Vancouver Amalgamation

[Pinion]

I'd like someone to convince me what would be good about amalgamation with North Van district, let alone the rest of the lower mainland. CNV has totally different priorities/demographics/income.

[djmk]

Originally Posted by Pinion

I'd like someone to convince me what would be good about amalgamation with North Van district, let alone the rest of the lower mainland. CNV has totally different priorities/demographics/income.

i did not even know there was a district until i moved here. I thought every thing was NV. And i'll be willing to bet, 8 out of 10 people in nv could not tell you where the borders of the nv's are.

correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the dnv and cnv already kinda amalgamated? Don't we share community centers, fire and other services?

[easy as pie]

in montreal, amalgamation has been a complete disaster - zero cost savings, an incoherent political tapestry, competing priorities, and a full-scale flight of folks off island and into de-merged communities. the government wisely left us with borough-level government and ward elections, so that we're not completely alienated from government, but there's frequent talk of dumping those too. who wins? corrupt builders with access to the coterie around the god-like mayor, bureaucrats whose elected counterparts have fewer and fewer avenues for keeping them accountable, the members of the mayors cabinet, which basically just goes to council for ratification of their decision, post hoc.

imagine if the car-fetishizing majority in the non-vancouver/burnaby/new westminster outposts were to impose their perverse views onto vancouver proper. imagine if some guy from maple ridge - rob ford style - were running the show, making decisions on the train to ubc and summer pedestrianizations when he's barely ever even traveled west of coquitlam. it's sickening even to consider.

don't make the mistakes that we have in montreal, don't even think about it. fight as hard as you can against it. beware! fie!

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by djmk

correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the dnv and cnv already kinda amalgamated? Don't we share community centers, fire and other services?

From what I can tell, just school district, rec centres and police.

I wonder if anyone would think CNV and DNV belong together if we were called Moodyville. I'd argue we are more distinct than New West vs Burnaby.

Here's some reasons not to amalgamate from the North Shore Outlook:

Today, City of North Vancouver Mayor Darrell Mussatto tells The Outlook he won’t entertain the idea of amalgamation until the district meets the same benchmarks for urban density that the city has.

Last year the district adopted an Official Community Plan that proposes long-term densification around the district’s town and village centres while growing its residential housing stock with infill housing. It’s a step in the right direction, Mussatto agrees. “But don’t just tell me,” he says. “Show me.”

Mussatto is the first to admit that city residents have reaped huge benefits from having the district act as a buffer around them, limiting expansion, increasing urban density, stoking desirability and lowering everyone’s taxes in the process. And those are advantages he’s rightfully not ready to give up. “I wasn’t elected to look after district residents,” he says. “I was elected to look after the city.”

I agree with "easy as pie." Amalgamation may look and sound pretty, but all it means is less people caring about your local interests.

[andasen]

As I inproperly mused in the street car thread I think there needs to be amalgamations happening in the lower mainland just not the entire thing amalgamated into one. Just enough to so make that the mayors council a more functional size. Too many small players IMO. A council of eight would be optimal though I'd be open to other numbers.

Thought, given the above consolodations happening should there be some land swapes? I'm thinking the strip of Vancouver between Boundry and Highway one or Burnaby East of Gaglardi

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Someone in the streetcar thread mentioned amalgamation with Richmond, and a moderator said that it belonged in THIS amalgamation thread, not under streetcar thread. So ... if one wishes to re-open the discussion ... on your mark ... get set .....

Amalgamation? Careful Richmond, you could lose your "h". It happened to Chilliwhack. Crazy Talk? http://youtu.be/fPJRN2XnCvg?hd=1&t=1m4s

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Pinion

I'd like someone to convince me what would be good about amalgamation with North Van district, let alone the rest of the lower mainland. CNV has totally different priorities/demographics/income.

So?

If you separated the downtown peninsula from the rest of Vancouver it would have totally different demographics/income. And I don't buy the argument their priorities are different. If anything your argument only proves that to have a more balanced city, the two should be joined. The two NV's are the most egregious example of the silliness of having two small adjacent governments with all the duplication that entails.

Vancouver would definitely benefit from being joined to a more sensible and practical neighbour.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So?

If you separated the downtown peninsula from the rest of Vancouver it would have totally different demographics/income. And I don't buy the argument their priorities are different. If anything your argument only proves that to have a more balanced city, the two should be joined. The two NV's are the most egregious example of the silliness of having two small adjacent governments with all the duplication that entails.

