Amalgamation of Metro Vancouver's municipalities

[vansky]

i think van and burnaby can become one, and west and north van can become one, all the tri cities can form one area, and abbots should join since abottsford is not that far away, if u consider surrey central as the center point of the metro.

so with abbots added, metro van will have 3 million in 5-6 years of time.

and it will always be 3 million-ish for the next 10 yrs...

it's a solid city, not a big city like nyc, tokyo etc...be contended, sit back and relax.

you are looking at amentities of a global city, outlets, art gallery, hotels, commerical etc except for history and deep cultural roots.bu i'm quite fine with whatever population what so ever.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

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

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

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

Than by your definition, sydney australia and melbourne australia are larger than Toronto, Los Angeles, chicago, houston, etc.

Reality is that is a completely nonsensical assumption. North America measures it's cities in the most ridiculously stupid way I can imagine.

There is NO EXCUSE whatsoever than many of Vancouver's suburbs should be suburbs and not part of the actual city. I can understand surrey maybe but burnaby, new west, richmond, north vancouver?

Give me a break, that makes NO SENSE whatsoever.

[Pinion]

Does no one here see the benefit of separate governments? I like being represented as a group of 50,000 in a concentrated area and don't even want to merge with the district of North Van let alone West Van and all its horrible constituents. We all have different interests, income levels and values.

Do you think any of the cool stuff planned for the Lonsdale waterfront would be happening if West Vancouverites had a say? (answer: no, and they'd probably want to cancel seabus service too)

[GlassCity]

Does anybody know how New York's borough system works? Because from an uneducated point of view it seems like a good compromise between having local interests taken care of as well as integrating communities with arbitrary boundaries.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Than by your definition, sydney australia and melbourne australia are larger than Toronto, Los Angeles, chicago, houston, etc.

Reality is that is a completely nonsensical assumption. North America measures it's cities in the most ridiculously stupid way I can imagine.

There is NO EXCUSE whatsoever than many of Vancouver's suburbs should be suburbs and not part of the actual city. I can understand surrey maybe but burnaby, new west, richmond, north vancouver?

Give me a break, that makes NO SENSE whatsoever.

It is what it is, and no amount of desire will change that. Burnaby, New West, Richmond and North Vancouver ARE NOT part of the City of Vancouver, and as such, measurement, legal documents and census would reflect it that way.

http://www.burnaby.ca/home.html

http://www.newwestcity.ca/

http://www.richmond.ca/home.htm

http://www.cnv.org/

As you can see, a different city, with different mayors, councillors, city services, and so on. They are NOT part of Vancouver, shown here...

https://vancouver.ca/

You may not agree with it, but the facts are indisputable.

[wrenegade]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Does no one here see the benefit of separate governments? I like being represented as a group of 50,000 in a concentrated area and don't even want to merge with the district of North Van let alone West Van and all its horrible constituents. We all have different interests, income levels and values.

Do you think any of the cool stuff planned for the Lonsdale waterfront would be happening if West Vancouverites had a say? (answer: no, and they'd probably want to cancel seabus service too)

While I agree that neither of the North Vans should consider amalgamating with West Van, they really really need to take a look at combining with each other. The tax bases are equalizing, and with all of the density that it planned for the new town centres I don't think there will be much between the two municipalities as far as the effect on residents property taxes. Having 2 city halls, 2 mayors and 12 councillors for less than 200,000 people is a little ridiculous. Not to mention Parks & Recreation, Engineering, etc. As far as I am concerned, the two Fire Departments should merge right now (RCMP already handles both North Vans). The boundaries make very little sense (if they ever did). The legacy costs of employees continues to grow in all bureaucracies so anything taxpayers can do to eliminate overlap seems like a smart thing to do.

There are well established neighbourhoods in both the city and district and I don't think combining the two would result in a huge number of anti-development residents affecting what is happening or planned in the town centres (at least no more than what already is going on). I really only see upsides in this particular case.

