able to provide any details on the implications. The alternative is to have formal and informal discussions prior to a referendum of any kind -- and presumably then you could have a clear yes/no referendum.

[Spokes]

The crux of the issue is that a referendum question (however the minister chooses to word it) may well be interpreted as a mandate to go forward with amalgamation in some fashion, and because it is a referendum question, councillors would have to withhold comment on the issue and staff would not be able to provide any details on the implications. The alternative is to have formal and informal discussions prior to a referendum of any kind -- and presumably then you could have a clear yes/no referendum.

So you couldn't somehow ensure that the question is to be ONLY about talks? Or have it worded in a way that there isn't really much inturpretation available, have it be very clear.

That's something I was never clear on. So if the minister decided we'd hold a referendum, the topic of engaging in talks is 100% off limits for politicians to talk about?

[Spokes]

I think one of the reasons that d'Aily took the "stand" he did is that he didn't really take a stand. He voted against it, but is pushing to research and talk about it anyways. He knows with Halloran voting in favour of it, this is now a crucial election (http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/showthread.php/37-Region-of-Waterloo-Municipal-Elections-2010)issue. He's ensured he didn't alienate either side on this one by what is, in my mind, sitting on the fence.

[mpd618]

So you couldn't somehow ensure that the question is to be ONLY about talks? Or have it worded in a way that there isn't really much inturpretation available, have it be very clear.

That's something I was never clear on. So if the minister decided we'd hold a referendum, the topic of engaging in talks is 100% off limits for politicians to talk about?

I believe so. And the minister has sole control over wording.

[Spokes]

Council says ‘No!’ to merger question

By Greg MacDonald, Chronicle Staff
Jan 27, 2010

The amalgamation debate is dead again.

In a 5-3 vote on Monday, councillors rejected a request from a group headed by local high tech leaders to put the question of merging Kitchener and Waterloo on the ballot in the next municipal election.

The group wanted the city to ask the provincial Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to put a question on the ballot that read, “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the Cities of Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No.” Kitchener council had already supported the motion.

It was a difficult and emotional decision for Waterloo councillors, who have struggled with the question ever since it came up two weeks ago. That wasn’t more apparent than when Coun. Scott Witmer seemingly changed his mind in the middle of a comment.

“I’ve had sleepless nights about this,” he said. “I know where I stand. I know where people in this room stand. But I don’t know where the rest of the people stand.

“When I started this comment two minutes ago I still didn’t where I stood. But this question is misleading . . . I can’t support it.”

Witmer defeated the motion, along with Coun. Angela Vieth, Coun. Karen Scian, Coun. Jan d’Ailly and Coun. Karen Scian.

Scian too had struggled with the question, but believed that the special interest group pushing the question was looking to make things easier for themselves. Her decision was cemented when Joseph Fung, a delegation to council, said even if the debate died now, it would be back — even if people voted no in October.

“Why would it come back?” Scian asked.

“Well if I asked you if you wanted an iPhone now, you might say no. But you don’t know what you’ll say in the future,” Fung said.

“I think my city is more important than an iPhone,” said a clearly irritated Scian.

Councillors on both sides of the issue spoke passionately about it. But the debate can be harmful, Freeman said. “Whenever amalgamation is discussed, a division cuts the community,” she said. “We say things about each other that are hurtful and destructive.”

Others believed a referendum was not the way to go.

Coun. Jan d’Ailly believes there is merit in exploring joint servicing or improved services. In the coming weeks, he’ll propose a task force made up from representatives from both Kitchener and Waterloo to explore the issues surrounding amalgamation.

“There will be no presupposed conclusion, just a discussion,” d’Ailly said.

But Coun. Ian McLean believes that discussion must go to the public.

“Our community is strong and mature enough to engage in discussions about our future,” he said.

Mayor Brenda Halloran also wanted to see the issue go to a vote.

“I’m not afraid of that question,” she said. “We need to hear from the citizens here who pay the bills. “I am strongly convinced the right thing for myself as mayor is to let this community have a say in its future.”

The motion fell, however, and the amalgamation debate will likely recede.

Iain Klugman, the president of Communitech and a member of the pro-amalgamation group, wouldn’t say what’s next.

“I think the citizens of Waterloo have missed out on an opportunity to have their voices heard,” he said.

http://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news/article/200883



Public come out to have their say on amalgamation

Jan 27, 2010

The people of Waterloo – and a few from Kitchener — came out to have their voices heard on the amalgamation issue Monday night.

There was a range of views, but the majority were against a referendum.

“The system is set up for you to tackle the big questions, not punt them back to us if they’re too tough,” said Waterloo resident Jeff Henry.

He believes a discussion needs to take place, but among politicians, not at the polling booths.

Others wished calls for amalgamation would just go ahead and die already.

“Kitchener is a brain tumor. It’s benign. But if we get it into the provincial government’s head (to amalgamate), it would be malignant,” said John Dietrich, president of the Waterloo Professional Fire Fighters Association. “This is not a merger, it’s a takeover.”

Others still contended that the amalgamation discussion will never die.

“Conversations over the last few weeks and I think the last several years have shown that this is a conversation that has been ongoing both above the radar and under the radar,” said Rosemary Smith, executive director of the Kitchener-Waterloo Community Foundation.

In the end, most councillors sided with people like longtime Waterloo resident Stan Rektor.

“Waterloo is already on the map. Let’s keep it there,” he said. “We’re proud of it.

“There’s no groundswell of support from the City of Kitchener or Waterloo.”

But even Rektor, a staunch opponent of amalgamation, couldn’t deny that the issue will likely return.

“There’s always a fringe element that thinks bigger is better,” he said.

http://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news/article/200897

[Spokes]

D’Ailly says merger task force is needed in Waterloo

January 29, 2010
By Terry Pender, Record staff

WATERLOO — Coun. Jan d’Ailly wants the next city council to “start a community dialogue” about how the city is governed.

Up for consideration: The pros and cons of the current system; issues, problems and opportunities; and alternative solutions to the problems.

d’Ailly voted with the majority of council members who, last Monday, rejected a proposal to hold a referendum on whether Kitchener and Waterloo should talk about a merger. The referendum would have been asked on the municipal ballot this fall.

d’Ailly said that while he doesn’t support a referendum at this time, “I am more than willing to have a discussion on issues dealing with our governance.”

The dialogue needs to be open, transparent and unbiased, he said.

“Rather than start a discussion with a pre-conceived outcome, we should enter the discussion with: ‘What are the issues we are trying to solve?’”

“If you want to have a discussion on these type of issues let’s start at first base and understand what the issues are, what the alternatives are and then move forward,” d’Ailly said.

A group of more than 60 leaders from the business and arts sectors tried recently to get the city councils in Kitchener and Waterloo to hold a referendum.

The proposed question: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No?” The provincial government must authorize any referendum questions related to municipal restructuring.

Councillors in Kitchener voted in favour of seeking permission for the referendum. Councillors in Waterloo rejected the idea.

“A referendum is a very blunt tool, I mean it’s either ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ on the proposal,” d’Ailly said. “First of all there is no proposal on the table right now.”

The group calling for a referendum said it only wanted to the residents of Kitchener and Waterloo have a say on whether they wanted to see merger talks held. The group said it was premature to discuss the pros and cons of a merger until a referendum was approved on whether to hold the talks.

d’Ailly believes that was the wrong approach.

“The only way you are going to get true community buy-in to have a discussion is if you do it in an unbiased manner without a preconceived outcome,” d’Ailly said.

“That’s the discussion this community has to have if it wants to tackle these issues.”

While his notice of motion calls on the next city council to start this community dialogue, d’Ailly said it’s all right if a majority of the current council wants to get started sooner.

“We are there today and if this council wants to start on these activities today I don’t have an issue with that and I never have.”

tpender@therecord.com
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/664619

[Spokes]

Ok so a few thoughts. First, Im disappointed, but I don't think this issue is dead by any stretch of the imagination. I think we've got our first REAL BIG election (http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/showthread.php/37-Region-of-Waterloo-Municipal-Elections-2010) issue here. I don't see it not being talked about.

I was surprised by Scott Witmer's comment:


But this question is misleading . . . I can’t support it.”

Does anyone else feel the question was misleading? I thought it was pretty straight forward.

[mpd618]

Does anyone else feel the question was misleading? I thought it was pretty straight forward.

It could've been straightforward, but the group advocating for the question muddied the waters by basically saying that a vote of yes is a mandate to amalgamate if it proves to make sense - without going back to the people a second time. I was at the initial Waterloo Council meeting where this was discussed, and I believe this contributed to Council's difficulty with this question.

The group probably had good intentions, but the approach was not a careful one. They've certainly gotten the conversation going, though we'll see whether it manages to rise above the trivial.

[Spokes]

It could've been straightforward, but the group advocating for the question muddied the waters by basically saying that a vote of yes is a mandate to amalgamate if it proves to make sense - without going back to the people a second time. I was at the initial Waterloo Council meeting where this was discussed, and I believe this contributed to Council's difficulty with this question.


I wasn't aware that it was linked like that. I think it was a good idea if it was straight forward a vote on the talks with no expectations that it would result in a merger

[dunkalunk]

I recently received an email from Waterloo Ward 4 Councillor Diane Freeman. I thought I'd pass it on to anyone interested. I'm ignoring the disclosure disclaimer at the bottom of the email because it is a matter of time before the minutes from this meeting are posted, besides, Diane Freeman already dispelled this information. Also, I assume all of you reading are interested individuals and would like to give your input.


Good Evening:

At City Council tonight Mayor Halloran tabled the following "Notice of Motion" for consideration by Waterloo City Council on February 22, 2010:

1. That the City of Waterloo request the Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing include a question on the October 2010 municipal election ballot for the City of Waterloo with the following suggested wording:

"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."

2. That this Council recommend the following process to the 2010-2014 Council:

a) In the event of a NO vote, Waterloo City Council will not enter into discussion on merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo.

b) In the event of a YES vote, Waterloo City Council will direct staff to use the public involvement guidelines when complete to develop an appropriate strategy for how the City of Waterloo will report on the discussions to citizens and how citizens will be able to provide ongoing comment on the discussions.

c) In the event of a YES vote, the City of Waterloo will provide opportunities to citizens and other municipal stakeholders, through public meetings, mailed and online submissions, and other forums, to identify areas of concern requiring discussion.

d) In the event of a YES vote, topics of discussion will need to include but not be limited to: short and long term financial impacts, negotiations of shared utilities, municipal debt, service delivery, democratic representation, arts and cultural impact, economic development, and relationships with other levels of government and neighbouring municipalities.

e) If the decision is made by Waterloo City Council to move forward with a formal proposal on merging Kitchener and Waterloo; the final merger proposal will be brought back to the citizens of Waterloo through a referendum.

I have blind carbon copied this email to all the citizens who have taken the time over the past years to email me comments with regard to this issue and other issues within the City and the Ward. I have done this because I value your feedback. In particular I would appreciate knowing if you do or do not support the above motion. I would also welcome any comments that you may have on this new motion or on the broader issue.

With regard to the above I offer the following observations for your consideration:

1. Many individuals indicated their concern over the previously requested wording of the question citing that the former words "merits of amalgamation" predetermined an outcome and led voters to believe that there were only merits. The above referenced wording clarifies that both advantages and disadvantages surrounding amalgamation would need to be equally considered.

2. The question placed to Council in the past did not outline a "process" or clarify what a majority Yes or majority No vote would result in. Many people who emailed and telephoned me felt that No was only a No for this election and that the question would continue to be asked. As well, many individuals felt that a Yes vote was a clear mandate to amalgamate, not just to have a discussion. Does the above motion provide clarity for you around these issues?

3. Many citizens thought that asking a question to have a discussion was unnecessary and that citizens should be asked yes or no to what was seen as the real question, do you want to amalgamate Yes or No. Item e) of the above motion also includes a piece associated with that fundamental question once information has been prepared for the citizens to review.

It is my goal to summarize all of the feedback I receive (without names of course) and prepare a summary report which I will be pleased to circulate back under blind carbon copy to all who respond. Please note that this will be returning to Council on Monday February 22, therefore I would value your response by the 21st.

Thank you and Best Regards,

Diane Freeman, FEC, P.Eng.
Councillor - Ward 4
Cell: 519-569-9955

Sounds like the issue is not dead, although this is hardly a surprise.

[Spokes]

I got the same email.
And looks like you're right, it's not dead:


Waterloo mayor to raise merger question again

February 09, 2010
By Jeff Outhit

WATERLOO — Mayor Brenda Halloran will try again to win council support for a public referendum on merger talks with Kitchener.

Her proposed question for the October municipal election is: “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.”

Waterloo council will vote Feb. 22 on whether to ask the Ontario government to put her question on the municipal ballot.

“To me, what’s really important is that we allow the citizens of Waterloo to have a voice,” Halloran said. She said she remains undecided about the merits of a merger.

Halloran unveiled her revised referendum question Monday, saying she wants to take a leadership role. Her proposed question differs only slightly from a referendum proposal defeated 5-3 by council last month.

The failed question used the word “merits” instead of “advantages and disadvantages.” It was proposed by business and arts leaders who contend a merger would create a better city for attracting business.

Halloran has also proposed a process to follow.

The process, a recommendation to the next council, calls for a second referendum on any merger agreement. It clarifies issues to be discussed, and it calls for opportunities to involve the public in merger negotiations.

It also states: “In the event of a No vote, Waterloo council will not enter into discussions on merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo.”

Kitchener council wants a referendum held, to endorse merger talks. However, it’s up to the provincial Minister of Municipal Affairs to agree to the proposed referendum and its wording.

Halloran’s revisions could win the day, a straw poll suggests.

Councillors Jan d’Ailly and Angela Vieth said Monday they expect to oppose the revised referendum question. Both opposed the earlier question.

Councillors Mark Whaley and Ian McLean said they expect to support a referendum on merger talks. Both supported the earlier question.

That’s three for and two against, with three undecided.

Coun. Karen Scian opposed the earlier question but sees progress in the mayor’s revision. “It looks like it might be a good way to go, a good solution,” she said.

Coun. Diane Freeman opposed the earlier question but figures the revision provides better wording and more clarity around process. “I think that this new motion covers some of the things that were really brought to me as a concern,” she said.

Coun. Scott Witmer opposed the earlier question and said he will think about the revisions.

Halloran proposed her referendum question after council voted 7-1 against a motion by Coun. d’Ailly asking the next council to consider governance issues.

jouthit@therecord.com
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/667797 (http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/667797)

[RangersFan]

Critics irked that merger debate refuses to die

February 09, 2010

By Jeff Outhit, Record staff

WATERLOO — Critics are appalled that Waterloo council plans to vote again on a referendum to authorize merger talks with Kitchener.

“I’m thoroughly disgusted,” said Stan Rektor, a resident who has spoken against merger talks. “It’s an affront to my intelligence and that of the people of Waterloo, that this question should come back, worded almost the same.”

Council voted 5-3 in January against a referendum question requested by a group of business and arts leaders. Mayor Brenda Halloran has now proposed almost the same question, changing a few words and suggesting a process. Council is to consider it Feb. 22.

Kitchener Mayor Carl Zehr is pleased. His council wants a referendum and Zehr favours a merger. “It is one step to creating more efficiency, and being able to speak with one voice,” he said.

Also pleased is entrepreneur Tim Jackson, speaking for business leaders who want the cities to consider merging.

“The mayor has shown some great leadership,” he said. “We hope council will sort of see this as a great compromise.”

The proposed referendum would be held during the October municipal election. It must be approved by the provincial Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has final say on wording.

Halloran is calling for a second Waterloo referendum on any merger agreement. She has also suggested ways to involve the public in merger talks.

Jackson supports her proposals. Rektor notes the next council will not be bound by them.

Proponents contend a merger would create a city with more clout that’s better able to attract investment. Critics worry it would add to taxpayer costs and strip Waterloo of its character and identity.

“We are hearing a promise of a land of milk and honey, and we have been given not one iota of proof that there will be any cost-savings, or any improvement to the quality of life or the quality of the economy,” said resident Robert Fleming, who follows municipal affairs closely.


jouthit@therecord.com

[UrbanWaterloo]

Majority of Waterloo residents want merger question on ballot: poll
February 11, 2010
By Brent Davis, Record staff
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/669540

WATERLOO — A new poll suggests a majority of Waterloo residents want to see a municipal merger question on the fall election ballot.

Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed by Metroline Research Group also agreed that Waterloo’s council should engage in a dialogue with Kitchener.

The poll was conducted between Jan. 28 and Feb. 4 — after Waterloo council voted against a referendum question requested by a group of leaders in the business and arts communities, but before Mayor Brenda Halloran proposed a slightly-reworded version that councillors will consider Feb. 22.

Metroline interviewed more than 500 randomly-chosen Waterloo residents. A news release issued by the company said respondents were over 18 and were representative of the population by age and gender.

Residents in all of the city’s wards were included, Metroline said.

The survey, based on the original question “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging Kitchener and Waterloo?” asked participants to rate two statements.

The first was “I believe that the question should be placed on the ballot,”to which 64 per cent strongly or somewhat agreed, 21 per cent strongly or somewhat disagreed and 15 per cent were neutral.

The second was “I believe Council should engage in a dialogue about the merits of merging Kitchener and Waterloo,” to which 65 per cent agreed, 23 per cent disagreed and 12 per cent were neutral.

The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

The partners at Metroline decided to conduct the poll, said partner Dave Kains.

“It is an important topic in the community, and by releasing the results we hope that it will continue to spur discussion,” he said in an email Thursday.

Halloran’s new question essentially just replaces the word “merits” with “advantages and disadvantages.” The mayor is also calling for a second Waterloo referendum on any merger agreement, and has suggested ways to involve the public in the discussions.

Given the poll results, “I would suggest the mayor is moving in a direction that residents support,” Kains said.

Kitchener council has voted in favour of asking the provincial government to place the referendum question on the October ballot. Such a question must be approved by the minister of municipal affairs.

[RangersFan]

There is alot more negativity about this issue in the latest Waterloo Chronicle.
The coalition of concerned citizens of Waterloo is having a meeting about this issue on Monday Feburary 22,2010 at 6:30PM Waterloo Council Chambers 99 Regina St.

Does anyone have any plans to attend this meeting?

[UrbanWaterloo]

Delegates finished, councillors are debating this now.