Vancouver would definitely benefit from being joined to a more sensible and practical neighbour.

You "don't buy" that the priorities are different? That's why the separate CNV was created in the first place.

You didn't provide a single reason why amalgamation would be preferable for someone like me. This "balanced city" BS just means less representation.

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by Pinion

You "don't buy" that the priorities are different? That's why the separate CNV was created in the first place.

You didn't provide a single reason why amalgamation would be preferable for someone like me. This "balanced city" BS just means less representation.

What he's saying is that if we were to follow the logic that areas with different "priorities" should have their own governments, we'd have to create separate municipalities for the DTES, the Downtown Peninsula, Shaughnessy Heights, Oakridge, etc. Tying different areas together under one government ensures that we don't have a patchwork of single-minded insurgent governments only looking out for only their specific interests - the good of the region can go to hell. Look at how Corrigan nearly killed the Canada and Evergreen Lines, or how New West tries to sabotage (in some cases literally) any infrastructure improvement that would smooth the flow of vehicles through it, despite being at the geographic centre of the region...

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Pinion

You "don't buy" that the priorities are different? That's why the separate CNV was created in the first place.

You didn't provide a single reason why amalgamation would be preferable for someone like me. This "balanced city" BS just means less representation.

So explain to us these vastly different priorities, and how they are any different from the vastly different priorities of The Downtown Peninsula vs. Shaughnessy, of Surrey Centre vs Panorama Ridge, of Central Richmond vs Steveston etc. etc ad nauseum.

At least with White Rock and Surrey one can imagine how the the vastness of Surrey contributed to the disconnect that lead to the split, but we're not talking a huge area where the NV's are concerned. If anything there increasing densification is leading their paths closer than ever.

[WBC]

Originally Posted by DKaz

I never really supported amalgamation but there is one reason to support it...



To make Derek Corrigan irrelevant.

Aaaaa....Not so sure about that. In fact, I think Corrigan would win that election with something like 92% of the vote...

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by WBC

Aaaaa....Not so sure about that. In fact, I think Corrigan would win that election with something like 92% of the vote...

No kidding, eh? Like it or not, majority of Metro Vancouver are car lovers, even amongst those who live in downtown.

I think the system that we have right now, while most certainly ain't perfect, is better than amalgamation. If the objective is to make Derek Corrigan or the likes of him go away, well, it may backfire and we can have a Rob Ford disaster in our hands instead. Besides, right now, Derek Corrigan is downright annoying, but he IS truly irrelevant. All it really takes is Vancouver, Surrey and most of the Northeast Sector cities to band together....and given the wise leadership those cities have right now....that ain't bad.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

in montreal, amalgamation has been a complete disaster - zero cost savings, an incoherent political tapestry, competing priorities, and a full-scale flight of folks off island and into de-merged communities. the government wisely left us with borough-level government and ward elections, so that we're not completely alienated from government, but there's frequent talk of dumping those too. who wins? corrupt builders with access to the coterie around the god-like mayor, bureaucrats whose elected counterparts have fewer and fewer avenues for keeping them accountable, the members of the mayors cabinet, which basically just goes to council for ratification of their decision, post hoc.

imagine if the car-fetishizing majority in the non-vancouver/burnaby/new westminster outposts were to impose their perverse views onto vancouver proper. imagine if some guy from maple ridge - rob ford style - were running the show, making decisions on the train to ubc and summer pedestrianizations when he's barely ever even traveled west of coquitlam. it's sickening even to consider.

don't make the mistakes that we have in montreal, don't even think about it. fight as hard as you can against it. beware! fie!

Not sure if Montreal amalgamation was a good idea or destined for success, but certainly the current provincial government in Quebec did not help things by allowing demergers in some cases (for purely electoral considerations, which did pay off BTW), but which only made things worse in Montreal, since it left the city basically "half-pregnant" as a result.