[ozonemania]

Apologies if this has already been brought up. In many ways having a collection of close-knit yet separate municipalities/cities has been good for Metro Vancouver. Would we necessarily see '13 mini skylines' in the Metro area if each city didn't have their own goals and aspirations? Would Skytrain be as extensive today without regional lobbying? It's not a simply analysis to make, but amalgamation early on probably would have had a dramatic impact on development patterns in the Lower Mainland, and we'd have quite a different city today.

The regional governance we have, i.e. the GVRD/Metro Vancouver, seems to have served us well enough.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Than by your definition, sydney australia and melbourne australia are larger than Toronto, Los Angeles, chicago, houston, etc.

Reality is that is a completely nonsensical assumption. North America measures it's cities in the most ridiculously stupid way I can imagine.

There is NO EXCUSE whatsoever than many of Vancouver's suburbs should be suburbs and not part of the actual city. I can understand surrey maybe but burnaby, new west, richmond, north vancouver?

Give me a break, that makes NO SENSE whatsoever.

Most large cities around the world are actually large metro's with multiple municipalities, be it in North America, South America, Europe, etc. The benefits of this are compartmentalization which results in more efficient governance and reduced risk's, when well balanced.
London, Berlin, Sao Paulo, Santos, Mexico City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, etc. I can go on for ever. All are large urban areas broken up in to multiple municipalities that form a large metropolitan area. Vancouver can mean Metro Vancouver or the City of Vancouver, people should understand the difference between the two.

[a very long weekend]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

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

it's sort of a strange conversation when someone living in a suburb that most vancouverites have never visited (port moody? i think a lot of people wouldn't be able to place it on a map) emphatically tells you that he's a vancouverite. in san francisco this would never happen, never. i'm guessing that if vancouver dodges the amalgamation bullet that in 40-50 years each of these towns will have a strong enough identity that a conversation like this wouldn't make any sense. this is one of the great advantages to non-integration - small town identities developing on their own, organically. plus you dodge the rob ford/denis coderre bullet too so that vancouver itself can continue to run at its own speed.

[vansky]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

it's sort of a strange conversation when someone living in a suburb that most vancouverites have never visited (port moody? i think a lot of people wouldn't be able to place it on a map) emphatically tells you that he's a vancouverite. in san francisco this would never happen, never. i'm guessing that if vancouver dodges the amalgamation bullet that in 40-50 years each of these towns will have a strong enough identity that a conversation like this wouldn't make any sense. this is one of the great advantages to non-integration - small town identities developing on their own, organically. plus you dodge the rob ford/denis coderre bullet too so that vancouver itself can continue to run at its own speed.

i dont think ppl know much about fremont or oakland?nobody knows burnaby outside of vancouver...ppl outside of bc just guess that u r from vancouver if ut el them u r from b.c.

i know san jose and oakland, and i never thoguht it was part of san fran.
when surrey has a team on its own, and burnaby becomes famous for high tech, or richmond erecting itself as a pt for business with asia, perhaps that's when that identityt will slowly take shape, other wise, we r just mostly "surburban losers" adjacent to vancouver, which contains 75% of all the head offices in bc, and 90% of the metro it hink.
i've heard ppl say they live in manhattan, brook, or etc, cuz ppl know about those places on the map. but imagine a shit goes liek this,

person A " i live in Ladner, "

person B where the fuck is that?"

person A it's in vancouver, so where do u live

person B i live in surrey~~

person A .............

[queetz@home]

Oakland is actually commonly known to outsiders of the San Fran Bay Area thanks to their baseball team (and MC Hammer). Plus its a major flight destination too so that helps quite a bit. A couple of suburbs in Vancouver that can easily confused people though is Surrey (since its a well known county in the UK) and Langley (a famous suburb of Washington DC, HQ of the CIA).