[UrbanWaterloo]

Yes 6
No 2 (Vieth, d'Ailly)

[UrbanWaterloo]

Council reverses course on merger referendum
February 23, 2010
By Jeff Outhit
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/674741

WATERLOO — Facing a public outcry, councillors have reversed themselves to endorse a fall referendum that could launch historic merger talks with Kitchener.

“To me, the right thing is to allow the citizens to have a say in their future,” said Mayor Brenda Halloran, who persuaded council to change its stance.

Council voted 6-2 Monday for a referendum question proposed by Halloran: “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.”

Kitchener council has approved a similar question. Now it’s up to Jim Bradley, Ontario’s Minister of Municipal Affairs, to put both questions on the ballot in the Oct. 25 municipal election. He also has final say on wording.

“This is a very positive step for both of our cities,” Kitchener Mayor Carl Zehr said.

“We are good neighbours, and good neighbours always look for ways to improve their relationship.”

Four weeks ago, Waterloo council voted 5-3 against putting a similar question on the ballot. That vote sparked an outcry by citizens who felt they had been denied a say, Halloran said.

On Monday, councillors Diane Freeman, Karen Scian and Scott Witmer reversed their votes, saying the revised question is more acceptable to them. They also like the new proposal to hold a second referendum on any merger agreement.

“I think this is an acceptable way to hear from the public,” Witmer said.

Councillors Mark Whaley and Ian McLean and Halloran voted yes for the second time to a referendum. Councillors Angela Vieth and Jan d’Ailly continue to oppose the referendum.

“It doesn’t offer an opportunity to discuss a wide range of options,” d’Ailly said.

Business leaders who lobbied for the referendum contend one city would command more clout on the world stage and draw more investment.

Critics contend a Kitchener-Waterloo merger would not save taxpayers any money and would threaten Waterloo’s identity.

A public-opinion poll conducted by Metroline Research Group found 64 per cent of Waterloo residents favour a referendum on merger talks.

Iain Klugman, speaking for business leaders who favour a referendum, praised Halloran for leading council to a second vote.

He said the group does not plan to lobby residents to the yes or no side. “Our group is only focused on getting a question on the ballot,” said Klugman, chief executive of Communitech. “Our group has no plans to engage in any formal campaign.”

Before council voted, a dozen merger critics spoke passionately against a referendum, repeating many arguments made last month.

Critics quoted Shakespeare, cited political theory and scholarly studies, and drew comparisons to the 1995 Quebec referendum that almost broke up Canada.

Referendum supporters sent council more than 60 signed letters and emails.

[Spokes]

Glad that this got passed. Now we'll see something happen with this one way or another. If the minister says no, then thats it, if it passes, we can talk, and if it doesn't pass, it'll die (for now haha)

[Urbanomicon]

Province mum on merger-talks vote requested by Kitchener, Waterloo

February 24, 2010
Record staff
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/675067

WATERLOO REGION — All eyes are on Jim Bradley now. But Ontario’s municipal affairs minister isn’t saying if he intends to move forward with a proposed merger-talks referendum in Kitchener and Waterloo.
Bradley declined to be interviewed Tuesday, after Kitchener and Waterloo councils requested an Oct. 25 referendum to authorize merger discussions.

His spokesperson Joe Kim issued a statement. “The minister is monitoring the situation in the region, and knows that councillors in Kitchener and Waterloo have endorsed referendum questions to launch talks on the amalgamation of the two municipalities. The ministry is currently awaiting the official submissions from both municipalities.”

Bradley must agree to place referendum questions on the municipal election ballot. He also has final say on the wording. If he approves a referendum, the result will not be binding regardless of turnout.

Prominent business leaders have lobbied for the referendum, arguing the cities would have more clout on the world stage and draw more investment if merged. Critics contend a merger would increase taxpayer costs and threaten community identities.

Kim could not say when the minister will respond to the cities.

[RangersFan]

Mayor Zehr says he’ll stand up to mudslingers

Feb 25, 2010

By Melinda Dalton, Record staff

KITCHENER – Mayor Carl Zehr said he’ll stand up for the city in the face of anti-amalgamation mudslinging as Kitchener and Waterloo move one step closer to merger talks.

“While I respect individuals have a right to their own opinions, as the mayor of this city, I should not and will not allow unfounded comments to stand,” he told a crowd of about 200, who filled the Kitchener City Hall rotunda Thursday to hear the annual state of the city address.

“To do so would be a disservice to the people of the City of Kitchener – people who have worked together with our neighbours for decades to help build a strong and vibrant region where an individual’s quality of life is measured by their hopes and dreams, not their address.”

The event, which for the first time in years was held in the evening rather than early morning, was also a fundraiser for the Kitchener Mayor and Council Fund, which supports local charities.

Zehr’s speech focused on quality of life for city residents and how, by providing jobs, services and amenities to the citizens of Waterloo and the region, the city has already demonstrated “we are better together.”

The councils of Kitchener and Waterloo have voted in favour of putting a question on the October municipal election ballot asking residents if they want the cities to start talks about the advantages and disadvantages of amalgamating. The referendum question still has to be approved by Ontario’s municipal affairs minister.

A vocal amalgamation proponent, Zehr acknowledged that merging may not be a cheaper opinion, but said joining forces with “our neighbours to the north,” will make the municipalities more efficient and more influential on the national stage.

Waterloo only agreed to add the question to the ballot this week, but the subject has already ignited a heated debate from those on both sides of the amalgamation issue.

Zehr said he’s hopeful the majority of the discussions ahead will be thoughtful and respectful, but acknowledged Kitchener may be the subject of anti-amalgamation criticism.

The city has traditionally been modest about its achievements, he said, but now is the time to “dream big” and speak loudly about what Kitchener has to offer.

“Do not take our modesty for complacency,” he said. “While we might not brag about it much, over the years Kitchener has invested more into the lives of our residents’ quality of life than virtually any other similar-sized municipality in Ontario.”

The mayor touched on this year’s 2.9 per cent tax increase, pointing out that the city was able to keep to keep that hike below its goal of 3 per cent in spite of a difficult budget year and without major cuts to city services and amenities.

He also highlighted money in the city’s 10-year forecast for quality of life projects, including $37 million for parks, trails and sports facilities.

Investment in those areas not only benefit residents of this city, but the whole region, he said, adding the city pools, rinks, libraries and The Aud are often frequented by non-Kitchener residents.

While unemployment in the city is “still too high,” Zehr said the city has invested well in the region’s economy. The new University of Waterloo health sciences campus and the digital media hub, both in downtown Kitchener, are creating jobs that will be filled by people from across the three cities and townships, he said.

The mayor said he’ll move forward on the amalgamation discussion “respectfully and in the spirit of wanting to build a better community for all,” acknowledging that ultimately it will be the voters who decide what’s best for the two cities.

mdalton@therecord.com

[Ktown4ever]

Way to go Carl!! I hope he's running for Mayor again.

[Spokes]

Mayor Carl Zehr said he’ll stand up for the city in the face of anti-amalgamation mudslinging as Kitchener and Waterloo move one step closer to merger talks.
...
The councils of Kitchener and Waterloo have voted in favour of putting a question on the October municipal election ballot asking residents if they want the cities to start talks about the advantages and disadvantages of amalgamating. The referendum question still has to be approved by Ontario’s municipal affairs minister.
...
Zehr said he’s hopeful the majority of the discussions ahead will be thoughtful and respectful, but acknowledged Kitchener may be the subject of anti-amalgamation criticism.
The city has traditionally been modest about its achievements, he said, but now is the time to “dream big” and speak loudly about what Kitchener has to offer.

I love that he's really focusing on emphasizing Kitchener's positives and having us dream big

[Spokes]

Councils to ask same amalgamation question be added to ballot

March 09, 2010
By Melinda Dalton

KITCHENER — Both Kitchener and Waterloo city councils will now send the same amalgamation referendum question to the province with the request that it be added to the municipal election ballot in the fall.

The question, brought forward earlier this year by a group of influential business leaders and residents, asks the public if they’ll support starting talks about the pros and cons of merging Kitchener and Waterloo.

Kitchener city council approved the question as it was brought forward by the group in January, but considered an amendment to it Monday in a special council meeting.

The amendment was prompted by a slight re-wording endorsed two weeks ago by Waterloo councillors which asks voters to decide if the councils should open talks about the “advantages and disadvantages” of merging the two cities, rather than the “merits” of doing so. It also changed the word “dialogue” to “discussions.”

The amendments were supported 5-1 by the Kitchener mayor and councillors. Coun. Berry Vrbanovic was absent.

Coun. John Gazzola would not support the referendum question, saying the wording was “slanted” and excluded the public since it only asks voters if they want councils from the two cities to initiate the discussions.

“It doesn’t talk about members of the public talking about things. It talks about the members of Kitchener and Waterloo councils. So, the public really aren’t involved in the discussions,” he said.

Mayor Carl Zehr said there would be a public process involved.

Coun. Kelly Galloway added that someone will need to take a leadership role in the discussions if there is a “Yes” vote, and ensure everyone is able to make an informed decision if the actual amalgamation question arises.

“It clearly does not say that we would make the decision,” she said. “I don’t think any member of council is going to sit around here and have that discussion and shut out the public. We don’t do that in any decisions we make.”

Waterloo has already sent its question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who must approve the referendum. Kitchener held off until the amendments were approved. The city wanted to send the same question to eliminate confusion and avoid delay.

The minister has until June 1 to make a decision on the referendum.

mdalton@therecord.com
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/681166

[Urbanomicon]

Politicians shouldn’t block merger, speaker says

April 08, 2010
By Greg Mercer, Record staff
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/695368

http://media.therecord.topscms.com/images/78/b7/3184fa174082a14fbabd4f034bd1.jpeg

KITCHENER – The region’s cities need to merge – and our charisma-lacking municipal politicians need to work with citizens to make that happen, a packed house of business and non-profit sector leaders was told Thursday.

Fred Kuntz, former publisher of The Record and editor-in-chief of The Toronto Star, told an audience at the Leadership Waterloo Region breakfast that Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo would be stronger as one city.

But there’s work to be done to bridge the gap that exists on the issue – Cambridge wants to be left out of the discussion, and Waterloo initially flip-flopped on talking about it, he said.

“These serious differences show why very important issues cannot be left to politicians alone, but require a wider collaboration,” Kuntz said.

Why merge? The region and its three cities have far too many municipal councillors, he said. They have conflicting bylaws and don’t speak with the same voice when it comes to seeking funding for the arts, research and development, infrastructure, health care and education.

To get there, local leaders need to set aside divisive, self-interested politics and follow the community’s wishes, he said.

Luckily, Waterloo Region doesn’t have any charismatic politicians, though “perhaps the odd local politician is, at worst, an occasional grump,” he said.

That’s a good thing, Kuntz said, because big-personality leaders like a Pierre Trudeau or a Mel Lastman can get in the way of consensus-building.

“Fortunately, in municipal politics, Waterloo Region has no charismatic leaders. I don’t mean they’re not likeable; they are, by and large very nice, decent people. Smart. They tend to be humble or modest people, friendly and inoffensive,” he said, in a prepared speech.

That lack of strong personalities in local politics has helped collaboration across the region, he said.

Kuntz pointed to organizations, such as the Prosperity Council of Waterloo Region, that bring together a cross-section of people from the business, non-profit, academic and government sectors.

That kind of partnering for the greater good is a part of our heritage, he said, and owes its roots to the Mennonites who settled here in the 1800s.

“When we need to raise a barn, to get something done, a group of us get together and make it happen, whether or not we directly profit from the barn,” Kuntz said.

Leadership Waterloo Region, which trains people to take on leaderships roles in business, government and social agencies, had asked Kuntz to share his vision for the region in 2020.

He said all sectors – local government, business and non-profits – share the same goals. They want a greener, more liveable region, with good social services and infrastructure, and a vibrant culture.

The annual breakfast meeting, emceed by Waterloo region Record editor-in-chief Lynn Haddrall, also featured a testimonial from program graduate Joseph Fung, of the Centre for International Governance Innovation.

Fung said Leadership Waterloo was a big part of his decision to stay in Waterloo Region. It has landed him seats on local boards and influenced his professional career, he said. It helped him better
understand his community and gave him a chance to work with people he’d otherwise have never met – including city employees, police, and business people.

Applications for this year’s leadership program are due May 1.

gmercer@therecord.com

[jay]

Province approves referendum on K-W merger talks


April 16, 2010
BY TERRY PENDER, RECORD STAFF
WATERLOO REGION — There will be a referendum in this fall’s municipal elections on whether to hold merger talks between Kitchener and Waterloo.

The provincial government announced Friday it has approved the question for the Oct. 25 ballots. The question will ask: “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.”

This is exactly what Tim Jackson wanted.

“I am thrilled they have listened to both councils,” Tim Jackson, a businessperson leading the call for the merger talks, said Friday.

Jackson and about 55 other business and community leaders signed an open letter calling for a referendum on the merger talks.

That group succeeded in getting the city councils in Kitchener and Waterloo to support the move. Kitchener was on board right away. Waterloo at first rejected the idea, but reversed itself a week later and voted in favour of the referendum.

For weeks everyone has waited to see if the provincial government would agree to place the question on the ballot.

“We just left it up to the province, we did not do any lobbying at all,” Jackson said.

When announcing its approval on Friday, the provincial government made it clear the results of the referendum are not binding on the Ontario legislature or the municipal governments.

The mayors in Kitchener and Waterloo are also happy the province agreed to the referendum.

“I would hope that people in both cities will see the benefit of having the discussion because this discussion has never been held,” Kitchener Mayor Carl Zehr said.

The referendum will ask voters if they support talks that explore the advantages and disadvantages of merging the two cities. It does not ask if the voters support an actual amalgamation.

“That is an important distinction that I think it is important we keep in mind,” Zehr said. “I think this is good news. This is what we had been asking for.”

Added Waterloo Mayor Brenda Halloran: “I really hope people will get out and vote because this is an important question that affects every person.”

Not everyone is thrilled.

Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig does not want that city dragged into any talks about merging or being forced to amalgamate with Kitchener and Waterloo later on.

“We respect the right of our neighbours to have discussions,” Craig said. “We want them to understand we do not wish to be part of any merger talks.”

Added Craig: “I think it is very obvious Cambridge does not wish to be merged.”

Regional Chair Ken Seiling said he is staying out of the debate about whether Kitchener and Waterloo should hold merger talks.

“I don’t think it is appropriate for me to become involved in it,” Seiling said. “This is not a regional issue.”

[IEFBR14]

The question will ask: “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.”

This is exactly what Tim Jackson wanted. “I am thrilled they have listened to both councils,” Tim Jackson, a businessperson leading the call for the merger talks, said Friday.
I thought he originally wanted the question to read, "... the merits of merging..." which sounds less neutral.

In any case, I never understood why we need a referendum at this stage. The two councils always have the duty and obligation to explore ways to better cooperate so as to improve services to ratepayers while minimizing the costs of providing those services.

ISTM the two councils and their respective senior civil servant staff should first prepare a basic study of the advantages and disadvantages of merger, including benefits, costs, timelines, etc. That shouldn't take a lot of time to do or cost a lot of money.

Then, with that information on the table, let's have some public discussion followed by a referendum to ask if we should proceed to study a merger in greater detail. That way voters would have some objective information, rather than just subjective opinions, on which to base their vote.

Assuming this first referendum passes, the two parties can get serious and produce the final detailed proposal. That would create more public debate, followed by a binding referendum on whether or not to go ahead and merge.

But what do I know?

[garthdanlor]

In any case, I never understood why we need a referendum at this stage. The two councils always have the duty and obligation to explore ways to better cooperate so as to improve services to ratepayers while minimizing the costs of providing those services.
Exactly, this is just wasteful. Start the inter-city discussion and the public meetings and then give us the chance to vote on the issue.

[taylortbb]

I think it's because Waterloo council would never go for discussions in the absence of a public mandate to do so. While I suspect that many in Waterloo would at least support discussions, the small-town anti-amalgamation voices in Waterloo are VERY loud; even if they don't represent the majority. Unfortunately for council it's difficult to separate a small number of passionate people from a wide base of support.

[Spokes]

I thought he originally wanted the question to read, "... the merits of merging..." which sounds less neutral.


I think that they thought using "merits" indicated there were only positives and no negatives. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Glad they approved the question. Now we can let the people have their say and then either put the issue to bed, or move forward.

It's going to be a long process though. Especially if it passes.

[mpd618]

I think that they thought using "merits" indicated there were only positives and no negatives. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Right, that was the concern. (I doubt the group advocating for the referendum cared about that wording difference.)

[IEFBR14]

I think that they thought using "merits" indicated there were only positives and no negatives.Yes, that was the point I was trying to make.


Now we can let the people have their say and then either put the issue to bed, or move forward.My concern is that this is a bit like the first Quebec referendum on sovereignty. A "yes" vote sounds innocent enough at first since it's only a mandate to enter into discussions, but once that process starts it will soon turn into serious negotiations. I'd have preferred to see a feasibility study of some sort first so that we could vote with our minds as well as with our hearts. At this point I don't know which way to vote and I'm concerned that if I vote "yes" in October there will be no turning back regardless of the actual merits (or lack thereof.)


It's going to be a long process though. Especially if it passes.Perhaps. It didn't take the province under Mike Harris very long to shove the "megacity" down the throats of several Toronto boroughs. There was no referendum or other vote. The purported benefits of amalgamation never turned out in practice. Now look at the fiscal mess the city finds itself in. That's why we need to study/discuss before casting any votes.

I simply don't trust the politicians and business leaders who are behind the local campaign to remain neutral, before and especially after a "yes" vote.

[DHLawrence]

^^^ And people wonder why Cambridge wants nothing to do with this.

[Spokes]

My concern is that this is a bit like the first Quebec referendum on sovereignty. A "yes" vote sounds innocent enough at first since it's only a mandate to enter into discussions, but once that process starts it will soon turn into serious negotiations. I'd have preferred to see a feasibility study of some sort first so that we could vote with our minds as well as with our hearts. At this point I don't know which way to vote and I'm concerned that if I vote "yes" in October there will be no turning back regardless of the actual merits (or lack thereof.)

Ya I think that's a concern for a lot of people, based on a lot of comments I'd heard while the cities were deciding to even suggest the question.