[djmk]

OMG. Amalgamation is happening

http://www.northshoreoutlook.com/news/157573175.html

[Alon]

In the US, there are about 2 cases I'm familiar with: New York, and Indianapolis. New York amalgamated in 1898, taking over suburban and even rural areas as far out as practical within the state (there were also suburbs in New Jersey, but of course those couldn't be amalgamated without moving state lines). This was generally a success. Although Downtown Brooklyn became a less important CBD subsequently, Brooklyn benefited from integrated subway service to Manhattan, and nowadays Downtown Brooklyn is redeveloping as Lower Manhattan overflow. Queens and the Bronx were turned from almost empty rural places to dense urban neighborhoods with some secondary centers (Long Island City is redeveloping as Midtown overflow). On top of this, because Brooklyn and the Bronx became very poor beginning in the 1950s, amalgamation has helped them maintain some tax base that otherwise would've gone to extravaganza in Manhattan and the richer towns in Staten Island and Queens. Because so many services in the US - schools, police, firefighting, local transit - are funded almost entirely on the municipal level, amalgamation helps smooth out income differences.

In Indianapolis, the city merged with the county in the 1960s. Amalgamation was a mixed story: the city benefited from the same smoothing of income, and essentially bought 30 more years of getting its business climate right before the suburbs started poaching (the city can't annex beyond county boundaries), but at the same time the suburbs took over city planning. Since the outer parts of the original city are also fairly suburban, it makes it hard to justify urbanist projects, such as streets with sidewalks.

Although SkyTrain is a unified system and this makes amalgamation look better on paper, like in New York, Translink is already regionally integrated. It's quite common in the German-speaking world to have coherent transit networks, with integrated fares and schedules, crossing not only municipal lines but also state or canton lines, and in Basel's case international lines.

[trofirhen]

When people here talk about amalgamation (whichever municipalitiies might participate; tht's a side issue for the instant), I ould assume they are talking about full-scale amalgamation, where the city of Vancouver, Burnaby, New West ... whatever ... fully amalgamate under one set of laws into one "seamless" urban agglomeration. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it seems.

OK. What about the system that Metro Toronto had in the 1960s and 70s, with a two-tier Metro government (the city and the five boroughs), with some laws being over-arching for all of Metro Toronto, others remaining at the Borough level?

Could not something like that be done in the Vancouver area, with of course a negotiation - or even a certain flexibility - over what laws are Metro-wide, and what laws apply at the local level? You never know; it might work.

[GlassCity]

You could do it from a geographical standpoint, solely off of natural boundaries. Here's my idea:

North Shore
West Vancouver
City of North Vancouver
District of North Vancouver
Lions Bay

Vancouver
UEL
Vancouver
Burnaby
Mainland New Westminster
Coquitlam
Port Coquitlam
Port Moody
Anmore
Belcarra

Richmond
Richmond
Queensborough

Surrey
Delta
Surrey
White Rock
District of Langley
City of Langley

Maple Meadows
Pitt Meadows
Maple Ridge

Bowen Island

This would kind of clean it all up a bit, because I think the amount of municipalities we have shows a lack of coherence. However, there are still enough for there to be little local differences, as well as some competition.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

You could do it from a geographical standpoint, solely off of natural boundaries. Here's my idea:

North Shore
West Vancouver
City of North Vancouver
District of North Vancouver
Lions Bay

Vancouver
UEL
Vancouver
Burnaby
Mainland New Westminster
Coquitlam
Port Coquitlam
Port Moody
Anmore
Belcarra

Richmond
Richmond
Queensborough

Surrey
Delta
Surrey
White Rock
District of Langley
City of Langley

Maple Meadows
Pitt Meadows
Maple Ridge

Bowen Island

This would kind of clean it all up a bit, because I think the amount of municipalities we have shows a lack of coherence. However, there are still enough for there to be little local differences, as well as some competition.

I like the idea but with a few changes

West Vancouver
West Vancouver
Lions Bay

North Vancouver
City of North Vancouver
District of North Vancouver

UEL
University Endowment Lands

City of Vancouver
Vancouver
Burnaby
New Westminster

Coquitlam
Port Moody
Port Coquitlam
Coquitlam
South Belcarra

Belmore
Anmore
North Belcarra

Richmond
Richmond
Queensborough

Delta
Delta
Tswwassen

Surrey
Surrey
North Delta
White Rock

Langley
City of Langley
Langley Township

Maple Meadows
Pitt Meadows
Maple Ridge

[GlassCity]

I kinda like having fewer, because then the "suburbs" could become recognized themselves. Imagine Surrey becoming a Brooklyn.

[Jebby]

I also like having fewer, but I think that Coquitlam, Port Moody and Port Coquitlam are far enough and have sufficient population to be a separate city from Vancouver. Anmore and Belcarra are small enough and isolated enough to be merged into a small local community.