As for Burnaby, I think its getting some recognition as its own. I remember one time in Canada Day, they were showing all these special things about Canadian things in the Discovery Channel, including the manufacturing of the Chevy Camaro (Oshawa), the BC Place roof, and the making of the FIFA video game, made in the EA offices in Burnaby. The (British) narrator specifically said the facility was located IN Burnaby, NOT Vancouver. And I like the way he said it....BUHH - NAHH - BEEE.

[Pinion]

Whole Foods (based in Texas) announced they're opening a new store in "Vancouver" but actually mean City of North Vancouver. The injustice!

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Oakland is actually commonly known to outsiders of the San Fran Bay Area...

as a great place to go if you want to get murdered.

[Olden Retreiver]

I live in Port Moody and can hardly imagine the bad urban planning we would suffer from if we were forcibly amalgagated with Coquitlam.

[Pinion]

Here's an article that details the rift between the two North Vans. If we can't do it, no one can.

http://www.nsnews.com/city-of-north-...study-1.876178

It's not amalgamation. It's not even a study into potential amalgamation.

But City of North Vancouver council has given the OK for staff to investigate what level of detail a province-led study into restructuring the two municipalities to have more shared services might produce, should one be done.

Coun. Guy Heywood brought a motion deep behind enemy lines to the city's council chambers Monday night, asking the city to seek the province's help in doing a restructuring study.

Joining the two municipalities, which were divided up in 1907, has long been perceived to only benefit the comparatively cash-poor District of North Vancouver. The district passed a similar motion in February.

When it became clear that his original motion wouldn't get the votes to pass, Heywood tweaked it to appeal to Coun. Rod Clark, an amalgamation opponent who had said he couldn't support spending taxpayer dollars on a study that would only look at the issue from "35,000 feet up."

After the amended motion appeared doomed to fail and some procedural wrangling, council settled on asking staff to look into the matter.

But, regardless of whether Heywood can find enough votes to make the study happen or what it may conclude, amalgamation is still a dirty word south of 29th Street.

Coun. Pam Bookham showed some support for the motion but only after stating she was adamantly opposed to any future amalgamation on the grounds that the city and district had grown to have

"fundamental cultural differences with respect to the kind of communities we are and aspire to be."

But given that a study may lead to more efficient ways of cost sharing, Bookham expressed support as a nod to the business community that routinely pushes for another look at amalgamation.

"They seem to think amalgamation is the answer. I think it is more likely who you put on council that is the answer," she said.

Coun. Craig Keating noted the district has a host of public buildings that will one day need to be replaced, including several rec centres, libraries, fire halls and "miles and miles" more roads and underground pipes to serve the sprawling single-family home neighbourhoods.

Adding to that point, Mayor Darrell Mussatto, noted that the city has more than $100-million in the bank with $80 million more stashed away in reserves for replacing infrastructure.

"They want access to our funds and I'm not on for that," he said. "Until the district gets their financial house in order, until they've dealt with their liabilities like concrete asbestos pipes they have to replace, I'm not interested in talking to them."

Beyond the usual argument that previous amalgamation attempts in Ottawa, Halifax, Toronto and Calgary have resulted in higher costs, Mussatto also noted that all highdensity development that would happen in a hypothetically united North Vancouver would happen in the old city's limits. Even with his reputation as a "developer guy" Mussatto said, "there comes a limit."

But amalgamation, or at least a detailed study into shared services, had at least one other champion on council in Coun. Don Bell, who was once the district's mayor.

"Too often in the past, when I have discussed this with other political figures on the North Shore. .. the issue has been 'My mind's made up. Don't bother confusing me with the facts.' There's almost an emotional response. I think what's needed is a rational response based on facts. I think it never hurts to do an update," he said. "Let's get the facts and let the facts speak for themselves. Let's do it in an unbiased way. Let's get the information and make it available to the public and have the discussion with the public about (it)."

Heywood stressed that the old assumptions about amalgamation aren't necessarily true anymore.