[taylortbb]

Perhaps. It didn't take the province under Mike Harris very long to shove the "megacity" down the throats of several Toronto boroughs. There was no referendum or other vote. The purported benefits of amalgamation never turned out in practice. Now look at the fiscal mess the city finds itself in. That's why we need to study/discuss before casting any votes.

As someone who lived in Toronto for the amalgamation I've gotta say, I think the fiscal problems are caused more by the far left/far right alternating pattern in Toronto politics. Mel Lastman was all about low taxes, and whoever replaces David Miller will be too. Toronto's high density living is fundamentally at odds with low taxes. Toronto also is different than KW. The interests of North York differ significantly from the interests of Old Toronto. Kitchener and Waterloo don't have that issue, being a continous urban area with similar poltics, urbanization, social services, etc. It would be an argument against including Cambridge, but I don't think it applies to KW.

I'm not convinced that a KW amalgamation will save money, but that's never really been my reason for supporting it. Kitchener and Waterloo are so integrated that we need to speak with a unified voice on the national level. We also need better planning and social services integration because of how intertwined our communities are.

[IEFBR14]

As someone who lived in Toronto for the amalgamation I've gotta say, I think the fiscal problems are caused more by the far left/far right alternating pattern in Toronto politics. Mel Lastman was all about low taxesI lived in North York all through Mel's mayorship and then through the amalgamation. In the "megacity" my taxes went up substantially. Despite that services that had been provided by North York were degraded by the megacity. I left before Miller became mayor yet I never saw any direct benefits to amalgamation.


I'm not convinced that a KW amalgamation will save money... Amalgamation mainly for potential tax savings would be a mistake. After all it's easy to promise savings before the merger and easier still to find reasons why they can't be achieved afterwards. (Remember Toronto.)


We also need better planning and social services integration because of how intertwined our communities are.Absolutely! That's probably the most important potential benefit for me. I've been caring for two aging parents in K-W for the past few years so I know first hand how poorly planned and unintegrated senior's services are in these parts. However I haven't heard politicians or Tim Jackson's cabal discuss this. That's a red flag for me. The social services people discuss these sort of benefits, but so far it's only wishful thinking on their part.

[UrbanWaterloo]

Photo From CTT's Open House - March 10, 2010
http://picasaweb.google.com/techtriangle/OpenHouse

Waterloo Mayor Brenda Halloran & Kitchener Mayor Carl Zehr
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_XHYVw_5nFrg/S6J0i6-A6VI/AAAAAAAADH4/u-tFBYxFSg8/s576/142CTTopenHouse-140.jpg

[Spokes]

A referendum worth holding

April 20, 2010

Have you ever wished, have you ever dreamed, have you ever hoped that you could have a major say in shaping the future of your community? We’re not just talking about scratching an X on a ballot every few years and obediently paying your property taxes in between. We’re talking about having a chance to make a real difference, maybe even to make history.

If you live in Kitchener or Waterloo you’ll have the rare opportunity of doing precisely this in the upcoming municipal elections. Please take advantage of it.

On Oct. 25, voters in these two cities will be asked if they want their next elected councils to explore the pros and cons of merging the two communities into one. They will be asked, in other words, if they are open to the possibility of the most significant change to local government since Waterloo Region was formed 37 years ago: a merged city, a new city, a bigger city and one, perhaps with a bigger reputation around the world.

Whatever the outcome of this referendum, it will be significant. To be sure, the results of this vote will not legally bind either the two city governments or the provincial government to take any action.

In practical terms, however, if voters in both cities favour opening merger talks, their newly elected city councils would be morally bound, at least, to hold good-faith discussions on the matter. Likewise, if voters in one or both cities vote against merger talks, their councils would be morally obliged to let the issue rest for a few years at least, if not longer.

It would be premature for this newspaper to express its opinion on whether there should or should not be merger talks. After all, the election is still half a year away. Strong arguments will be made in the months ahead by proud and well-meaning citizens in both communities for both sides of the issue. For now, the best course of action is to listen to these arguments and learn.

That said, we have no hesitation to state that this referendum represents an important and meaningful exercise in democracy. And allowing it to proceed represents an intelligent decision on the part of the governments of both cities as well as our provincial leaders at Queen’s Park. It was also the correct decision.

Early this year, a group of 55 business people in Kitchener and Waterloo petitioned the councils of both cities to give their citizens the option of holding merger talks. While many people in both cities support the status quo and oppose any whiff of merger, lots of others believe the way Waterloo Region is organized — with eight governments in two tiers — is inefficient, ineffective and needlessly expensive. Right or wrong, the proponents of change will not go away. And surely they deserve to be heard in the political process.

This referendum will give everyone a chance to speak — the people opposed to merger talks as much as those advocating this dialogue. And it is important to remember that this vote is not to decide whether Kitchener and Waterloo should join, but merely whether the option should be seriously discussed. At this point marriage isn’t on the table. The possibility of serious dating is.

So, let the referendum debate begin. May it proceed vigorously, fearlessly but with respect and civility. After all, it will be a debate between friends, neighbours, colleagues, family members and voters who are already part of the same region.

Who knows? Perhaps the referendum will encourage greater voter participation and boost it from the appallingly low levels of the 2006 election which saw just 28.7 per cent of Waterloo voters and 25.5 per cent of Kitchener voters cast ballots. A greater voter turnout — dare we think amounting to more than half of eligible voters — would almost be reason enough on its own to hold this referendum.

http://news.therecord.com/Opinions/Editorials/article/699364

[panamaniac]

A referendum worth holding

April 20, 2010

.....Likewise, if voters in one or both cities vote against merger talks, their councils would be morally obliged to let the issue rest for a few years at least, if not longer.

..............http://news.therecord.com/Opinions/Editorials/article/699364

I am (only slightly) inclined to favour amalgamation, but this line in the Record piece bothered me a bit. I would hope that if either city votes against discussions on amalgamation, the matter will be considered dead unless or until that city some day takes the initiative to renew the discussion. Same if the first referendum passes but either city were subsequently to vote against amalgamation. I hope as well that if the first referendum succeeds, the discussion will consider not only amalgamation, but ways to better integrate the two cities even if amalgamation were rejected. No "neverendums" for KW, please.

[Ktown4ever]

Anyone know what's become of the Citizens for Better Government Group? http://www.cfbg.ca/ Seems they've been pretty quite since the release of their report in 08.

[BuildingScout]

I am (only slightly) inclined to favour amalgamation.

I'm against referenda on this issue to start with. We elect government representatives so that they inform themselves to the issues and make proper decisions. Say, if I hire an electrician to fix the main panel, I don't expect him to come to the living room and call for a family referendum asking the family to vote on new circuit breakers. I see no reason for Kitchener and Waterloo to stay separate save for duplication of infrastructure. Amalgamation elsewhere in Ontario was an overall positive. City councils should do appropriate planning and move ahead with it.

[Urbanomicon]

I'm against referenda on this issue to start with. We elect government representatives so that they inform themselves to the issues and make proper decisions. Say, if I hire an electrician to fix the main panel, I don't expect him to come to the living room and call for a family referendum asking the family to vote on new circuit breakers. I see no reason for Kitchener and Waterloo to stay separate save for duplication of infrastructure. Amalgamation elsewhere in Ontario was an overall positive. City councils should do appropriate planning and move ahead with it.

Well said.

[KevinL]

I'm against referenda on this issue to start with. We elect government representatives so that they inform themselves to the issues and make proper decisions. Say, if I hire an electrician to fix the main panel, I don't expect him to come to the living room and call for a family referendum asking the family to vote on new circuit breakers. I see no reason for Kitchener and Waterloo to stay separate save for duplication of infrastructure. Amalgamation elsewhere in Ontario was an overall positive. City councils should do appropriate planning and move ahead with it.

I do have to argue a bit, here; amalgamation is more than just the background operations of a city, there's identity and civic pride and other personal issues. To borrow your analogy, this isn't just an electrician at the breaker panel; it's changing the lighting scheme in the kitchen, or further, knocking down a wall to change the main floor's layout. You don't just get a contractor and let him at it, you get an interior designer who will consult with you.

[DHLawrence]

And I think residents of several communities in Toronto and Hamilton would debate the 'overall positive', but that's another topic.

[BuildingScout]

there's identity and civic pride and other personal issues.

None of which are usually considered valid at the level of cities, unless they are city states. Are we moving in that direction now, that sensible planning moves are over-ruled by pride?


And I think residents of several communities in Toronto and Hamilton would debate the 'overall positive', but that's another topic.

Here's a quote from "Are services delivered more efficiently after municipal amalgamations?", Canadian Public Administration (June 2005), 48 (2), pg. 251-267, Joseph Kushiner; David Siegel

This raises a broader issue. Much of the rhetoric around amalgamations has viewed amalgamations in stark shades of black and white. Consolidationists, such as the provincial government, tend to see any and all amalgamations as beneficial, whereas public choice proponents do not view ‘imalgamations as cost-effective. A more nuanced view would suggest that all amalgamations are not the same; different amalgamations are likely to produce different results. In the battle between onsolidationists and public choice proponents, there has been no discussion of the conditions under which amalgamations might or might not be cost-effective. This research provides evidence that in some cases, particularly where the communities are small, amalgamations can generate savings, but, in other cases, there are no savings. Thus, amalgamations are not a panacea that produce positive results in every case. Nor are they necessarily disasters.

[garthdanlor]

Wonder what happens [to the municipal headquarters (http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/showthread.php/642-Favourite-Municipal-Headquarters-in-Waterloo-Region)] post KW amalgamation? I assume offices would be shared between the two current city halls, but what would be the official hall?

How about building something larger in Midtown? This could be considered more neutral ground in the sense that it isn't Uptown or Downtown? Would certainly help spur re-development of the area.

[Waterlooer]

Wonder what happens [to the municipal headquarters (http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/showthread.php/642-Favourite-Municipal-Headquarters-in-Waterloo-Region)] post KW amalgamation? I assume offices would be shared between the two current city halls, but what would be the official hall?

How about building something larger in Midtown? This could be considered more neutral ground in the sense that it isn't Uptown or Downtown? Would certainly help spur re-development of the area.

City hall would be the current Kitchener City Hall (I read that somewhere but forget where I read it from), this is unfair to Waterloo.

[taylortbb]

City hall would be the current Kitchener City Hall (I read that somewhere but forget where I read it from), this is unfair to Waterloo.

I don't think anything of that exact detail has been decided. That being said, I sure hope it'd be Kitchener's city hall, and I don't feel this is unfair at all (FYI, I live in Waterloo). Waterloo's city hall is just an office building, the city isn't even the only tenant in it. Kitchener however has an impressive city hall, it would be a real shame to not use it.

[Duke-of-Waterloo]

Waterloo's city hall is just an office building, the city isn't even the only tenant in it.

The City of Waterloo is not a tenant. While they used to rent the space back when they first moved here from the Marsland Centre, they now own the building.

I think if amalgamation were to happen and Kitchener's City Hall or the Regional Administrative Building were used as the official city hall, the other municipal offices in the Region (depending on how much gets amalgamated, if at all), would become satellite municipal offices for different functions. Look at Toronto or Ottawa for example, and how they kept the Scarborough Civic Centre (http://www.toronto.ca/311/locations.htm) or Kanata Civic Centre (http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/clientservices/locations_en.html) as municipal buildings with "Community Councils" or Client Service Centres.

[Waterlooer]

I agree with the Duke. I'm just bitter that Kitchener will take everything from Waterloo (I'm against amalgamation).

[Urbanomicon]

I agree with the Duke. I'm just bitter that Kitchener will take everything from Waterloo (I'm against amalgamation).

After amalgamation there won't be a Kitchener or a Waterloo, so it doesn't matter.

[garthdanlor]

I'm just bitter that Kitchener will take everything from Waterloo (I'm against amalgamation).
Curious, what do you fear Kitchener will take from Waterloo, other than City Hall moving to an arguably better facility?

[taylortbb]

After amalgamation there won't be a Kitchener or a Waterloo, so it doesn't matter.

I think this is what people miss. The line between the two cities is quite arbitrary; we're all in this together. For example, I would like to see my taxes used to revitalize downtown Kitchener, and I'm fine with Kitchener city hall becoming the amalgamated city hall. I also think the name Waterloo is the logical choice for the amalgamated city, given this is the Region of Waterloo.

However, this is the wrong thread for this discussion. Mods, can we get these posts moved to a different forum and possibly merged with a previous amalgamation thread?

[Waterlooer]

Curious, what do you fear Kitchener will take from Waterloo, other than City Hall moving to an arguably better facility?
I'm certain that Waterloo will be in rough shape if it amalgamates with Kitchener. No offence but Waterloo is a much nicer and safer city, but if the 2 cities combined, the beauty of Waterloo will end and Kitchener will have power over everything (twice the population and twice the size, so Kitchener will be making the decisions for Waterloo). If the cities do amalgamate (which I don`t think they will because most people in Waterloo are against it) Waterloo should get the same reputation as Kitchener.

[Spokes]

I think this is what people miss. The line between the two cities is quite arbitrary; we're all in this together. For example, I would like to see my taxes used to revitalize downtown Kitchener, and I'm fine with Kitchener city hall becoming the amalgamated city hall. I also think the name Waterloo is the logical choice for the amalgamated city, given this is the Region of Waterloo.

However, this is the wrong thread for this discussion. Mods, can we get these posts moved to a different forum and possibly merged with a previous amalgamation thread?

I wonder how many people ACTUALLY know where the border between the two are?

[Spokes]

I'm certain that Waterloo will be in rough shape if it amalgamates with Kitchener. No offence but Waterloo is a much nicer and safer city, but if the 2 cities combined, the beauty of Waterloo will end and Kitchener will have power over everything (twice the population and twice the size, so Kitchener will be making the decisions for Waterloo). If the cities do amalgamate (which I don`t think they will because most people in Waterloo are against it) Waterloo should get the same reputation as Kitchener.

I know these two are purely personal opinion, but just out of curiosity, why do you think that?

[Urbanomicon]

No offence but Waterloo is a much nicer and safer city.

Unless you can find some crimes per capita statistic, I don't believe this for a second. The two cities are so intermingled that they are basically one. If you removed the "Welcome to Kitchener/Waterloo" signs, no one would know that they had changed cities. I would be absolutely astounded if the crime rate in these two adjacent areas showed any statistically significant difference.

[Waterlooer]

I know these two are purely personal opinion, but just out of curiosity, why do you think that?

I love Kitchener, I really do! I think the CBD in Waterloo looks a lot nicer and safer than downtown Kitchener. My thinking is the larger the city, the bigger the crime (personal thinking). Kitchener and Waterloo's CBD's both seem to be looking a lot nicer and feeling more and more safe.

[Waterlooer]

Unless you can find some crimes per capita statistic, I don't believe this for a second. The two cities are so intermingled that they are basically one. If you removed the "Welcome to Kitchener/Waterloo" signs, no one would know that they had changed cities. I would be absolutely astounded if the crime rate in these two adjacent areas showed any statistically significant difference.

I shouldn't have said it like that, I didn't mean it in that way. I apologize. I don't know anything about the crime statistics, but this is just the way I feel. I FEEL safer in Waterloo than Kitchener.

[Urbanomicon]

My thinking is the larger the city, the bigger the crime (personal thinking).

This is absolutely true in almost every case. But you have to keep in mind, the number of crimes in total will increase with population, but generally (at least for K-W) the number of crimes per person is approximately the same. As a result, a given person has approximately the same likelyhood of being the victim of a crime in either city.

Edit: Feelings are an entirely different (and completely subjective) matter. All I can say is that I have lived in Kitchener most of my life and I rarely, if ever, have felt unsafe.

[Waterlooer]

There is a part of me that wants amalgamation to happen, and a part that doesn't want it to happen. I keep swaying from one thought to another thinking of the pros and cons

[Waterlooer]

Edit: Feelings are an entirely different (and completely subjective) matter. All I can say is that I have lived in Kitchener most of my life and I rarely, if ever, have felt unsafe.


I guess I'm thinking more about Kitchener's CBD and other commercial areas. I rarely go to any of the residential areas, so I don't truly know how safe or unsafe I feel in Kitchener unless I live in Kitchener like you do (I've been living in Waterloo for all my life).

[Duke-of-Waterloo]

Unless you can find some crimes per capita statistic, I don't believe this for a second. The two cities are so intermingled that they are basically one. If you removed the "Welcome to Kitchener/Waterloo" signs, no one would know that they had changed cities. I would be absolutely astounded if the crime rate in these two adjacent areas showed any statistically significant difference.

With all due respect, real estate/rent is more expensive in Waterloo, and office vacancies are much lower. That has to say something. Also, when taking friends around KW who are not from here, a lot commented on how they can tell once they've crossed the border and how Waterloo is more clean cut looking and that they feel safer in Waterloo. Just saying...none of this is my own personal opinion however. :RpS_smile:

[Waterlooer]

a lot commented on how they can tell once they've crossed the border and how Waterloo is more clean cut looking and that they feel safer in Waterloo.
Thanks Duke! I notice that too about the border and all of my family agrees.

[David]

No disrespect intended herebut don’t you think it’s a tad early to even start talking about where the city hall of an amalgamated Kitchener and Waterloo would be situated? I mean, really that seems quite premature.

Where are we in K-W when it comes to even talking about the possibility of amalgamation anyway?

On Election Day we will be having a referendum on if we should even talk about the idea and start looking at plans. And realistically, if Kitchener does happen to say, “Yeah, let’s look at the possibilities” that still doesn’t mean much unless Waterloo follows along.

On a related note, I sent in a letter to The Record last week in response to one from Scott Piatkowski (Ward 8) with regard to this very subject (amalgamation, not city halls). Mine has yet to be accepted, but Scott poses some good questions on the amalgamation issue and what people may want to ask the candidates.

Every candidate should have a position on amalgamation. Citizens deserve to know candidates' views on such a fundamental issue. I would think this would be more pressing then where council would hold its meetings and the city offices were located.

Please don’t get me wrong, I think that knowing where city hall would be is important, just not at this stage.

[IEFBR14]

On Election Day we will be having a referendum on if we should even talk about the idea and start looking at plans... Every candidate should have a position on amalgamation. Citizens deserve to know candidates' views on such a fundamental issue.
WADR this is inconsistent. Why should candidates have a position on amalgamation, other than having an open mind about the notion, before there's been a referendum on whether they should even explore the possibility of amalgamation?

