Amalgamation

[Elmira Guy]

How do you see amalgamation affecting the townships? Do you think it will be a positive thing for the smaller urban and rural areas in the region?

[rapid_business]

Originally Posted by Actonite

It would appear that there is support for a new structure from Kitchener politicians except of course Mr.(you say black I say white) Gazzola, who never agrees on any thing...

We had a councillor like that in Edmonton. Mike Nickel. A very progressive city council, and the one guy who always had to be the opposite. Only so when (if I should say) he was ever right, or residents complained, he'd go to the local rag newspaper and say he was always for/against something. It wasn't even sober-second though, it was reactionary.

[DHLawrence]

Originally Posted by Elmira Guy

How do you see amalgamation affecting the townships? Do you think it will be a positive thing for the smaller urban and rural areas in the region?

I'm not sure that amalgamation would be beneficial to the townships at all; even with suburban sprawl, there's still too much of an urban-rural divide in the region. If it has to happen, just merge the cities first and see how that works before exploring how to include the townships.

[Elmira Guy]

Originally Posted by DHLawrence

I'm not sure that amalgamation would be beneficial to the townships at all; even with suburban sprawl, there's still too much of an urban-rural divide in the region. If it has to happen, just merge the cities first and see how that works before exploring how to include the townships.

Reason I ask is I think I read earlier in this thread that the proposed amalgamation would/could also include the four townships.

Perhaps it would have no impact at all, but I honestly can't think of any great positive aspect to amalgamation as far as the townships are concerned.

[Brenden]

Originally Posted by Elmira Guy

How do you see amalgamation affecting the townships? Do you think it will be a positive thing for the smaller urban and rural areas in the region?

I actually think It would be a good thing for you. One of the main points I picked up at the meeting in regards to Townships is that the proportional representation would be thrown out for this new plan.
The townships do not have the population to support a proportional representation system, other wise there would be one councilor for all the townships (or something like that).
With this plan there were a good deal of councilors that represented the town ships (I do not know the exact #).
I think this would give you a strong voice and insure that the city dosn't plow over you.
The thing I had not considered is how this will affect urban sprawl.

[Actonite]

I think CFBG has a fairly good plan when it comes to the Urban/Rural split of the region. They see the importance of the agricultural aspect of the region and fully intend to slow urban sprawl. Whether the region is amalgamated or not they must follow the provincial guidelines set out in the places to grow policy. Of course it will all come down to the elected leaders of a new city or cities. It will definitely make local politics very interesting and very important over the next few years.

[gghtransit]

In all likelyhood the various policies implemented by the various local councils of today would still remain in place. Particularily the Regional Growth Management Strategy which caps development up to 2031 with a countryside boundary. Amalgamation won't mean more urban sprawl.

[Duke-Of-Waterloo]

Originally Posted by Elmira Guy

How do you see amalgamation affecting the townships? Do you think it will be a positive thing for the smaller urban and rural areas in the region?

Here's a good article I saw in the Woolwich/Wellesley Observer today about how the townships feel about amalgamation.

One more kick at the amalgamation can
Citizens For Better Government looking for municipal input in deciding what comes next

(By Marc Miquel Helsen; OBSERVER; Saturday, December 6, 2008)


Looking at its next steps, the Citizens For Better Government (CFBG) is unlikely to get a green light from municipal officials. The organization hosted a discussion Thursday that delegates from Wellesley and Woolwich townships were scheduled to attend.

Discussing the issue Monday night, Wellesley councillors laid out a clear position: they’re not interested.

“My role there would be, definitely, to tell them that this is not a good idea for municipalities, especially the outlying areas. I certainly want that voice heard there,” said Coun. Jim Olender in an interview before the meeting.

Although the purpose of the CFBG meeting wasn’t to discuss the merits of its recently published final report in which the group advocates amalgamation of Waterloo Region’s municipalities, Olender said his message would be abundantly clear that such a move is not in the rural municipality’s best interest.

Furthermore, bringing up the issue in these tumultuous economic times is especially inappropriate.

“In theory it sounds wonderful but in practice, as we know, from anywhere in Ontario that it’s been done it hasn’t worked out anywhere. And anybody whom I’ve talked to who came from small places like here, they lost out, big-time. Their services diminished, their taxes went up, the big centres took all their brand new equipment, dumped off their garbage.”

Advocating amalgamation of the region’s seven municipalities, CFBG released a report in October, “Finding a Better Way,” in which it presented a number of alternatives to replace the existing two-tier system. Representatives of the group then attended local councils to present their findings.

CFBG’s preferred form of amalgamation calls for the elimination of each of the existing municipal councils (a total of 51 politicians), replacing them with one city council comprising 26 ward councillors and a mayor. Ward councillors would be assisted by 26 unelected community councils intended to provide a local voice on a centralized government.