"We're not talking about amalgamation. We're talking about opening the books, taking a look at how we're doing and looking at how we can do better," he said. "The value of your organization is not what's in your bank account. It's the money you can get in the future. The city and district tax rates have been indistinguishable for years," he said, though he conceded that district utility bills are higher because they must serve single-family neighbourhoods.

- See more at: http://www.nsnews.com/city-of-north-....LJPARdi3.dpuf

No coincidence that Clark and Bookham are the most pro-amalgamation and also the two that always vote to kill any development on the north shore. Amalgamation leads to wasteful suburbanite rule on the north shore and everywhere else.

[Steveston]

We already have some functional amalgamation in region-wide services, like water, sewage treatment and, to some extent solid waste management and recycling. I can't imagine how the 20-odd separate municipalities would be able to manage these departments on their own. Look at White Rock's water supply issues as an example.

Regional issues should have regional management. Why not reorganize Translink as a branch of Metro Vancouver? Does it makes sense to have regional transportation planning done by one organization and regional land use planning under another? The two are so closely linked, they should be done by the same organization.

Problem is, you'll never get the Mayors to give up their own power bases. But using functional amalgamation as a principle, why not leave the municipalities the way they are, but only give them responsibility for local issues (building permits, parks/leisure services management, local roads and water/sewer maintenance, etc.

Then, create a 'sub-regional' level for areas where duplication of departments simply doesn't make sense. School boards (already the case for the two Langleys), fire protection, policing. Break the region into 'functional geographic areas' to provide these services (NE sector, North Shore, the Langleys, Surrey/White Rock, Burnaby/New West). You don't need to create a separate level of government, simply create a series of Working Agreements/Memoranda of Understanding to develop operating plans.

There are holes in this concept, for sure. There are huge challenges. But it's a conversation worth having, and perhaps we can arrive at a more cooperative model for regional planning, instead of the turf-protecting parochialism we've seen for so many years.

[Pinion]

West Vancouver dismisses amalgamation

While representatives of the City and District of North Vancouver have expressed some support for amalgamation, the issue was largely dead on arrival in West Vancouver Monday.

Following a February vote by the District of North Vancouver to study the issue, Mayor Richard Walton invited neighbouring mayors to weigh in on the controversial topic.

While he stopped short of favouring combining governments, West Van Coun. Craig Cameron suggested that looking at combining services was a "no-lose proposition."

"This is something we need to be doing for our citizens and our taxpayers to ensure that we're being efficient. We have a lot of politicians running a relatively small population on the North Shore," he said.

His view was virulently opposed by Coun. Bill Soprovich, who pounded the desk to emphasize his point.

"I suggest the mayor send the letter over and say, 'Don't bother us again with that nonsense and do your own housekeeping,'" he said. "I'm not closing my mind on anything in the future but I assure you, we stand up proud for West Vancouver. There'll be no amalgamation as long as I'm on council."

Coun. Nora Gambioli took umbrage with Soprovich's words.

"I would remind Coun. Soprovich that he's only one of seven people," she said.

Cameron stressed that West Vancouver should focus on combining services such as the North Shore Emergency Management Office, in which West Van is a partner, and the North Vancouver Recreation Commission, in which West Vancouver does not play a role.

"I don't see how having more information and discussions is threatening, and I don't know what Coun. Soprovich is railing against but it certainly isn't something that's being put forward at council," he said.

While Mayor Michael Smith granted the validity of Cameron's points, he also agreed with Soprovich.

"There's lots of areas where we can save everybody on the North Shore money, but West Vancouver is a different community than North Van," he said. "I don't think there's any interest whatsoever. .. from our citizens to amalgamate with North Vancouver."

While Smith favoured integration of services, such as garbage pickup, he pointed to the time constraints faced by district staff.

"We only have so much staff and they only have so much time," he said. "If they're going to spend a lot of time on a study that we conclude is going nowhere, then that's a lot of time that (district staff is) not going to be spending on priorities that this council has set."

Smith said he would discuss the issue with Walton and City of North Vancouver Mayor Darrell Mussatto.