That said, this whole tentative, toe-in-the-water process is ridiculous. I've said this before here and I'll say it again: This referendum is totally unnecessary. Politicians and civil servants from the two cities should always be in discussions about how best to work cooperatively to improve public services and to reduce costs through cooperation and sharing. They should always be exploring the pros and cons of closer cooperation -- including the possibility of amalgamation. That's what we pay them to do.

When/if the time comes that they believe residents would benefit from an official amalgamation of the two cities is when we should have this sort of referendum. At that time we'll all have more information on which to base our vote.

N.B. That first referendum would then be about whether we should proceed to negotiate a formal amalgamation process, based on what we know rather than on how we feel. It would require another referendum to approve such merger.

The current referendum is useless. Why would anyone with an open mind not be in favour of starting talks between the two cities to explore the benefits of amalgamation?

[Spokes]

I love Kitchener, I really do! I think the CBD in Waterloo looks a lot nicer and safer than downtown Kitchener. My thinking is the larger the city, the bigger the crime (personal thinking). Kitchener and Waterloo's CBD's both seem to be looking a lot nicer and feeling more and more safe.

Ok, but I'll ask again, WHY? Why do you think the larger the city the more crime there is? (Ottawa anyone?) And WHY does Waterloo look nicer and safer to you?


I guess I'm thinking more about Kitchener's CBD and other commercial areas. I rarely go to any of the residential areas, so I don't truly know how safe or unsafe I feel in Kitchener unless I live in Kitchener like you do (I've been living in Waterloo for all my life).

Same question. WHY do you feel unsafe in the CBD?

[Spokes]

This is absolutely true in almost every case. But you have to keep in mind, the number of crimes in total will increase with population, but generally (at least for K-W) the number of crimes per person is approximately the same. As a result, a given person has approximately the same likelyhood of being the victim of a crime in either city.

Edit: Feelings are an entirely different (and completely subjective) matter. All I can say is that I have lived in Kitchener most of my life and I rarely, if ever, have felt unsafe.

And the likelyhood of that in KW is quite small. Despite what some people think, crime is quite low here I believe.

[Spokes]

With all due respect, real estate/rent is more expensive in Waterloo, and office vacancies are much lower. That has to say something. Also, when taking friends around KW who are not from here, a lot commented on how they can tell once they've crossed the border and how Waterloo is more clean cut looking and that they feel safer in Waterloo. Just saying...none of this is my own personal opinion however. :RpS_smile:

I'm not disagreeing with you, I've heard that too, but I just don't see it to be honest with you. I think there's a difference sure, but the way people make it seem is that it hits you in the face the second you cross Union street. I don't see that. Sure part of the problem is that in between uptown and downtown is midtown which doesn't look good, so of course the easy comparison is those two areas which, ya is an easy one to make in Waterloo's favour.

Like I said, I just don't get it.

(And without getting too off topic...I thought vacancy rates were just about the same now, no?)

[Razzie]

I notice the difference between the two, but then again people may not look at what I tend to notice (for instance, Kitchener's street signs being blue and Waterloo's being green, and any view of Kitchener from the expressway being mostly walled-off whereas Waterloo's portion has loads of greenery). That being said, I'm against amalgamation as it would mean that only one council would have to look at everything that two councils previously had to look after, and that less initiative would be taken to improve our living spaces. If we had amalgamated years ago, would Kitchener be getting its King Street makeover and would Waterloo have its public square, or would Downtown still be battling a negative image and Uptown still have an eyesore shopping mall? We've come a long way separately and we've done it for the good of every citizen in both cities. One council with a ton of things on its plate where members who don't live anywhere near the area that their vote has an impact is not as likely to help develop our cities as we'd like to see them, in my opinion.

As well, I've never heard of any amalgamation success stories, either from the press or the group pushing amalgamation itself.

[BuildingScout]

As well, I've never heard of any amalgamation success stories, either from the press or the group pushing amalgamation itself.

I posted a study on these pages of the various cities in which it was a success. It is true we came a long way separately, but frankly I don't think any signs of great success in that separation. Waterloo way underperforms other university towns and Kitchener has been in the doldrums for longer that I care to remember (Google+Pharmacy school might finally change this).


I thought vacancy rates were just about the same now, no?

Nope, still higher in Kitchener. See the related thread on statistics.

[IEFBR14]

Waterloo way underperforms other university towns.Please explain.

[Razzie]

I posted a study on these pages of the various cities in which it was a success.

The study you refer to doesn't seem to be publicly available online in its full form, and therefore can't do much to change opinions.

[Spokes]

As well, I've never heard of any amalgamation success stories, either from the press or the group pushing amalgamation itself.

I think a lot of the failed situations were forced amalgamations. I believe St Paul and Minneapolis was by choice and that's a good situation. I believe there are others but can't remember them off the top of my head.

[Razzie]

It's good to know that it can work (in the case of St Paul and Minneapolis) but for a group pushing as hard as they did to get the question on the ballot I'm amazed that I'm not seeing any information supporting their side being presented to the public. Right now all we the public are familiar with is situations like Toronto (failure) and Montreal (failure, along with many successful de-mergers happening after public referendums)

[David]

Rather than a merger, we should look at improving cooperation between cities both at the Council and community levels when dealing with common economic and service related issues. We don’t need to take away people’s individuality in order to work together and accomplish positive results. Just because we are close to Waterloo geographically, doesn't mean that Kitchener or Waterloo should be one city. In part, I think this answers IEFBR14's question on why all candidates should have a view on amalgamation, even at this early stage. If ones opinion were to change later on, after more information were to come up, that's okay too. Personally, I look forward to a debate on this issue. But I want a debate, and I would want the voters to make the final call, not councillors and mayors and city planners.

[KevinL]

I think the two cities do have their differences, in their character and general outlook; Waterloo is primarily white-collar and hi-tech, and is certainly influenced by its two universities. Kitchener is far more blue-collar, but this is starting to shift as post-industrialism works its way in; I can see Kitchener's remaining industry gradually shifting higher-tech in the years ahead, and its population accordingly.

I am in favour of amalgamation. Yes, the differences I note above are obvious, but they can exist just as well as regions of a single city, one whose boundaries are already blurred today. A single council might water down the sense of administrative closeness we now have, but I can see more community-based organizations taking up the slack (as I believe has happened in Toronto).

Most of all, I think if the world outside sees a single city of Waterloo, speaking with one voice, we will gain far more than what our current arrangement provides.

The referendum is a good first step. I do hope it passes, and talks can begin in earnest.

[garthdanlor]

Rather than a merger, we should look at improving cooperation between cities both at the Council and community levels when dealing with common economic and service related issues.
Closer cooperation between these geographically linked cities is a prime motivation for merger. We have always had strong bilateral relations between the two cities (transit is a prime example), and with the growth in Regional responsibilities we have seen an increase in the sharing of many other services. Of course we should continue to increase cooperation between the two cities, but really wouldn't this increased level of cooperation, planning and integration be much easier and more efficient if we were actually one city rather than two cities (or 1 region rather than a collection of cities and villages)?


We don’t need to take away people’s individuality in order to work together and accomplish positive results.
How will a merger take away one's individuality? You will still live in the same home, have the same past, and the same hopes for the future, and continue to call yourself a Waterlooer or Kitchenerite if you so desire. The most obvious change for most will simply be the corporation name on your tax bill.


In part, I think this answers IEFBR14's question on why all candidates should have a view on amalgamation, even at this early stage. If ones opinion were to change later on, after more information were to come up, that's okay too.
I think anyone who aspires to public office in the Twin Cities should have an opinion on merger as this clearly isn't a new issue and is always bubbling just under the surface in our local politics. It is also perfectly understandable if these opinions change after further discussion and research. I also think it is very admirable that you are making you opinions know in this public forum and hope to hear more...thanks.

As a bit of an aside, why is it that KW has escaped amalgamation (forced or otherwise) over the past 40 years when we have seen cities like Thunder Bay and Cambridge in the 70s, Toronto in the 90s, and numerous other since then be forced to join? I mean KW has always been an obvious candidate...do we have compromising pictures of the province??

[Urbanomicon]

If we had amalgamated years ago, would Kitchener be getting its King Street makeover and would Waterloo have its public square, or would Downtown still be battling a negative image and Uptown still have an eyesore shopping mall?

Well I obviously can't speak to "what would have been" if K-W had been amalgamated previously, I think that one of the greatest benefits of amalgamation is that a central downtown core could be created instead of the population trying to support the creation of two seperate cores (downtown and uptown). Perhaps this will result in the intensification of midtown, since both cities currently seem to be avoiding intensifying this area, likely because it is on the border.

[Waterlooer]

Ok, but I'll ask again, WHY? Why do you think the larger the city the more crime there is? (Ottawa anyone?) And WHY does Waterloo look nicer and safer to you?



Same question. WHY do you feel unsafe in the CBD?

The way downtown looks is the main reason. It is looking more and more better, but lots of boarded up stores and whenever I walk down there, the people don't seem to be as friendly. Uptown has a family feeling to it. Bigger cities generally have higher crime rates.

[Waterlooer]

Well I obviously can't speak to "what would have been" if K-W had been amalgamated previously, I think that one of the greatest benefits of amalgamation is that a central downtown core could be created instead of the population trying to support the creation of two seperate cores (downtown and uptown). Perhaps this will result in the intensification of midtown, since both cities currently seem to be avoiding intensifying this area, likely because it is on the border.

I like the idea of having a midtown, it would complete the CBD in a way. But I don't know why the cities have to amalgamate for this to happen.

[taylortbb]

a lot commented on how they can tell once they've crossed the border and how Waterloo is more clean cut looking and that they feel safer in Waterloo.

I think Waterloo looks more like a sales brochure for suburbia, if that's what you mean by "clean cut". Kitchener however looks more like a proper urban city. This means there are places that aren't so well off, and that there's more social services, but that sort of diversity is important in a city. I think Waterloo has a horrible track record of pushing our problems onto Kitchener. I'm not just talking about social services for the poor either. Kitchener does a better job with libraries. They've also got a more urban and progressive planning department. Those mixed-use corridors would never be created in Waterloo.

I'm not saying Waterloo doesn't have its strengths too, but these attitudes I'm seeing about Kitchener seem very suburban elitist. They're not what I expect from an urban forum like this.

There's also a good point about how the midtown to uptown transition doesn't help. If you could go straight from Doon to Laurelwood I doubt anyone would notice the border.

I also encourage you to spend some time in downtown Kitchener. I once saw it as somewhere to be avoided, but I've discovered that was more an impression I got from the opinions of others than the reality of downtown. Once I started spending time there I discovered lots of great restaurants, many of which are now my among my favourites for a night out.

[Spokes]

The way downtown looks is the main reason. It is looking more and more better, but lots of boarded up stores and whenever I walk down there, the people don't seem to be as friendly. Uptown has a family feeling to it. Bigger cities generally have higher crime rates.

They definitely have higher crime rates, but as I said before, the crime here is low as is. If you've lived in a big city at all, you know, this place isn't unsafe.

And as for teh way it looks. I can see where you might be coming from, but things have changed, I dont think there are that many boarded up stores. And as for friendlyness, I guess it's a matter of opinion and experience. Ive never had an issue though.

Ill wrap up this post quoting taylortbb:


I also encourage you to spend some time in downtown Kitchener. I once saw it as somewhere to be avoided, but I've discovered that was more an impression I got from the opinions of others than the reality of downtown. Once I started spending time there I discovered lots of great restaurants, many of which are now my among my favourites for a night out.

[Waterlooer]

I just don't like the vibe in downtown. Uptown seems to bring the community together which makes it a better place for family rather than downtown Kitchener. Every time I've been to downtown I find the atmosphere very depressing.

[Rowe]

Uptown Waterloo is so cheesy and fake. I do agree with the comment that Waterloo feels like a big suburban neighbourhood... and it is. But it does have it's own character.

If anything.. I wouldn't be surprised if the two cities just kept the same name pre-amalgamation.

Kitchener-Waterloo.

[BuildingScout]

While Waterloo has some advantages such as lower vacancy rate, at the end of the day people judge the two cities as one when it comes to moving here, investing, etc. Over the long term we would be better off if Kitchener and Waterloo amalgamate, reducing layers of duplication and bureaucracy. Over the short term there might be some imbalances, though.

[BuildingScout]

If anything.. I wouldn't be surprised if the two cities just kept the same name pre-amalgamation.

Kitchener-Waterloo.

The way I heard it is that Mike Harris was ready to amalgamate K-W into Grand River city when Elizabeth Whitmer asked, as a special favor, for amalgamation not to go forward. I think chances are G-R would be back on the table in case of amalgamation.

[Urbanomicon]

If anything.. I wouldn't be surprised if the two cities just kept the same name pre-amalgamation.

Kitchener-Waterloo.

If the amalgamation goes through, I would imagine a neutral name would be chosen, similar to what was done with Cambridge. There will be too many calls of favouritism if either Kitchener or Waterloo is used.

Also as a side note, I hate the idea of a hyphonated name.

[BuildingScout]

Also as a side note, I hate the idea of a hyphonated name.

Plus Lord Kitchener sounds like a character hardly worth celebrating.

[David]

I just don't like the vibe in downtown. Uptown seems to bring the community together which makes it a better place for family rather than downtown Kitchener. Every time I've been to downtown I find the atmosphere very depressing.

Well, actually... What people don't like saying about the downtown is that they look at the 'questionable' individuals down there and get scared. That's the 'vibe' people talk about. There's this opinion held by many that they'll get harmed or disturbed in the downtown. As someone who has lived in suburban Kitchener as well as downtown, I can say that is not the case. Statistically, the crime rate is actually lower in Kitchener's downtown compared with other areas.

Making Downtown Kitchener look like Uptown Waterloo doesn't fix everything, really. Cosmetic changes are nice, but only go so far. Getting people downtown is an economic issue as much as it is one of security and appearances. The Market Square for example, I remember when that was actually considered a Mall, like Fairview and Conestoga. Even the King Centre. We have some really great businesses, but we need to make sure we keep them there, while at the same time being accessible and open to new ones.

[KayDubya]

Bigger cities generally have higher crime rates.Here's how McLean's ranked the top five unsafe cities in Ontario in 2009. In brackets is where they stand on a national scale.
Thunderbay-population 114,000(14)
Brantford -population 93,000 (17)
Hamilton -population 520,000(26)
Toronto -population 2,650,000(30)
Sarnia -population 74,000(68)

Waterloo region was measured as a whole not as individual cities(proof again of how outsiders see us?). The region ranked 18th among Ontario cities.

Waterloo -population 496,000(68)

These numbers prove one thing and that is the size of the city has absolutely no baring on it's safety. Many more complex factors play a role in crime than the number of residents in a city.

[Duke-of-Waterloo]

In all honesty, I agree with taylortbb that if we get amalgamated, we will probably be called Waterloo. Not only because of the Region's name, but also because many of the companies and organizations this Region is known for are located in or have their HQ in Waterloo.

I think at this point, I would be more for sharing of resources. We can start by merging Waterloo North Hydro and Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro (that would be hard as each City owns a percentage of the utilities along with the Townships), then move on to Fire Departments.

[Waterlooer]

Uptown Waterloo is so cheesy and fake.

How come you think Uptown is cheesy and fake?

[Waterlooer]

Making Downtown Kitchener look like Uptown Waterloo doesn't fix everything, really. Cosmetic changes are nice, but only go so far. Getting people downtown is an economic issue as much as it is one of security and appearances. The Market Square for example, I remember when that was actually considered a Mall, like Fairview and Conestoga. Even the King Centre. We have some really great businesses, but we need to make sure we keep them there, while at the same time being accessible and open to new ones.

The Civic District in downtown Kitchener is fine, the city centre district is getting more and more better as well... the market district is a disaster for me. It's an area of downtown that really needs to be fixed up in my opinion. Market district and around GRT terminal are the places I feel most unsafe.

[garthdanlor]

If the amalgamation goes through, I would imagine a neutral name would be chosen, similar to what was done with Cambridge. There will be too many calls of favouritism if either Kitchener or Waterloo is used.

Also as a side note, I hate the idea of a hyphonated name.
I'd actually expect that the official name would simply be Kitchener-Waterloo as it obviously contains both the prior names and we are already well known by that hyphenated name.
If, however, the region were to amalgamate then I would guess that Waterloo would become the official name.

Not a big fan of Lord Kitchener either...

[Trogdor]

It'd be awesome if as a throwback, we named the new city Berlin haha. But jokes aside, Waterloo would definitely be a better name for the combined cities simply because it has a great reputation in the business and educative worlds already. Also, as others have mentioned, it gets us away from being associated with Lord Kitchener (who as some may not know, was most famous for his novel use of concentration camps in the Boer War).

[Rowe]

How come you think Uptown is cheesy and fake?

Doesn't feel organic like a lot of the cities I've been too (similar size).

[Waterlooer]

Doesn't feel organic like a lot of the cities I've been too (similar size).

Hmm, I still don't know exactly what you mean, sorry :RpS_tongue:

[Rowe]

It doesn't feel like a city centre. It just big boxy shopping complexes.. very simple city hall.. and a plain public square. Yes there are some gems like the Perimeter Institute.. but overall, it feels fake.

Fake breasts are still breasts but they aren't like real breasts. Uptown has fake breasts.

[Waterlooer]

It doesn't feel like a city centre. It just big boxy shopping complexes.. very simple city hall.. and a plain public square. Yes there are some gems like the Perimeter Institute.. but overall, it feels fake.

Fake breasts are still breasts but they aren't like real breasts. Uptown has fake breasts.

If you still don't know what I mean, then your blinded by your Waterloo superiority complex.

I know what you mean now... I do have to disagree with you. I think it looks beautiful... the shopping areas, the city hall and yes, even the public square. It's all personal feelings so in a way we are both right and both wrong if that makes any sense.

[Waterlooer]

Really, it's all about where you're from. I've noticed that most people who are born, raised and who live in Waterloo are generally anti-amalgamation and have more negative thoughts about downtown Kitchener and positive thoughts about Uptown Waterloo. People born, raised and who live in Kitchener are generally pro-amalgamation and have more positive thoughts about downtown and negative thoughts about Uptown... thats the information I've gathered up. This past winter when the Waterloo council was voting if amalgamation should be on voting ballet, I don't even recall 1 delegation that supported amalgamation.