Historically, such proposals for further amalgamation have met with cool and unenthusiastic responses from both Woolwich and Wellesley councils.

Despite the obvious potential for disagreement, however, this week’s meeting was to take a more fluid approach.

“Really, the intent of the meeting … is to determine interest and further discussion of the report and its recommendations to see whether or not there is any interest in this,” explained Randy Gosse, director of legislated services/city clerk with the City of Kitchener. “If there is no interest, I would suspect it will just end right there.”

(http://www.woolwichobserver.com/arch...EC_06_2008.pdf)

[Brenden]

Tonight at Kitchener City Council the Citizens for Better Government Report was voted on. It was passed with 6 to 1, meaning Kitchener supports amalgamation.

[DHLawrence]

Oh. Wow. That was unexpected. Can't you hear the surprise in my voice?

On a more serious note, this debate is really going to be decided in Waterloo and the townships. We know how Cambridge will vote, and Kitchener's vote wasn't surprising. The others could go either way, especially Waterloo.

[Duke-Of-Waterloo]

I don't think Waterloo wants Kitchener's problems (cough cough, down...town, cough cough). BUT, I don't think Kitchener wants Waterloo's problems either such as Waterloo's $70+ million dollar debt and mounting costs such as the new fire station, library, and public square, which will only make it worse.

As a side note, go Cambridge! You seem to have avoided all this drama that KW has, and I don't blame you for not wanting to amalgamate. At least you're like one of ONLY 3 municipalities in Ontario that is totally debt free and don't have an embarrassing and sketchy downtown(s...).

[DHLawrence]

Actually, we have three sketchy downtowns plus a suburban nightmare with a lot of potential. They're just smaller so they'll (hopefully) be easier to clean up

As for debt-free status, give us time. I'm sure we'll dig ourselves into a hole sooner or later.

[rapid_business]

So amalgamation of cities means every sketchy person in sketchy parts of town finally get on a bus and 'pollute' the affluent and safe neighbourhoods to the north?

Before we start the same banter, look back at the past couple of pages and re-familiarize why/why not it would be a good idea.

[vid]

If the two cities were actually separated like Port Arthur and Fort William maybe the "we don't want their problems" argument would hold but considering Downtown Kitchener is what, 15 blocks south of Downtown Waterloo, I don't think they have a valid argument there.

The debt issue is valid though. Why should Kitchenerians pay for the follies of Waterlooites?

[Duke-Of-Waterloo]

Originally Posted by vid

The debt issue is valid though. Why should Kitchenerians pay for the follies of Waterlooites?

It might not be as valid as you think. Kitchener is not much better than Waterloo with their finances, being $50+ mil in debt themselves. Most of it can be attributed to multiple civic projects downtown being failures or not reaping the anticipated results over the past 20+ years in their attempts to bring people back downtown.

[KW4Life]

In my meeting with the mayor of Waterloo, I mentioned I thought amalgamation was a wonderful idea.

Her response was "You are not one of THOSE people are you?"

[DHLawrence]

Kitchener and Waterloo would be a reasonably easy sell because of how close the two are to each other (the massive debt owed by each city tends to cancel each other out). To go from one to the other, all you need to do is cross the street. Good luck trying to do more than that in the near future.

[dunkalunk]

I might have mentioned this before, but i would love to see an increase in the amalgamation of city services. The libraries have already done it to an extent. Pools and Recreation would also benefit, with many facilities in Waterloo closer to travel to than ones in Kitchener and vice-versa ex. Sportsplex, Breithaupt Pool, Kiwanis Park (actually borders waterloo). For all intents in purposes, I could see the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo amalgamating in every sense except for zoning by-laws and name. (that name thing would be a difficult one) Plus, Waterloo City Hall is as ugly as sin and deserves to have a parking garage plopped on it and be redeveloped.

[Cambridgite]

Originally Posted by onishenko

So amalgamation of cities means every sketchy person in sketchy parts of town finally get on a bus and 'pollute' the affluent and safe neighbourhoods to the north?

That's okay. If they do that, we'll just send all our pesky student population down south.

[notmyfriends]

Originally Posted by dunkalunk

I might have mentioned this before, but i would love to see an increase in the amalgamation of city services. The libraries have already done it to an extent. Pools and Recreation would also benefit, with many facilities in Waterloo closer to travel to than ones in Kitchener and vice-versa ex. Sportsplex, Breithaupt Pool, Kiwanis Park (actually borders waterloo). For all intents in purposes, I could see the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo amalgamating in every sense except for zoning by-laws and name. (that name thing would be a difficult one) Plus, Waterloo City Hall is as ugly as sin and deserves to have a parking garage plopped on it and be redeveloped.

I understand.