Amalgamation was also a tough sell at city council, with Mussatto citing the 70 kilometres of asbestos cement pipe the district is currently replacing at a cost of $3 million per year.

"Until they've dealt with their liabilities like concrete asbestos pipes. .. I'm not interested in talking to them," Mussatto said.

District of North Vancouver Coun. Doug MacKay-Dunn, a longtime champion of amalgamation, said the only way to verify Mussatto's comments is to look at both sets of books.

"Like anything else, the proof is in the pudding, so let's get a pudding committee together," he said.

- See more at: http://www.nsnews.com/news/west-vanc....DUVZVv8b.dpuf

[Pinion]

Another article on the futile north shore amalgamation movement. Seems only district residents want this

District North Vancouver mulls amalgamation

Honey, let’s get back together.

That’s the call of the District of North Vancouver as they continue to make overtures toward amalgamation with the resisting City of North Vancouver.

District council unanimously supported forming a tri-municipal North Shore committee to study the possible benefits of amalgamation at a council meeting Monday.

The question of merging the two North Vancouvers may also be on the district’s ballot as a referendum question in November’s municipal election — pending the result of further council discussion slated for September.

Both the City of North Vancouver and the District of West Vancouver have declined to help choose the citizen committee.

“It is time for us to take it away from the politicians and the bureaucrats and put it in the hands of the people,” said Coun. Doug MacKay-Dunn.

Funding for the volunteer committee is estimated to cost $20,000, which will be drawn from the council reserve.

That sum is a pittance compared to the millions that could be saved with an integrated planning model, according to MacKay-Dunn, who has frequently blasted the “silo mentality” that characterizes North Shore municipal planning.

In a period of unprecedented growth and densification on the North Shore, it is essential to take an overview of construction projects and transit, according to MacKay-Dunn.

“It makes no sense to have radical zoning differences on the border of two different municipalities,” MacKay-Dunn said while speaking to the City of North Vancouver in June.

Amalgamation could reduce the size and cost of local governments while maximizing efficiencies, according to Coun.
Roger Bassam.

As the District of North Vancouver discussed amalgamation Monday, the City of North Vancouver mulled first reading of their official community plan two kilometres away.

The District and City OCPs are not co-ordinated, according to Bassam.

“They’re completely independent documents,” he said, adding that the municipalities were on different pages on some very important issues.

The City of North Vancouver initially rejected amalgamation over cost concerns connected to the 70 kilometres of asbestos concrete pipe running under the district. More recently, the city scuttled amalgamation talks over concerns the district isn’t paying their share of the North Vancouver policing bill.

While one West Vancouver councillor suggested the three municipalities should focus on combining services, such as the North Shore Emergency Management Office, other councillors were less receptive.

“There’ll be no amalgamation as long as I’m on council,” promised Coun. Bill Soprovich.

Citing irreconcilable differences between West and North Vancouver, West Vancouver Mayor Michael Smith said West Vancouverites had no interest in amalgamation.

District of North Vancouver Coun. Mike Little praised MacKay-Dunn for continuing to push for amalgamation despite reluctance from neighbouring municipalities.

“The frustration has always been that you need a dance partner,” he said. “I think what Coun. MacKay-Dunn has shown us is that sometimes you’ve got to get out on the dance floor and see who else will come and join you.”

Opposition to amalgamation — or as he termed it: reunification — seems to be based on emotion, according to Coun. and acting mayor Alan Nixon.

“I can just imagine what a tremendously great municipality the combined municipality would look like, given our respective talents,” he said.

The tri-municipal committee is scheduled to report back to council by Oct. 6.

Mayor Richard Walton and Coun. Lisa Muri did not attend the meeting.

- See more at: http://www.nsnews.com/news/district-....Z8CFEVzV.dpuf

[spm2013]

Unless every side had some financial incentive to amalgamate it does seem futile.

[red-paladin]

I'm not sure about West Van, but the two North Vans really should be able to work it out.