[Rowe]

Thats easy. Kitchener may get the naming rights.. since Kitchener has two times the population and money(depends on where you look) than Waterloo does. Waterloo might have the international reputation and 'status' but that is mainly because of the University. University of Waterloo is already trying to rebrand it's name to just 'Waterloo' since UW can mean any university with 'UW.'

I don't think it will be long before UW becomes Waterloo University.

So like what was said.. when the day comes (and we know it will) it will be Kitchener-Waterloo, Kitchener (Which Waterloo will not support) or something that isn't Kitchener or Waterloo.

[KayDubya]

Really, it's all about where you're from. I've noticed that most people who are born, raised and who live in Waterloo are generally anti-amalgamation and have more negative thoughts about downtown Kitchener and positive thoughts about Uptown Waterloo. People born, raised and who live in Kitchener are generally pro-amalgamation and have more positive thoughts about downtown and negative thoughts about Uptown... thats the information I've gathered up. This past winter when the Waterloo council was voting if amalgamation should be on voting ballet, I don't even recall 1 delegation that supported amalgamation.I've been in Kitchener my whole life. I love going downtown. It's such a great change from suburbia. Does it still need work? Darn right it does but it's come a long way since I went to high school down town in the 80's.
On the flip side I spend a lot of time up town as well. I love what they've done and I agree with other Waterloo residents, the place looks great!
As far as I'm concerned we're one city. I live and work in Kitchener, my wife is a former Waterloo resident who graduated from WLU and now works at UoW. I'm in both cities everyday and feel that both are equally my home.
I think a lot of people from Kitchener feel very proud of our twin city. I understand that (some) Waterloo residents feel Kitchener has some evil plan to "take over" their city but I believe the truth is we feel connected on so many levels that it just seems right to be one great city.

Sentimental I know but I really do love this whole big mess we call K-W.:RpS_love:
I do have other reasons I support amalgamation that are less about my personal sentiment but I just thought I'd let some of our Waterloo friends know how I believe a lot of us from Kitchener feel toward your city.

[Waterlooer]

Thank-you KayDubya... that is very nice stuff you said! Right now I feel like an evil person who's is saying Kitchener sucks, but I defiantly don't feel that way at all. I too love both Kitchener and Waterloo and consider them as the same city when talking to anyone. I love going to Kitchener but I personally like Waterloo better... I guess this is because it's the only place I've ever lived in so Kitchener has become 2nd favourite for me. Mind you I don't go to Kitchener that too often so I don't have a good reason to be saying Kitchener isn't as good as Waterloo. And I don't believe Waterloo is better than Kitchener at all. I just don't think there are many pros that will affect Waterloo if the twin-cities merge.

[Razzie]

I have a lot of opinions on this topic, so they might come out in a weird order, but thinking about it today I realized something - that the whole amalgamation discussion may end up tearing us further apart in the end. Rather than helping build eachother up we're just going to see more mudslinging in the end, and if amalgamation goes through, will that bitter sentiment go away? People in Cambridge and Bridgeport sure don't like what's happened to them many years ago. Thanks to this, the upcoming election will by and large be about amalgamation, when there are lots of other issues that the electorate could be using to decide who they wish to vote for.

As well, more centralized decision making isn't always a good thing. If you read The Toronto Star, you'll notice that in the mayor's race this year that between the two front runners, one has the downtown vote, and the other has the votes of all the old cities. Many people feel their tax dollars are mis-spent, and spent in the wrong areas. Could it happen here? Maybe.

I've read a few times on the forum here that amalgamation would allow us to speak "with one voice". Isn't it possible to do that without amalgamation? and is one voice necessarily a good idea? Waterloo's voice is loud and clear, but I'm getting the hint that Kitchener is having a bit of an identity crisis with the closure of so many of its manufacturing-based employers. Kitchener has a great opportunity to reinvent and rebrand itself, welcoming more creative class workers, or by touting a large base of skilled workers ready to work for any new manufacturer for any new industry, along with the land needed. Two cities attracting two different industries together in the region isn't a bad thing, and could lead to more jobs and industry in my opinion.

I guess I'm trying to find a way to say there's too many reasons not to amalgamate. Add to that nobody quantifying the need to amalgamate through saved tax dollars and the new investment any single voice may or may not bring, no publicly available reports praising the idea, and plenty of examples of what can go wrong, not to mention the fact nobody here or in town (i think, with the likely exception of Carl Zehr) goes to bed at night shaking their fist and going "why can't Kitchener and Waterloo be JUST ONE CITY!" and there simply, in my mind, is no need to kill the current municipal system.

[Spokes]

I just don't like the vibe in downtown. Uptown seems to bring the community together which makes it a better place for family rather than downtown Kitchener. Every time I've been to downtown I find the atmosphere very depressing.

What vibe is that that you don't like? And find depressing?

I personally enjoy the constant music I hear downtown this summer, something that I hope Uptown picks up on. I don't know how music can be depressing haha.

[Spokes]

Well, actually... What people don't like saying about the downtown is that they look at the 'questionable' individuals down there and get scared. That's the 'vibe' people talk about. There's this opinion held by many that they'll get harmed or disturbed in the downtown. As someone who has lived in suburban Kitchener as well as downtown, I can say that is not the case. Statistically, the crime rate is actually lower in Kitchener's downtown compared with other areas.

I've got no problem saying something about the 'questionable' individuals ;) haha.

But in all seriousness, the two cores shouldn't have to "look" the same. And as for the 'questionable' individuals, find one big city that doesn't have them. As we grow, its something that you can't ignore, and like it or not, we're growing. Look at London, Hamilton, Ottawa, Toronto, all bigger cities, all have similar issues.

The issue here is that they out number the 'non-questionable' individuals. As more people move downtown you won't notice them as much. But then again, are they really THAT big a deal? Are they really THAT scary? If so, toughen up.


Making Downtown Kitchener look like Uptown Waterloo doesn't fix everything, really. Cosmetic changes are nice, but only go so far. Getting people downtown is an economic issue as much as it is one of security and appearances. The Market Square for example, I remember when that was actually considered a Mall, like Fairview and Conestoga. Even the King Centre. We have some really great businesses, but we need to make sure we keep them there, while at the same time being accessible and open to new ones.

You're dead on, we need to jump start the economy of the core, and while Market Square and King Centre were nice ideas, I'd much rather have the businesses outside of a mall setting, but that's another issue. I do think though that as much as getting tons of people working in the core is important, even more so is people living there. There's already lots of employees working there, you see them 9-5, any time after 6 though the cores (yes I said coreS) are for the most part dead.

[Spokes]

In all honesty, I agree with taylortbb that if we get amalgamated, we will probably be called Waterloo. Not only because of the Region's name, but also because many of the companies and organizations this Region is known for are located in or have their HQ in Waterloo.

I think at this point, I would be more for sharing of resources. We can start by merging Waterloo North Hydro and Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro (that would be hard as each City owns a percentage of the utilities along with the Townships), then move on to Fire Departments.

I think you're right about the name Waterloo, but really, Im not sure it'd be because of the businesses. Im not sure its THAT much of a factor, but that's just me.

The only thing that might get in the way of going with Waterloo because of the Region is that Cambridge probably wouldn't join in.

[Spokes]

The Civic District in downtown Kitchener is fine, the city centre district is getting more and more better as well... the market district is a disaster for me. It's an area of downtown that really needs to be fixed up in my opinion. Market district and around GRT terminal are the places I feel most unsafe.

I feel like a broken record, but you keep saying you feel unsafe. You said because of the feel and that there are boarded up stores. There are less than a handfull in the Market District and even fewer near the Terminal, so I don't get it.

I do agree with you that the Market district needs some work, without a doubt, but unsafe, not at all if you're used to what a real urban core is like, in my opinion.

[Spokes]

It doesn't feel like a city centre. It just big boxy shopping complexes.. very simple city hall.. and a plain public square. Yes there are some gems like the Perimeter Institute.. but overall, it feels fake.

Fake breasts are still breasts but they aren't like real breasts. Uptown has fake breasts.

If you still don't know what I mean, then your blinded by your Waterloo superiority complex.

Awesome breast analogy!!!

[Spokes]

Thank-you KayDubya... that is very nice stuff you said! Right now I feel like an evil person who's is saying Kitchener sucks, but I defiantly don't feel that way at all. I too love both Kitchener and Waterloo and consider them as the same city when talking to anyone. I love going to Kitchener but I personally like Waterloo better... I guess this is because it's the only place I've ever lived in so Kitchener has become 2nd favourite for me. Mind you I don't go to Kitchener that too often so I don't have a good reason to be saying Kitchener isn't as good as Waterloo. And I don't believe Waterloo is better than Kitchener at all. I just don't think there are many pros that will affect Waterloo if the twin-cities merge.

While Im replying to you, it's not directed at only you.

There's lots of people of this mindset, and I think its stupid. Regardless of what city you live in within the Region, with or without amalgamation, we have a number of great cities at our disposal, so why not explore them all. Any one from Waterloo or Kitchener or Cambridge who chooses to only stay within their "city" is just staying within their own little bubble and I personally feel sorry for them. This is a great Region and by not seeing what it's got to offer outside of your immediate backyard you're doing yourself a disservice.

[David]

You're dead on, we need to jump start the economy of the core, and while Market Square and King Centre were nice ideas, I'd much rather have the businesses outside of a mall setting, but that's another issue. I do think though that as much as getting tons of people working in the core is important, even more so is people living there. There's already lots of employees working there, you see them 9-5, any time after 6 though the cores (yes I said coreS) are for the most part dead.

No, as far as malls I agree with you, Spokes. I am just trying to say that those two buildings were once very active, and over the last decade and a half, we've seen a decline.

And yes, the issues aren't with the folks working 9-5, it is the 6 and later crowd where many people take issue. As I said, I have lived all over Kitchener, and the downtown at night actually bothers me less than the supposed 'family-friendly' areas. Maybe that's just because I'm used to being down there?

People are going to feel what they feel regardless of statistics. You watch a horror movie, you still get scared even if you know it is a movie. Human nature is a wonderful thing, sometimes. :P

The 'after-sixers' have just as much right to be in the downtown, assuming that they maintain. I think that if the public who are afraid to come downtown at night actually felt a sense of security, there would be less stigma with regards to Downtown after dark. I'm not talking cameras or anything like that, but we have other means.

When do people feel safest? In my opinion, it is when they are in a group. Look at all the summer events we had this year, and every year. I think if we give people reasons to be down from 5:00 onwards that in itself will create a sense of security for many.

[KevinL]

It doesn't feel like a city centre. It just big boxy shopping complexes.. very simple city hall.. and a plain public square. Yes there are some gems like the Perimeter Institute.. but overall, it feels fake.

Really? When I think of Uptown, I think of smaller, independent businesses - the Princess, the Heuther, Marbles, Words Worth. Even chain stuff like the Home Hardware, Valumart and Shoppers have a certain charm that you don't find in their cookie-cutter suburban incarnations.

I love both cores, in different ways. Uptown has survived better over the last few decades, with Downtown having to battle back from decline, but they both have excellent merits and should be appreciated each to their own.

[Spokes]

The 'after-sixers' have just as much right to be in the downtown, assuming that they maintain. I think that if the public who are afraid to come downtown at night actually felt a sense of security, there would be less stigma with regards to Downtown after dark. I'm not talking cameras or anything like that, but we have other means.

When do people feel safest? In my opinion, it is when they are in a group. Look at all the summer events we had this year, and every year. I think if we give people reasons to be down from 5:00 onwards that in itself will create a sense of security for many.

You're dead on here. So what needs to be done? I think the new lighting on King has done wonders. The improved brightness has really made things a lot better, I think it needs to be done elsewhere too, Charles and Duke Streets and everything connecting them. Now I know that costs a lot, but its an investment that NEEDS to happen if we're committed to core growth.

Improved police presence will help too, and its happening, but needs to continue to grow, and not cops in cars, but cops walking around and talking to people.

And i think the final, and biggest thing that will make people feel safe, is other people. The biggest deterrent to crime I think, is other people being around, whether you know them or not, if there's other people around, you'll feel safer.

[Waterlooer]

What vibe is that that you don't like? And find depressing?

I personally enjoy the constant music I hear downtown this summer, something that I hope Uptown picks up on. I don't know how music can be depressing haha.

Compared to places like downtown Brampton or Brantford Kitchener downtown is super nice, but compared to Uptown Waterloo it doesn't level up. Also, I always hear music from Uptown's public square which is very nice and relaxing. The mood of downtown isn't good for me... that is the depressing feeling I get. I always see lots of people there that are very unfriendly and some quite mean... this is like any CBD and is what brings the mood down. I see more families in Uptown which gives the mood a better feeling (for me).

[Waterlooer]

If the cities do amalgamate, they should combined the names together so it's fair... something like Kitcherloo :RpS_tongue: however I'm almost certain people wouldn't like that name.

[Waterlooer]

While Im replying to you, it's not directed at only you.

There's lots of people of this mindset, and I think its stupid. Regardless of what city you live in within the Region, with or without amalgamation, we have a number of great cities at our disposal, so why not explore them all. Any one from Waterloo or Kitchener or Cambridge who chooses to only stay within their "city" is just staying within their own little bubble and I personally feel sorry for them. This is a great Region and by not seeing what it's got to offer outside of your immediate backyard you're doing yourself a disservice.

I do go outside of Waterloo to different part of the region and without a doubt I love it! I hate to sound pro Waterloo and anti-Kitchener but every time I do go to Kitchener I don't enjoy it nearly as much as being in Waterloo. Waterloo has a better sense of community in my opinion and no matter how much I go to Kitchener I don't think I'll change my mind.

[Rowe]

I don't mind both Uptown Waterloo or Downtown Kitchener. They both have their own character which is somewhat unique since both cities are so close.

But Kitchener does have more bones to work with than Waterloo. Also.. Google left suburban Waterloo for an urban location in 'depressing downtown.' This is something Waterloo should look at.

But I think amalgamation would be a huge benefit to the cities since we have so much government here. Less bureaucracy to work through.

[Waterlooer]

I have a lot of opinions on this topic, so they might come out in a weird order, but thinking about it today I realized something - that the whole amalgamation discussion may end up tearing us further apart in the end. Rather than helping build eachother up we're just going to see more mudslinging in the end, and if amalgamation goes through, will that bitter sentiment go away?

I guess I'm trying to find a way to say there's too many reasons not to amalgamate. Add to that nobody quantifying the need to amalgamate through saved tax dollars and the new investment any single voice may or may not bring, no publicly available reports praising the idea, and plenty of examples of what can go wrong, not to mention the fact nobody here or in town (i think, with the likely exception of Carl Zehr) goes to bed at night shaking their fist and going "why can't Kitchener and Waterloo be JUST ONE CITY!" and there simply, in my mind, is no need to kill the current municipal system.

I agree with you when you say amalgamation may end up tearing us further apart in the end. Really, read back on all the comments people have been posting. I'm saying bad stuff about Kitchener, people are saying bad stuff about Waterloo... why can't we just be 2 individual cites that get along?? If Kitchener's that much better than Waterloo then why do you even want to amalgamate with us?

[garthdanlor]

I agree with you when you say amalgamation may end up tearing us further apart in the end. Really, read back on all the comments people have been posting. I'm saying bad stuff about Kitchener, people are saying bad stuff about Waterloo... why can't we just be 2 individual cites that get along?? If Kitchener's that much better than Waterloo then why do you even want to amalgamate with us?
Well the majority of this "bad stuff" is simply people posting that they prefer one downtown over the other. It's just opinion and preferring one downtown (or city) over the other doesn't preclude supporting amalgamation (take a look at the poll). My preference at the moment leans toward Uptown, but I'm pretty sure that this will swing back to Downtown as it redevelops. We should celebrate this diversity of choice and not turn it into a pissing contest.

This debate shouldn't be about which city is better, but rather about making a better city. The supporters should be emphasizing that the goal of amalgamation is a better planned and more efficiently run city, with a rationalization of social services, libraries, recreational services, etc. throughout the community. To disarm opponents, we should also be upfront and indicate that amalgamation isn't necessarily about cost savings (initially anyway) as livery and sign changes, system and equipment mergers, redundancies, etc could be quite costly. Savings may come over time but the goal is better service and a better planned city, and not necessarily a cheaper one. Unfortunately, it is a polarizing question and we are likely to see more feeling than reason in the debate...

[panamaniac]

I agree with you when you say amalgamation may end up tearing us further apart in the end. Really, read back on all the comments people have been posting. I'm saying bad stuff about Kitchener, people are saying bad stuff about Waterloo... why can't we just be 2 individual cites that get along?? If Kitchener's that much better than Waterloo then why do you even want to amalgamate with us?

If the discussion degenerates into arguments about which community is "better", there will be no amalgamation and bad feelings from the debate. Such perceptions are also pretty much irrelevant to the merits of amalgamation in any event, as this should be based on a sound "business case". On the other hand, it is an uphill battle. I was at a dinner party in Waterloo the other night and the hosts (born and raised in Kitchener) made the point that "they hadn't been to Kitchener in years". Another guest (also born and raised in Kitchener but living elsewhere for many years) described Kitchener as a "write off". Her criteria for that conclusion being the lack of shopping Downtown and discomfort with the "social class" that she believes inhabits the area (the irony that she has not actually been to Downtown for decades seems to elude her). For me, K-W in its entirety is my "community" and I plan to maintain that perspective, whether there is amalgamation or not.

[David]

Someone had mentioned Waterloo seems safer than Kitchener. Sorry to point this (http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/770851) out. I think they were talking about Uptown/Downtown, but this still (sadly enough) proves that criminal acts can occur anywhere.

[KLM]

Well , seems this amalgamation will give us more pain and lengthy discussions. I would rather like to see something done more proactive towards this issue.

Good thing Kitchener is not called Berlin anymore ,hint,hint.

[uptownfoodcritic]

Someone had mentioned Waterloo seems safer than Kitchener. Sorry to point this (http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/770851) out. I think they were talking about Uptown/Downtown, but this still (sadly enough) proves that criminal acts can occur anywhere.

Of course there is always this to counter-balance that report:

http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/661909

[Duke-of-Waterloo]

Someone had mentioned Waterloo seems safer than Kitchener. Sorry to point this (http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/770851) out. I think they were talking about Uptown/Downtown, but this still (sadly enough) proves that criminal acts can occur anywhere.

Sorry, but I don't see what you're trying to say by simply posting a link to a crime incident in Waterloo. It doesn't really add anything constructive to the discussion for either side. Incidents like this (http://news.therecord.com/article/765388) can happen in Kitchener too. If you do a search, you could probably find a similar crime in Wellesley Township of all places in the Region...

EDIT: Here (http://news.therecord.com/article/769719)you go.

[garthdanlor]

Of course there is always this to counter-balance that report:

http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/661909

Yep, on any given day we will find crimes happening in all 3 of the Region's cities but the reality is that crime (when compared to other cities in Canada) in the Region is very low (#68 in Canada), and amalgamation won't change this in any way.

[David]

Sorry, but I don't see what you're trying to say by simply posting a link to a crime incident in Waterloo. It doesn't really advance the discussion for either side. Incidents like this (http://news.therecord.com/article/765388) can happen in Kitchener too. Heck, if you do a search, you could probably find a similar crime in Wellesley Township of all places in the Region...


Someone had mentioned Waterloo seems safer than Kitchener. Sorry to point this (http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/770851) out. I think they were talking about Uptown/Downtown, but this still (sadly enough) proves that criminal acts can occur anywhere.

That's all I was getting at, really. That branding an area based on looks doesn't always work. The whole judging a book by it's cover thing.

[Waterlooer]

I still think there is more crime in Kitchener than in Waterloo. I have no evidence of this so please prove me wrong.

[Waterlooer]

I still am unsure oh how amalgamation will benefit Waterloo... there are way more cons than pros (for Waterloo) and it's really risky to amalgamate too... both cities are in good shape so why take the risk?

[garthdanlor]

I still think there is more crime in Kitchener than in Waterloo. I have no evidence of this so please prove me wrong.
Really??? How then could you come to a conclusion like this if you have no evidence.

[Waterlooer]

Really??? How then could you come to a conclusion like this if you have no evidence.

I know I have no evidence, this is just how I personally feel. I'll try to get some

[Urbanomicon]

The Waterloo Regional Police post maps of all calls received by them bimonthly. You can find them here.

http://www.wrps.on.ca/community-safety/reported-police-activity-in-your-neighbourhood.htm

In general, Kitchener, as expected, has more total calls than Waterloo. However, given that Kitchener has more than double the population or Waterloo, it should have more than double the amount of calls to have the same crime rate (crimes per person). Based on these maps, I would say that the crime rate in the two cities is comparable.

Based on the total number of calls received by the police relative to the population of the city, I would estimate that Cambridge has a higher crime rate (crimes per person) than either Kitchener or Waterloo. It has only a slightly greater population than Waterloo, but a substantial amount more calls.

Edit: You can remove different layers on the map to hide calls for non-crime related things, such as traffic accidents.

[fin2limb]

I moved to KW 10 years ago from a small hick town called Walkerton to attend University. In these 10 years, I've lived in both uptown Waterloo and downtown Kitchener.

When I lived in Waterloo I would very often go to Kitchener to do the following things: See a rangers game, watch a concert at centre in the square, go dining (charcoal anyone?), go shopping, have a drink at Bobby's, visit a friend, watch standup at Yuk Yuks, go for a leisurely stroll in Vic park.. just to name a few. Now I live in Kitchener and I still do many of these things, and more!

Since I've moved to Kitchener, I very often go to Waterloo to do the following things: Work!, go dining (Bhima's anyone?), play golf, go swimming at the Rec complex, visit a friend, have a drink at the Huether, see a movie at the princess, and more!

My point is I am in both cities on pretty much a daily basis. Both cities have lots to offer. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. This waterloo vs kitchener debate grows tiresome after awhile. We have to look at the bigger picture. Will amalgamation improve the region as a whole? Will services be more efficient and less costly? Will it improve processes and reduce waste and overlap? Like someone said above, there has to be a sound business case.

Anyway, I've always viewed KW as one city and always will, amalgamation or no amalgamation.

[Waterlooer]

Thanks Urbanomicon and fin2limb

[Spokes]

Compared to places like downtown Brampton or Brantford Kitchener downtown is super nice, but compared to Uptown Waterloo it doesn't level up. Also, I always hear music from Uptown's public square which is very nice and relaxing. The mood of downtown isn't good for me... that is the depressing feeling I get. I always see lots of people there that are very unfriendly and some quite mean... this is like any CBD and is what brings the mood down. I see more families in Uptown which gives the mood a better feeling (for me).

That sucks that you've had so many bad experiences in Kitchener. I for one haven't, and personally, I don't think anyone's ever been "mean" to me. In fact, in terms of interaction with people, I'd say Waterloo and Kitchener have provided quite similar experiences.

[panamaniac]

............

Anyway, I've always viewed KW as one city and always will, amalgamation or no amalgamation.

You and me both!

[Spokes]

I agree with you when you say amalgamation may end up tearing us further apart in the end. Really, read back on all the comments people have been posting. I'm saying bad stuff about Kitchener, people are saying bad stuff about Waterloo... why can't we just be 2 individual cites that get along?? If Kitchener's that much better than Waterloo then why do you even want to amalgamate with us?

I think one of the things that amalgamation can achieve is bringing us together, long term. There could be some conflict short term, but down the road it could bring us together quite well in what is already essentially one city.

Uptown and Downtown actually compliment eachother quite well. Especially when you factor in an improved mid-town, you'd get one quite large core that would essentially have different neighbourhoods. (Look at all the different neighbourhoods in Downtown Toronto for example, but they're all still in the core)

Like it was said before, downtown has the bones for a big major downtown, but uptown, not as much in my opinion, and that's not a bad thing. Like I said, they can not only co-exist, but compliment one another

[Spokes]

Someone had mentioned Waterloo seems safer than Kitchener. Sorry to point this (http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/770851) out. I think they were talking about Uptown/Downtown, but this still (sadly enough) proves that criminal acts can occur anywhere.

The bottom line is that it does happen in all of the region. And it's not like the crime happens mostly in one city, its fairly balanced. As Urbanomicon stated, it's fairly comparable especially given the different sizes. But Im sure people from Waterloo commit crimes in Kitchener and vise verca. Whichever way you look at it, for a city our size, we're damn safe, as the stats posted earlier show.


Of course there is always this to counter-balance that report:

http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/661909

Don't get me started on how stupid that break in list is hah.

[Spokes]

I still am unsure oh how amalgamation will benefit Waterloo... there are way more cons than pros (for Waterloo) and it's really risky to amalgamate too... both cities are in good shape so why take the risk?

Since Im not from Waterloo I don't know what the perspective of a Waterloo resident is, so I ask: What cons? And what risk?

[Spokes]

I moved to KW 10 years ago from a small hick town called Walkerton to attend University. In these 10 years, I've lived in both uptown Waterloo and downtown Kitchener.

When I lived in Waterloo I would very often go to Kitchener to do the following things: See a rangers game, watch a concert at centre in the square, go dining (charcoal anyone?), go shopping, have a drink at Bobby's, visit a friend, watch standup at Yuk Yuks, go for a leisurely stroll in Vic park.. just to name a few. Now I live in Kitchener and I still do many of these things, and more!

Since I've moved to Kitchener, I very often go to Waterloo to do the following things: Work!, go dining (Bhima's anyone?), play golf, go swimming at the Rec complex, visit a friend, have a drink at the Huether, see a movie at the princess, and more!

My point is I am in both cities on pretty much a daily basis. Both cities have lots to offer. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. This waterloo vs kitchener debate grows tiresome after awhile. We have to look at the bigger picture. Will amalgamation improve the region as a whole? Will services be more efficient and less costly? Will it improve processes and reduce waste and overlap? Like someone said above, there has to be a sound business case.

Anyway, I've always viewed KW as one city and always will, amalgamation or no amalgamation.

Very well said fin2limb!!

[Waterlooer]

I found this for the city of Kitchener: http://www.kwpages.com/page/Kitchener.htm

City issues
Crime

Despite having one of the lowest crime rates in Canada, Kitchener has had a rapid increase in crime over the past two years. Violent crimes such as robberies and sexual assaults have gone up 20% since 2003. Drug crime has also gone up, in relation to robberies. However, the drug crimes tend to be related to less serious drugs such as marijuana. Cocaine and crack are on the rise as well, but have not increased much in the recent years. In 2004, there was a +5 increase in murders compared to earlier years. The rise in crime is most likely a result of the rapid increase in population.

Illegal gun possession is on an increase as well. While the majority of the guns make their way up to Toronto, illegal guns are being seen in London, Hamilton and Kitchener. Of the suddenly increasing number of robberies, many are carried out with guns, although knives and BB guns tend to be more common.

I found no crime issues on Waterloo's page (from the same website): http://www.kwpages.com/page/Waterloo.htm

[Urbanomicon]

I found this for the city of Kitchener: http://www.kwpages.com/page/Kitchener.htm

City issues
Crime

Despite having one of the lowest crime rates in Canada, Kitchener has had a rapid increase in crime over the past two years. Violent crimes such as robberies and sexual assaults have gone up 20% since 2003. Drug crime has also gone up, in relation to robberies. However, the drug crimes tend to be related to less serious drugs such as marijuana. Cocaine and crack are on the rise as well, but have not increased much in the recent years. In 2004, there was a +5 increase in murders compared to earlier years. The rise in crime is most likely a result of the rapid increase in population.

Illegal gun possession is on an increase as well. While the majority of the guns make their way up to Toronto, illegal guns are being seen in London, Hamilton and Kitchener. Of the suddenly increasing number of robberies, many are carried out with guns, although knives and BB guns tend to be more common.

I found no crime issues on Waterloo's page (from the same website): http://www.kwpages.com/page/Waterloo.htm

There are a number of issues with that. Off the top of my head, the article doesn't cite any sources. Secondly, a 20% increase in crime in a city with extremely low crime to begin with does not make much difference (ex. If you have 5 robberies in a year, you now have 6). Thirdly, as is mentioned in the article, Kitchener's population has grown enormously in the last decade or so. A rise in the NUMBER of incidences of crime is to be expected (which is all this article talks about). To get a proper crime rate, you need to look at a CRIMES PER PERSON statistic. Additionally, the sample period this article looks at is only two years (between 2003 and 2005). This is not only far too short a sample period to draw conclusions, but depending on the year-to-year variability in the number of crimes committed, it may not even be statistically significant. I'm sure there are other things, but I think I've already discredited that article completely.

[Spokes]

There are a number of issues with that. Off the top of my head, the article doesn't cite any sources. Secondly, a 20% increase in crime in a city with extremely low crime to begin with does not make much difference (ex. If you have 5 robberies in a year, you now have 6). Thirdly, as is mentioned in the article, Kitchener's population has grown enormously in the last decade or so. A rise in the NUMBER of incidences of crime is to be expected (which is all this article talks about). To get a proper crime rate, you need to look at a CRIMES PER PERSON statistic. Additionally, the sample period this article looks at is only two years (between 2003 and 2005). This is not only far too short a sample period to draw conclusions, but depending on the year-to-year variability in the number of crimes committed, it may not even be statistically significant. I'm sure there are other things, but I think I've already discredited that article completely.

The appropriate place to look for crime stats is the link you posted, directly from the source, the WRPS. As you said, article discredited.

[panamaniac]

There are a number of issues with that. Off the top of my head, the article doesn't cite any sources. Secondly, a 20% increase in crime in a city with extremely low crime to begin with does not make much difference (ex. If you have 5 robberies in a year, you now have 6). Thirdly, as is mentioned in the article, Kitchener's population has grown enormously in the last decade or so. A rise in the NUMBER of incidences of crime is to be expected (which is all this article talks about). To get a proper crime rate, you need to look at a CRIMES PER PERSON statistic. Additionally, the sample period this article looks at is only two years (between 2003 and 2005). This is not only far too short a sample period to draw conclusions, but depending on the year-to-year variability in the number of crimes committed, it may not even be statistically significant. I'm sure there are other things, but I think I've already discredited that article completely.

Indeed, the "data" cited is too out of date and too limited in duration to be of any particular relevance. StatsCan data has shown the region to be very safe, particularly with respect to violent crime. Any differences in crime rates between K and W are likely not dissimilar to those one would expect to find between neighbourhoods in any larger urban centre. I am not sure, in any event, that the issue is in any way relevant to a future discussion on the merits of amalgamation.

[Waterlooer]

I wish I could get the crime rate separate for K-W-C but you're right about Cambridge having the highest according to the maps.

I'm interested to see the % of people in Waterloo who want to amalgamate compared to the % of people from Kitchener... anyone from Waterloo who is for amalgamation and anyone from Kitchener who is against amalgamation I would really like to hear your input. From me being at the Waterloo council meeting and being in the city itself, it seems as if there is a higher % of people in Waterloo who don't want to merge. From hearing how the Kitchener council meetings went and discussing this topic with people who are from Kitchener who are on this site, it seems there is a higher % of people in Kitchener who want to amalgamate.

[Spokes]

Waterlooer, as a Waterloo resident why do you think amalgamation is bad? And you mentioned cons and risk, can you elaborate on those two points?

[UrbanWaterloo]

I found this for the city of Kitchener: http://www.kwpages.com/page/Kitchener.htm
City issues Crime
In 2004, there was a +5 increase in murders compared to earlier years.
I found no crime issues on Waterloo's page (from the same website): http://www.kwpages.com/page/Waterloo.htm

A website with no references is for the most part useless in my opinion. I suspect the Kitchener stats they are referring to are the Kitchener CMA crime stats. Further more their data is incorrect. The number of murders in 2004 jumped by 4 (http://www.wrps.on.ca/images/stories/About_Us/annual_%20report_2004.pdf), not the 5 they posted. You'll notice I linked directly to the Waterloo Regional Police Services 2004 Report. Sure you could cherry pick the low point of 2003 but those comparisons would be meaningless. Why not compare the 9 Violations Causing Death in 2007 to the 4 in 2008 (http://www.wrps.on.ca/images/stories/Annual_Report/annualreport2008.pdf)? It would be just as meaningless. Looking at things over the longer-term you can see our crime rate is low and steady.

Besides personal safety, why is this important to know? It's so that we don't start ramping up our police budget. Don't get me wrong, the police provide an invaluable service to the community, but no matter how much we spend on this service crime here (or anywhere) will never completely go away. If you can accept that fact, then as a population we can take advantage of living in a safe community. This means when we have extra money to spend those dollars can go towards urban renewal, arts & culture, transit improvements, rather than expanding the police force.

Look at how steady the Violent Crime Rate was from 1998-2008 (http://www.wrps.on.ca/images/stories/Annual_Report/annualreport2008.pdf)
http://i576.photobucket.com/albums/ss203/UrbanWaterloo/Misc/CriminalOffenceStatisticsWaterlooRegion2008.png

Lowest rate of robberies of the major metro areas.
Table 3: Police-reported robbery by census metropolitan area, 2008 (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010001/article/11115/tbl/tbl03-eng.htm)
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa262/AndrewEH/Table3-Police-reportedrobberybycens.jpg

http://www.wrvitalsigns.ca/safety
http://www.wrvitalsigns.ca/download-nocache/gallery/reportsafety2009/violentcrimeincidencejpg?data=large

[BuildingScout]

anyone from Waterloo who is for amalgamation and anyone from Kitchener who is against amalgamation I would really like to hear your input.

I'm from Waterloo and in favor of amalgamation. Externally people evaluate the combined metropolitan area as one, and when it comes to settling headquarters here or attracting star talent to a local company little do they care if the city is split in two or three or six city councils (pre-Cambridge merge).

For people who oppose the merger because Waterloo is better off, they should be rather careful about this. In three years the tables might well have turned if RIM losses its battle against the iPhone (knock on wood) and the new Pharmacy/Google area in Kitchener takes off.

[Waterlooer]

Waterlooer, as a Waterloo resident why do you think amalgamation is bad? And you mentioned cons and risk, can you elaborate on those two points?

Sorry, I just read your post up a few posts. In amalgamation the bigger city always has the advantage, the bigger city always "takes over" the smaller one and wont get recognized. I think the government will be more pro Kitchener and focus on what's going on in Kitchener more than Waterloo. I think Kitchener doesn't look as nice as Waterloo (I know people are going to be super mad that I said that but that's just what I think) so I think that will make Waterloo not as nice of a place. To me, Waterloo has always been a nice place with a strong sense of community which would be gone as well as our proud history. I like how this city is now and how it's growing how it is and same thing for Kitchener.

The risk that I'm thinking about is how this will effect jobs, taxes and the economy. My thinking is if the cities are both doing excellent, why should we amalgamate?

Thank-you BuildingScout for your input.

[Greg Moore]

At the very least, can we amalgamate the fire departments?

[Waterlooer]

At the very least, can we amalgamate the fire departments?

Ya, I think thats a good idea

[panamaniac]

At the very least, can we amalgamate the fire departments?

IMO, the fire departments should be merged with or without amalgamation and even if this year's vote goes against talks on amalgamation.

[Waterlooer]

Hmm, I am wondering how the region will know if amalgamation talks will occur... does there have to be over 50% of people who vote YES from each city for the talks to happen? Over 50% of people from K/W combined who say yes? I unfortunately will not be voting because I am not of age yet.

[panamaniac]

Hmm, I am wondering how the region will know if amalgamation talks will occur... does there have to be over 50% of people who vote YES from each city for the talks to happen? Over 50% of people from K/W combined who say yes? I unfortunately will not be voting because I am not of age yet.

Both cities will ask the question (about engaging in talk, not approval to amalgamate) on their respective municipal ballots, so if either city votes against, the idea dies.

[Waterlooer]

Both cities will ask the question (about engaging in talk, not approval to amalgamate) on their respective municipal ballots, so if either city votes against, the idea dies.

OK, thanks. What % of people would have to vote yes?

[Spokes]

OK, thanks. What % of people would have to vote yes?

A majority as far as I know, so 50.1%

[Waterlooer]

Alright thanks! This amalgamation has really brought the worst out of me, I'm only 15 so I only know so much about this stuff :RpS_smile: I try my best to debate about it.

[garthdanlor]

Alright thanks! This amalgamation has really brought the worst out of me, I'm only 15 so I only know so much about this stuff :RpS_smile: I try my best to debate about it.
The good thing for you is that by the time we get to the actual amalgamation vote, you'll probably be old enough to vote. Nice to see an interest in local politics at your age, BTW.

[Waterlooer]

The good thing for you is that by the time we get to the actual amalgamation vote, you'll probably be old enough to vote. Nice to see an interest in local politics at your age, BTW.

Ya, I heard it will take an estimated 4 years or something like that until the amalgamation vote

[Razzie]

Ya, I heard it will take an estimated 4 years or something like that until the amalgamation vote

Yep if this referendum gives both councils a mandate to talk amalgamation pros and cons and decides its a good idea, the next referendum would be during the next municipal election, which would be in 4 years. I also agree with you Waterlooer that both cities are doing excellent as it is, with no reason to join forces.

[Spokes]

Alright thanks! This amalgamation has really brought the worst out of me, I'm only 15 so I only know so much about this stuff :RpS_smile: I try my best to debate about it.

That's all you can ask for, debate. Try to keep an open mind, explore, learn as much as you can.

I would also suggest that even if you still disagree with amalgamation, spend more time downtown and elsewhere in the Region, it will grow on you. Whether or not we're officially the same city, we're the same city, so enjoy all that is in your backyard.

[Rowe]

I feel Waterloo has much to benefit from Kitchener. The last time I checked.. Waterloo has way more debt than Kitchener (RIM Park). Kitchener also has more room to grow larger.. so it's power in the region will only get stronger. Also Waterloo and Kitchener generally agree on the same issues.. so the whole "Kitchener's interests will come first" won't happen.

Lastly Kitchener was one of the cities in the rust belt to lose it's great downtown life in the early and late 90s.. now its attacting university depts., high tech, and condo development. You have to hand it to Kitchener for really putting effort into itself. But we have to remember...

Would we rather live in a region where Waterloo and Kitchener compete aganist each other for economic success?

Because London, Windor, and Hamilton all want high tech/health care investment just like Kitchener and Waterloo. The only difference is those cities are larger.

[David]

At this point, I just don’t see the need for amalgamation. But actually, I think Kitchener would benefit the most if a merger were to happen. That’s one of the reasons Carl Zehr is such a proponent, because it would be to Kitchener’s benefit to join with Waterloo in many areas. But at this stage, I again I see no need. My letter ( http://news.therecord.com/Opinions/LettertotheEditor/article/770843) was finally published.

As I said in The Record, I don’t see a need at this point when we have clear opportunities to look at without a needing a merger. I’m not opposed to debating, and while I look forward to it, that is my opinion going into this election.

What are the costs associated with a merger?

What happens with representation and how would representation change?

What happens with regard to taxation?

These are the 3 questions that pop out at me at this time of the morning, but there are many more.

[BuildingScout]

But actually, I think Kitchener would benefit the most if a merger were to happen.

This is not a zero sum game. It is possible for both cities to benefit from amalgamation.

p.s. Just like Rowe said, last I checked (a year or two back) Kitchener's finances were in better shape that Waterloo's.

[KevinL]

At the very least, can we amalgamate the fire departments?

Yes, please! And we should do so region-wide as well (though the township volunteer departments will have to be accounted for in the plans) - if a city department can respond to a township emergency, they should be able to.

[Duke-of-Waterloo]

At the very least, can we amalgamate the fire departments?

My thoughts exactly (as stated previously), as well as the hydro utilities.

[garthdanlor]

This is not a zero sum game. It is possible for both cities to benefit from amalgamation.

p.s. Just like Rowe said, last I checked (a year or two back) Kitchener's finances were in better shape that Waterloo's.
Waterloo definitely has the sexier assets (UW, RIM, Perimeter, etc.). Less glamourous stuff on offer from Kitchener, but it does boast a history of fairly strong financial stewardship; has traditionally maintained higher per capita spending on transit, social programs, libraries and other cultural institutions than Waterloo; and has a much greater population...all fairly good assets to have when running a city or attracting new business.

[DowntownRetail]

My thoughts exactly (as stated previously), as well as the hydro utilities.

This isn't likely to happen, one of the reasons the City of Kitchener is in a better financial position is that they own the Utilities.

[KayDubya]

Would we rather live in a region where Waterloo and Kitchener compete aganist each other for economic success?

Because London, Windor, and Hamilton all want high tech/health care investment just like Kitchener and Waterloo. The only difference is those cities are larger.IMO this is huge.
Competition is great but Kitchener competing against Waterloo for jobs is akin to drawing a line two thirds of the way through London and having them compete against each other for jobs.
Pooling our resources and streamlining our bi-laws and taxes would make this area far more competitive.

[KayDubya]

At this point, I just don’t see the need for amalgamation. But actually, I think Kitchener would benefit the most if a merger were to happen. That’s one of the reasons Carl Zehr is such a proponent, because it would be to Kitchener’s benefit to join with Waterloo in many areas. But at this stage, I again I see no need. My letter ( http://news.therecord.com/Opinions/LettertotheEditor/article/770843) was finally published.

As I said in The Record, I don’t see a need at this point when we have clear opportunities to look at without a needing a merger. I’m not opposed to debating, and while I look forward to it, that is my opinion going into this election.

What are the costs associated with a merger?

What happens with representation and how would representation change?

What happens with regard to taxation?

These are the 3 questions that pop out at me at this time of the morning, but there are many more.David you've made your point clear several times that you don't think we need a merger at this time.
You've also said you think we should all be asking election candidates where they stand with regards to a merger.

Perhaps I missed it but where do you stand with regards to what the upcoming referendum is really about?
The question is do you support the councils talking about the pro's and con's of a merger.(not exact wording, I know)
My own personal feeling is it's more important we're allowed to have the discussion. I'm all for amalgamation but maybe after real talks I'll change my mind.
I wont vote for any one who believes they should just shut us out of talks period.

Just curious where you stand on the real issue on the ballot.

Thanks
Ron.

[Duke-of-Waterloo]

This isn't likely to happen, one of the reasons the City of Kitchener is in a better financial position is that they own the Utilities.

The City doesn't own all the utilities. Kitchener is one of only two municipalities in Ontario that kept their natural gas utility, but in terms of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro, it is controlled through a holding company (http://www.kwhydro.ca/corporate_structure.asp) that has proportionate ownership between the City of Kitchener and the Township of Wilmot (as the shareholders). The Region's other hydro utilities are structured in a similar way wherein the municipalities they service own a proportionate stake.

[David]

Thanks Ron,

What I was trying to get at with my letter was my personal feelings on a merger; and you're right, I've done that here as well. I don't think a merger is needed at this point. I support talking about the possibilities (also in my letter) Who am I to shut down the issue? I'm just one man and one voice. I want to hear the pros and cons, yes. And along with that I think the most important thing, should the referendum pass in Kitchener, would be that rather than just talking in Council; that it be taken to the public.

I'd want to see information sessions from people on both sides of the issue set up for the public. I'd want to have opinions from as many people living in the city as possible and make sure that they can have an informed vote.

IF amalgamation were to happen, it wouldn't happen until the next municipal election anyway, so I'd hope we would have plenty of time to debate and discuss everything before then and come up with a plan.

However, I also look at it this way, the powers that be at this point in Waterloo are against merging. So even if Kitchener says "Yes, we want to talk about it." What does that really mean? It takes two to tango...or so I'm told :P There's a lot more at play here than just Kitchener giving a green light. Don't misunderstand, I'm sure you realize that already too.

I short, I will always respect the people's choices. The main reason I'm even running for council at all is because I want to see people actually having more of a say and I want to assist in that. The public elects individuals to represent them, so I don't think it's too bizarre to expect just that.


David you've made your point clear several times that you don't think we need a merger at this time.
You've also said you think we should all be asking election candidates where they stand with regards to a merger.

Perhaps I missed it but where do you stand with regards to what the upcoming referendum is really about?
The question is do you support the councils talking about the pro's and con's of a merger.(not exact wording, I know)
My own personal feeling is it's more important we're allowed to have the discussion. I'm all for amalgamation but maybe after real talks I'll change my mind.
I wont vote for any one who believes they should just shut us out of talks period.

Just curious where you stand on the real issue on the ballot.

Thanks
Ron.

[Rowe]

has traditionally maintained higher per capita spending on transit, social programs, libraries and other cultural institutions than Waterloo;

It is a fact that Waterloo has piggy backed on some of the services Kitchener provides. Maybe with amalgamtion.. the whole regional will have to invest more in such areas (especially social programs).


IMO this is huge.
Competition is great but Kitchener competing against Waterloo for jobs is akin to drawing a line two thirds of the way through London and having them compete against each other for jobs.
Pooling our resources and streamlining our bi-laws and taxes would make this area far more competitive.

If amalgamation does not happen... then the region must sell itself as a package (Canada's Technology Triangle) even more. Because there are cities in Southern Ontario that are similar to ours. Only difference is.. they don't have to deal with 2-3 other municipal governments PLUS a regional government.

[Spokes]

However, I also look at it this way, the powers that be at this point in Waterloo are against merging. So even if Kitchener says "Yes, we want to talk about it." What does that really mean? It takes two to tango...or so I'm told :P There's a lot more at play here than just Kitchener giving a green light. Don't misunderstand, I'm sure you realize that already too.

While they were initially against merger talks they caved under public pressure. Lets not forget, they will do what the public wants or what they think they want, it's simple job security. If they public wants to merge, you'd think they'd be smart and want it too.

[Duke-of-Waterloo]

It is a fact that Waterloo has piggy backed on some of the services Kitchener provides.

How so? Here's just a couple examples where Kitchener "piggy backs" on services Waterloo provides:

- The River Ridge subdivision (http://www.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=River+Oak+Drive,+Waterloo,+Ontario&sll=43.503149,-80.485282&sspn=0.01491,0.038409&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=River+Oak+Dr,+Waterloo,+Waterloo+Regional+Mu nicipality,+Ontario+N2K+3N8&ll=43.495336,-80.474682&spn=0.007456,0.019205&z=16)in northeast Kitchener is serviced by Waterloo water and wastewater mains. They hydro is even carried through infrastructure owned by Waterloo North Hydro, but operated by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro. These watermains flow to the Waterloo sewage treatment plant through water infrastructure that Waterloo taxpayers fund.

- Woolwich Street servicing the River Ridge subdivision is a road maintained, owned and in the City of Waterloo's jurisdiction, but with the exception of the Kiwanis Park Estates development (in Waterloo) or rural residential lots on Lexington Crescent, serves the entire River Ridge subdivision in Kitchener. Why should Waterloo plow a road for Kitchener residents to get in and out of their subdivision? In fact, most of the roads used to get to River Ridge are City of Waterloo Roads.

- Many Kitchener residents use Waterloo's arguably better recreational facilities (Waterloo Memorial Recreation Complex, RIM Park, Bechtel Park), but do not have to pay an extra fee for not living in the City. This is not the case if Waterloo residents wish to take, say, swimming lessons or dance classes at one of Kitchener's recreational facilities where they must pay a non-resident fee.

[Spokes]

The fact is they both "piggy back" off eachother because like it or not they're so integrated and connected.

[garthdanlor]

How so? Here's just a couple examples where Kitchener "piggy backs" on services Waterloo provides:
True enough, it isn't a one-way street and the situation has improved in Waterloo in recent years, particularly with recreational facilities. There is no doubt, however, that Waterloo has had a history of underfunding libraries (severely), theatres, and (until recently) recreational facilities because of the facilities available in Kitchener or the universities. Same can be said historically for transit and social programs. Since the region has taken over transit and many of these social programs, funding has become much more equitable (obviously due to the Region's funding formulae).

[DowntownRetail]

The City doesn't own all the utilities. Kitchener is one of only two municipalities in Ontario that kept their natural gas utility, but in terms of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro, it is controlled through a holding company (http://www.kwhydro.ca/corporate_structure.asp) that has proportionate ownership between the City of Kitchener and the Township of Wilmot (as the shareholders). The Region's other hydro utilities are structured in a similar way wherein the municipalities they service own a proportionate stake.

My bad...what I meant was Kitchener Utilities (http://www.kitchenerutilities.ca/about_us/index.asp) is owned by the City of Kitchener (or it's residents I should say) and yes you are correct Kitchener has a porportionate92.25% stake in Kitchener-Wilmont Hydro.

[Rowe]

How so? Here's just a couple examples where Kitchener "piggy backs" on services Waterloo provides:

- The River Ridge subdivision (http://www.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=River+Oak+Drive,+Waterloo,+Ontario&sll=43.503149,-80.485282&sspn=0.01491,0.038409&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=River+Oak+Dr,+Waterloo,+Waterloo+Regional+Mu nicipality,+Ontario+N2K+3N8&ll=43.495336,-80.474682&spn=0.007456,0.019205&z=16)in northeast Kitchener is serviced by Waterloo water and wastewater mains. They hydro is even carried through infrastructure owned by Waterloo North Hydro, but operated by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro. These watermains flow to the Waterloo sewage treatment plant through water infrastructure that Waterloo taxpayers fund.

- Woolwich Street servicing the River Ridge subdivision is a road maintained, owned and in the City of Waterloo's jurisdiction, but with the exception of the Kiwanis Park Estates development (in Waterloo) or rural residential lots on Lexington Crescent, serves the entire River Ridge subdivision in Kitchener. Why should Waterloo plow a road for Kitchener residents to get in and out of their subdivision? In fact, most of the roads used to get to River Ridge are City of Waterloo Roads.

- Many Kitchener residents use Waterloo's arguably better recreational facilities (Waterloo Memorial Recreation Complex, RIM Park, Bechtel Park), but do not have to pay an extra fee for not living in the City. This is not the case if Waterloo residents wish to take, say, swimming lessons or dance classes at one of Kitchener's recreational facilities where they must pay a non-resident fee.

Easy. Social programs. A class I had to take in planning involved a social planning project in Kitchener-Waterloo. Waterloo lacked in so many areas like afforable housing, senior housing (public), and health related services. This was because Kitchener offers a lot of these services already. To be honest I think it is great that both cities don't offer the same services.. but if amalgamation does not happen then the region needs to work together when it comes to funding.

[Urbanomicon]

Campaign in favour of Kitchener Waterloo merger launched
September 16, 2010
By Melinda Dalton, Record staff
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/776947

WATERLOO REGION — A campaign is now underway to persuade people to vote ‘yes’ in the upcoming referendum to discuss a merger of Kitchener and Waterloo.

Let’s Talk KW launched a website Thursday that includes a list of some high-profile supporters, a place to donate and a small comment field.

“The message is vote ‘yes,’” said Tricia Siemens, co-chair of Let’s Talk KW. “This does not mean a merger’s going to happen. It’s a ‘yes’ to talking about this.”

The question that will appear on the municipal election ballots in both Kitchener and Waterloo this Oct. 25 reads: “Do you support the members of the Kitchener and Waterloo councils engaging in discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo?”

The idea behind Let’s Talk KW is to inform voters about the question so they’re not taken aback when they get into the voting booth, much like the voter education work being done by the Voter Support Committee, Siemens said.

“It’s to give them a heads up about ‘There is going to be a question on the ballot and this is why I personally would like you to mark that with a ‘yes,’” she said.

Waterloo Coun. Angela Vieth was one of two councillors who twice voted against adding the question to the ballot. She said the question is going to be confusing for voters and finds it “ridiculous” to ask anyone to discuss a merger.

“I’m confident people will vote to not go there,” she said. “I’ve been out knocking on doors and I haven’t run into anybody who said that this is something we should consider.”

The results of the referendum are not binding, regardless of the outcome of the vote, Vieth pointed out.

Because the Minister of Municipal Affairs put the question on the ballot, there are no rules requiring advocates for either side to register or declare their spending.
The fluoride referendum in Waterloo, on the other hand, is a local question under different rules.

So far, the website, http://letstalkkw.com, is Let’s Talk KW’s only public initiative. Siemens said they’re still deciding what other events or discussions might be set up for the weeks leading up to the election.

mdalton@therecord.com

[Robert]

Well, the KW Record has shown its highly biased pro-amalgamation colours again:

http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/785078

So, for the opposing view....

To those who ask why anyone would be opposed to a "just a discussion", please bear in mind that when amalgamation was last considered in 2000, the City of Waterloo spent over $2 million in lost staff time and hiring outside lawyers and consultants. With inflation, it will cost more this time around.

It's the same people pushing for a yes vote on discussions that pushed the whole Region for amalgamation just a few years ago. They didn't get their own way, so they will try to start the edge of the wedge with "just discussions". Sorry folks, but I am opposed to "just a discussion", because I already know what you want that discussion to conclude.

I wish the pro-amalgamation side would be more honest with its intentions. When you ask them what the benefits of amalgamation would be for Waterloo, they just say that's what the discussion would have to determine. That's a very circular argument. The rumour mill says that amalgamating KW is just a way station on the way to Regional amalgamation. And that what the business people really want is all the cheap land out in Woolwich and Wilmont so they can keep building beyond the current city limits.


Just like the Toronto Board of Trade pushed the GTA into an amalgamation it didn't want, a select group of very wealthy business people are trying to do the same thing to Waterloo. And if you ask the Toronto Board of Trade today how Toronto's amalgamation went, and where are all the cost savings and improved services, they just throw up their hands and say "The city didn't do it right." And that's what Waterloo Region's amalgamation proponents will say to all of us if a merger ever happens. They'll disavow their role, and we'll all be left holding a stinky brown bag that we never wanted.

So, citizens of Waterloo, are you interested in having a discussion with the City of Kitchener concerning the advantages and disadvantages of amalgamation, knowing the discussion will increase your taxes by over $2 million? Yes or no?

[Ktown4ever]

a select group of very wealthy business people are trying to do the same thing to Waterloo

Well I wish that were all true. I for one am pro-amalgamation, but not quite 'very wealthy'.

[Spokes]

I just dont understand why on earth we wouldn't TALK about it. To not do so would be ignorant. Anyone who says they already have all the facts is wrong, let research be done, the facts be presented and then make a decision. Why would you NOT want to make the most informed decision you could?

[David]

I just dont understand why on earth we wouldn't TALK about it. To not do so would be ignorant. Anyone who says they already have all the facts is wrong, let research be done, the facts be presented and then make a decision. Why would you NOT want to make the most informed decision you could?

I agree 100%. Personally, I don't think it is needed, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk about it. That is why when I was approached by someone of behalf of Let's Talk, I said they could put me down as a supporter of the question being asked. Spokes is correct, the only way for people to make an informed decision is to debate the issue. Hearing all sides, both for and against is essential. Give people the information and let them decide.

[mpd618]

I just dont understand why on earth we wouldn't TALK about it. To not do so would be ignorant. Anyone who says they already have all the facts is wrong, let research be done, the facts be presented and then make a decision. Why would you NOT want to make the most informed decision you could?

What facts, what research? The economic benefits and costs? Savings on services?

You're assuming that a decision one way or another should be based on facts that can be gleaned from staff discussions on the issue. But in the end, any decision on amalgamation cannot be reduced to a financial or numerical one. This goes beyond things that can be quantified. It's about what we want our cities to be like, it's about the different political dynamic of two cities side by side, the friendly competition, it's about the size of the city, etc.

Seriously talking about the issue is an investment of scarce staff time and resources. For people whose opposition to amalgamation is based on those qualitative factors, this will seem like a waste of time and money.

[smably]

Is there any reason that talking about it shouldn't include discussion of qualitative factors? Isn't it possible that there are other qualitative factors that you haven't considered, which might come up during these discussions? Shouldn't we give our governments an opportunity to consult with the public on this important issue?

Honestly, I haven't yet formed an opinion on amalgamation, but I want an opportunity to see more information, both qualitative and quantitative. How would amalgamation affect planning? Would it encourage more or less sprawl? Would it provide better service at the same cost or would we just end up with less local representation? How could we improve cooperation between the municipalities without amalgamating, and would it be worth it? Etc.

[Spokes]

I just think that an issue of whether or not to amalgamate will come down to a referendum and talking about it will provide the knowledge to have people make an educated decision. All we can ever ask for in society is educated decisions.

[David]

I just think that an issue of whether or not to amalgamate will come down to a referendum and talking about it will provide the knowledge to have people make an educated decision. All we can ever ask for in society is educated decisions.

Good answer, thanks Spokes

[mpd618]

Speaking of facts, this will be the question on the ballot:


Do you support the members of the Kitchener and Waterloo Councils engaging in discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo?

I think the more interesting thing is to come up with a good framework in which they can do that discussion productively. It has the potential to become a bit of a circus. And it doesn't help that there are already entrenched positions among the politicians.

[David]

Speaking of facts, this will be the question on the ballot:



I think the more interesting thing is to come up with a good framework in which they can do that discussion productively. It has the potential to become a bit of a circus. And it doesn't help that there are already entrenched positions among the politicians.


What it will really come down to is if the candidates (who make up the next council) will listen to the all the people (ballot question results), then actually work based on what the results say, and thus what the voters want.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

It never hurts to talk.

But honestly, when have we ever heard of an amalgamation that went right? The broad consensus on amalgamation in other cities seems to be that it didn't work, both from an efficiency point of view and in terms of representing different factions of the city/metropolitan area.

I'm thinking of the indentity issues that come out of the Cambridge situation and thinking to myself "how would this play out in a city of 5 downtowns?" Food for thought.

However, if someone can give me concrete examples of the benefits associated with amalgamation, I'm all ears.

[metropolis]

Amalgamation isn’t only about efficiencies for council and the services provided by them though its all most people talk about. The reason a bunch of businessman have spearheaded this is that being in what is perceived to be a larger city can potentially be of huge economic benefit for us.

Take attracting a broader international talent pool both in terms of students and employees (something all the tech firms in the area are starved for) for example. The sorts of people with the skill set these companies look for are typically quite cosmopolitan and moving to a "little town" is unattractive to them.

I also get the feeling it has been harder for the region to attract a lot of retail chains that have setup in other regions of similar size like London (Lululemon, Moxies, Milestones, Keneth Cole, Porsche dealer) because we don’t seem to have the clout if one were to look at the size of the cities on their own. This is despite the fact that if you look at demographics you would think those semi to high-end places would setup here first.

I think the economic benefits could be huge, though this is why this should be researched and discussed.

[Waterlooer]

After carefully analyzing different posts and research... I want to change my Vote to YES. I do want Kitchener and Waterloo to engage in Amalgamation talks.

[Waterlooer]

Is there anyway i could change my vote on here??

[pnijjar]

I am looking for the web presence of the NO people in the referendum. Early in the thread there was a website http://onewaterloo.ca , but it seems dead now. Does anybody have this info?

It might be nice to link to the yes and no websites for each of the referenda, just as you have done so for candidates.

[KayDubya]

"how would this play out in a city of 5 downtowns?" Food for thought.
Kitchener and Waterloo's downtowns are not that far apart and after amalgamation they could probably grow together much faster. I can see uptown and downtown becoming a seemless core but still holding on to their own uniqueness.
No reason they can't other than lack of vision.

[Robert]

The last time I was in downtown Kitchener, at Casablanca Books, as I walked back to where I parked on Water Street, I counted all the stores that were open, versus the store fronts that were closed or abandoned. Fully one third of the store fronts in that 2 block stretch were empty. This is a "uniqueness" I don't want to see spread! Anyone have any thoughts on why uptown Waterloo is thriving whereas downtown Kitchener struggles?

[Razzie]

The last time I was in downtown Kitchener, at Casablanca Books, as I walked back to where I parked on Water Street, I counted all the stores that were open, versus the store fronts that were closed or abandoned. Fully one third of the store fronts in that 2 block stretch were empty. This is a "uniqueness" I don't want to see spread! Anyone have any thoughts on why uptown Waterloo is thriving whereas downtown Kitchener struggles?

I'm gonna go on a limb here and say its "negative public perception" that keeps a heavier pedestrian presence away. More people living downtown will change that, and won't be impacted much with amalgamation, aside from the fact council will have less time to focus on it as there would be two core areas to focus on in a merged city.

[Spokes]

The last time I was in downtown Kitchener, at Casablanca Books, as I walked back to where I parked on Water Street, I counted all the stores that were open, versus the store fronts that were closed or abandoned. Fully one third of the store fronts in that 2 block stretch were empty. This is a "uniqueness" I don't want to see spread! Anyone have any thoughts on why uptown Waterloo is thriving whereas downtown Kitchener struggles?

So JBU and Tyrone T closing in uptown waterloo is because Downtown Kitchener spread some sort of business ruining disease up King street? Give me a break!

When was the last time you were there? If you're there frequently you'll notice that many store fronts are being occupied. Last I checked Uptown had some vacancies too, that's just how cities are. No where will you find 100% occupancy.

We better watch out or the plague of the Shops at Waterloo Town Square will infect the whole region haha.

[Spokes]

I'm gonna go on a limb here and say its "negative public perception" that keeps a heavier pedestrian presence away. More people living downtown will change that, and won't be impacted much with amalgamation, aside from the fact council will have less time to focus on it as there would be two core areas to focus on in a merged city.

I do think the perception thing is a large part of it, but one thing people need to realize, is that neither uptown or downtown is by any means thriving past 6pm, that will all change with the number of people living there like Razzie said. And that's for BOTH uptown and downtown.

Spend any time downtown during business hours and you'll see a completely different side of things in my opinion. Its actually funny if you're ever out between 1130 and 1230, at 12 you can see a visible difference in the number of people out on the street as people flow out for their lunch breaks.

[Ktown4ever]

So JBU and Tyrone T closing in uptown waterloo is because Downtown Kitchener spread some sort of business ruining disease up King street? Give me a break!

When was the last time you were there? If you're there frequently you'll notice that many store fronts are being occupied. Last I checked Uptown had some vacancies too, that's just how cities are. No where will you find 100% occupancy.

We better watch out or the plague of the Shops at Waterloo Town Square will infect the whole region haha.

Agreed! And you can add Charbries to that list - it wasn't too long ago that they closed their doors.

[Spokes]

Agreed! And you can add Charbries to that list - it wasn't too long ago that they closed their doors.

Ahh you're right, I totally forgot about them!

It's not a matter of Kitchener vs Waterloo, it's simply that businesses don't always work out which leaves vacancies.

[mpd618]

The last time I was in downtown Kitchener, at Casablanca Books, as I walked back to where I parked on Water Street, I counted all the stores that were open, versus the store fronts that were closed or abandoned. Fully one third of the store fronts in that 2 block stretch were empty. This is a "uniqueness" I don't want to see spread! Anyone have any thoughts on why uptown Waterloo is thriving whereas downtown Kitchener struggles?

You're describing one data point in time, which certainly is not as good as it could be. But what you're not capturing is that King Street in downtown is actually improving dramatically -- it is getting fewer and fewer empty storefronts, and more and more people. Uptown isn't changing all that much, by comparison.

[KayDubya]

In the next few years we should see a big change downtown with more people living there. Both uptown and downtown could see a real renaissance as projects like City Centre and the Barrel Yards are completed.

[Robert]

I'm not suggesting that uptown Waterloo stores never go out of business, or that when they do somehow Kitchener is to blame! But when Waterloo stores go under, somebody else takes their place a month or two later. We don't see one third of uptown Waterloo as empty storefronts. (BTW - I did that count of Kitchener storefronts late this past summer to answer someone's question). I agree we don't see as much change in uptown Waterloo, but nor is there much need for improvement. I hope downtown Kitchener does get better. The pointed question that no one is answering is why did the two downtowns turn out so differently?

And with regards to the amalgamation debate that this message board is all about, please understand that the appearance of the Kitchener downtown compared to the Waterloo uptown is one of the most tangible things that turn Waterlooians off the idea of amalgamation. We don't want our uptown to look like that, if it was the result of city policies.

[Cheese]

Hi all,
Voted yes to the amalgamation discussion. There is simply no reason not to discuss this issue, and quite frankly I cant see any reason not to merge at all. Im hoping the vote is YES and further I hope the two Cities play fair and actually discuss the amalgamation reasonably and responsibly.

[Waterlooer]

It will probably be a high percentage of people voting YES in Kitchener, and a high percentage of people in Waterloo voting NO.

[waterloo_local]

I'm not suggesting that uptown Waterloo stores never go out of business, or that when they do somehow Kitchener is to blame! But when Waterloo stores go under, somebody else takes their place a month or two later. We don't see one third of uptown Waterloo as empty storefronts. (BTW - I did that count of Kitchener storefronts late this past summer to answer someone's question). I agree we don't see as much change in uptown Waterloo, but nor is there much need for improvement. I hope downtown Kitchener does get better. The pointed question that no one is answering is why did the two downtowns turn out so differently?

And with regards to the amalgamation debate that this message board is all about, please understand that the appearance of the Kitchener downtown compared to the Waterloo uptown is one of the most tangible things that turn Waterlooians off the idea of amalgamation. We don't want our uptown to look like that, if it was the result of city policies.


One reason they turned out so differently is simply size. Uptown Waterloo is maybe 1.5km, I bet Downtown Kitchener, by the Market, all the way to Victoria St is 2 - 3 times as long.
Uptown Waterloo is nice and concentrated so people like to walk around. No one wants to walk end to end in Kitchener.
My two cents.

[mpd618]

And with regards to the amalgamation debate that this message board is all about, please understand that the appearance of the Kitchener downtown compared to the Waterloo uptown is one of the most tangible things that turn Waterlooians off the idea of amalgamation. We don't want our uptown to look like that, if it was the result of city policies.

Uptown better start looking more like downtown if it wants to get anywhere beyond where it is. One of the reasons for the difference has been that Uptown has been a place you drive to, versus downtown being more of a place you walk to -- and the former is not conducive to positive growth of any kind.

[DHLawrence]

One reason they turned out so differently is simply size. Uptown Waterloo is maybe 1.5km, I bet Downtown Kitchener, by the Market, all the way to Victoria St is 2 - 3 times as long.
Uptown Waterloo is nice and concentrated so people like to walk around. No one wants to walk end to end in Kitchener.
My two cents.

The same thing can be seen with Galt and Preston; Preston is one main street, while Galt has several. That's why Preston has maybe half a dozen empty storefronts while Galt has several more.

[Spokes]

It will probably be a high percentage of people voting YES in Kitchener, and a high percentage of people in Waterloo voting NO.

Why do you think that is?

[Spokes]

I'm not suggesting that uptown Waterloo stores never go out of business, or that when they do somehow Kitchener is to blame! But when Waterloo stores go under, somebody else takes their place a month or two later. We don't see one third of uptown Waterloo as empty storefronts. (BTW - I did that count of Kitchener storefronts late this past summer to answer someone's question). I agree we don't see as much change in uptown Waterloo, but nor is there much need for improvement. I hope downtown Kitchener does get better. The pointed question that no one is answering is why did the two downtowns turn out so differently?

And with regards to the amalgamation debate that this message board is all about, please understand that the appearance of the Kitchener downtown compared to the Waterloo uptown is one of the most tangible things that turn Waterlooians off the idea of amalgamation. We don't want our uptown to look like that, if it was the result of city policies.

One of the reasons is public perception.

Because Kitchener has social services and Waterloo does not, all of the "not pretty" people are in Kitchener and that has scared some off and made others think it is unsafe.

Had Waterloo provided these services too I think it's likely that things would be different.

[Robert]

Why do you think that is?

To make a long answer brief, Waterlooians do not see a potential benefit in amalgamation. What would amalgamation offer that we don't already have? They are fearful amalgamation would essentially amount to being anexxed by Kitchener, because of its larger size. The concept will never take hold until and unless people at the grass roots level are crying out for it. And so far, it's just the business elite trying to push down the idea from the top.

[mpd618]

To make a long answer brief, Waterlooians do not see a potential benefit in amalgamation. What would amalgamation offer that we don't already have?

A planning department that isn't stuck in the 1960s.

[Robert]

FYI - If you haven't been called yet...here in Waterloo, people are receiving phone calls from a "pollster" asking how we intend to vote on amalgamation, and how likely it is we will cast a ballot in the election. In between the 2 questions is a little speech about the benefits of voting yes, so it appears this "poll" is also a phone campaign by the pro-amalgamation side. I wonder if they are preparing a list of supporters so they can phone them up on election day to get out the vote?

[Ian Davis]

I was polled, and asked as part of being polled who I should contact to be advised of the results of this poll. I was through a sequence of subsequent phone calls ultimately told (correctly or otherwise) that http://letstalkkw.com was either behind the survey, or that the survey results were likely to be posted if anywhere on their web site.

Ian Davis

[Ktown4ever]

A vote for the future

By Waterloo Chronicle Editorial

Editorial
Oct 20, 2010
Advocates for the Yes side say Monday’s vote on the merger discussion question will start the debate over whether to merge Waterloo and Kitchener.
It’s the view of this paper that Monday will also be Waterloo citizen’s turn to finally end the threat of amalgamation constantly buzzing in the background when an overwhelming majority of them vote a firm “No.”

It’s time to relegate this discussion to the past, because it embodies a lot of outdated thinking and assumptions that have dogged Waterloo since its inception.

It’s interesting that some want to go back to the founding of this city and argue that the intention was always to one day join up with its sister city. Which one? Berlin is gone, and they sure seem to want to get rid of Kitchener too. Only Waterloo has remained constant.

Throughout Waterloo’s history, civic leader after civic leader has stood up to this merger mania as have three former mayors in the pages of this week’s Chronicle, including the longest-serving one, Marjorie Caroll. They join all those voices of Waterloo’s past who were constantly saying“No” through the historical record. And all of Waterloo’s current mayoral candidates are against it, as are the majority of council candidates.

The ones who aren’t should really be asked why they’re running to represent Waterloo in the first place. Why do they want to be part of dismantling this city’s 150 year history and the community identity carefully nurtured by their fellow citizens?

Instead of bigger is better, with higher taxes and less representation, perhaps it’s Waterloo’s ability to adjust and innovate that has created the world-class community it is today. Do we really want this grand experiment to end? So vote No and relegate this debate to the past where it belongs.


------------------VERSUS------------------

Merger talks make sense

October 21, 2010
Editorial
It’s too early to say that Kitchener and Waterloo should become one city. It’s not too early to say they should talk about it. In fact, next Monday is the perfect time to kick-start this conversation.

In the municipal election held that day, voters in both communities can choose to begin a historic discussion about a civic merger. Emotions will be high entering this referendum. Many people, with a laudable sense of loyalty to one city or other and fearing the loss of local identity, will say no to any proposition with the word merger in it.

But fear is a bad guide in this world. So are false assumptions. Before voting in this referendum, the citizens of Kitchener and Waterloo should understand what the question is, what they are voting for, and what’s on the table in this high stakes game of municipal politics.

Let’s be clear: This referendum is not about whether the cities should or should not merge. A yes vote does not mean amalgamation. Instead, voters are being asked only whether they want the members of the two city councils to begin discussing the advantages — as well as the disadvantages — of a merger. Voting yes would be agreeing to start a journey with no preconceived notion of where it will all end. It will not unleash some unstoppable amalgamation juggernaut.

Meanwhile, there are compelling reasons to support these talks. They have the potential to create a better form of local government, one that can better deliver services and plan for the future. They might build a more efficient and economical region, as well as one that speaks with a louder voice to the world.

A merger needn’t mean the disappearance of local culture, either. Remember that in this region, the communities of Galt, Preston and Hespeler remain vital and distinct nearly 40 years after they were amalgamated into Cambridge. Who would seriously suggest that Cambridge be de-amalgamated now?

Besides, since becoming part of Waterloo Region in 1972, Kitchener and Waterloo have in practice been partially merged. Nearly 70 per cent of property taxes are spent either by the government of Waterloo Region or the regional school boards. Only 31 per cent of those taxes are spent by the cities or townships.

Historic cultures and deeply ingrained community identities have survived in Kitchener and Waterloo even though the cities share the same police department, public transit and ambulance systems as well as services such as garbage collection, social housing and water treatment. Is the sense of civic identity so fragile, so vulnerable in these two cities that it would vanish if Kitchener and Waterloo also shared fire, library and parks services? This newspaper thinks not.

Perhaps the cities shouldn’t merge. If so, the merger talks would likely prove this is the case. Maybe there are no savings to be had for taxpayers. Maybe an amalgamated Kitchener and Waterloo, with more than half the population of this region, would throw the dynamics of our regional government out of whack and threaten its future. It’s also possible that Kitchener taxpayers would balk at joining a Waterloo still carrying its RIM Park debt.

Whatever individual voters think, this newspaper urges them to participate in this referendum and make their feelings known. For our part, we at The Record believe it is better for Kitchener and Waterloo to enter into formal merger talks than think the status quo should be for eternity carved in stone at two city halls a few kilometres apart. We are convinced that Kitchener and Waterloo have much to gain by talking and nothing to lose. Yet if they stand apart and do nothing, these cities and their voters will have squandered a rare opportunity to create a new community that is richer, stronger and more vibrant than what went before.