Fully agree (hate to borrow a word from Poilievre) that the City is broken, in so many ways. De-amalgamating certainly is an option to be explored. However, there will always be the need for management and oversight of common services. Recall that the former Regional government had 80% of the budget dollars.
Another option, at least to get a better grip on planning issues, is to create three Planning Committees, in line with the three Committee of Adjustment panels.. Each panel could have a Councillor from each of the other regions, but there would be a majority of Councillors representing the region involved in the issue or proposal. There is a lot more wrong in how City Hall plans and reviews, but this "de-amalgamation" of Planning Committee could help.
Sorry to be so late in responding. I'm only now catching up with your newsletter.
But even before amalgamation, we had a Regional Government that looked after some stuff (big roads, water, social services, some planning, etc). There was some rationale for these. Sharing the wealth and pain, what your throw in the river goes downstream, etc...
in thinking this thru to whatever might be the next stage .. I'm wondering about an 'under issue" - the low turnout for elections ... and whether there is a correlation between the inner core voters and all the others.
My hypothesis / notion is that voters outside the core don't care as much as we do who live in "the City' ... and show that by the % turnout, per Ward ; my guess would be something like 42% inner-core participation ... vs. 33% outside it.
Because if voters in general cared more and paid more attention to what's going on at their City - Hall ... and how their money is being spent, there would have been a higher level of hue and cry by the citizenry in all Wards; Councillors would have 'heard' that ... and thought twice eg. about approving Lansdowne ... and made the connection between Horigan's report and this big LPP decision, and the City's process that lead to it.
So if we de-amalgamate, those same voters ( ie. esp. the ones who don't vote) will feel more responsible for any decisions that are made about anything, in their new political jurisdiction. If they'd be ok with this or that, then fine; but they'll wear it. Things will probably get more expensive for them too since the inner core have much higher density so are well motivated to cooperate / share responsibility and spread the costs among their more numerous citizenry. ie. that 'per capita ' concept .
It is really a shame that Lansdowne 2.0 went through. And interesting proposal, Neil. I have some questions as to what this means for public municipal services and what the risks are. Generally speaking though I think your idea has a lot of merit.
Agree that something needs to be done, but feel that part of the biggest issues are likely at the regional level, or at the least, between the major outside-the-greenbelt suburbs and the core, though admittedly the rural parts of Ottawa have very different challenges.
I guess part of it comes down to what the regional level government looks like on top of a deamalgamated group of municipalities.
Agree that things need to change, though, and not wanting to wait for the perfect versus the good, but just trying to understand how this helps across all priorities. And I say that as a suburban voter who voted against the current mayor and my current councillor.
Fully agree (hate to borrow a word from Poilievre) that the City is broken, in so many ways. De-amalgamating certainly is an option to be explored. However, there will always be the need for management and oversight of common services. Recall that the former Regional government had 80% of the budget dollars.
Another option, at least to get a better grip on planning issues, is to create three Planning Committees, in line with the three Committee of Adjustment panels.. Each panel could have a Councillor from each of the other regions, but there would be a majority of Councillors representing the region involved in the issue or proposal. There is a lot more wrong in how City Hall plans and reviews, but this "de-amalgamation" of Planning Committee could help.
Sorry to be so late in responding. I'm only now catching up with your newsletter.
But even before amalgamation, we had a Regional Government that looked after some stuff (big roads, water, social services, some planning, etc). There was some rationale for these. Sharing the wealth and pain, what your throw in the river goes downstream, etc...
in thinking this thru to whatever might be the next stage .. I'm wondering about an 'under issue" - the low turnout for elections ... and whether there is a correlation between the inner core voters and all the others.
My hypothesis / notion is that voters outside the core don't care as much as we do who live in "the City' ... and show that by the % turnout, per Ward ; my guess would be something like 42% inner-core participation ... vs. 33% outside it.
Because if voters in general cared more and paid more attention to what's going on at their City - Hall ... and how their money is being spent, there would have been a higher level of hue and cry by the citizenry in all Wards; Councillors would have 'heard' that ... and thought twice eg. about approving Lansdowne ... and made the connection between Horigan's report and this big LPP decision, and the City's process that lead to it.
So if we de-amalgamate, those same voters ( ie. esp. the ones who don't vote) will feel more responsible for any decisions that are made about anything, in their new political jurisdiction. If they'd be ok with this or that, then fine; but they'll wear it. Things will probably get more expensive for them too since the inner core have much higher density so are well motivated to cooperate / share responsibility and spread the costs among their more numerous citizenry. ie. that 'per capita ' concept .
It is really a shame that Lansdowne 2.0 went through. And interesting proposal, Neil. I have some questions as to what this means for public municipal services and what the risks are. Generally speaking though I think your idea has a lot of merit.
Agree that something needs to be done, but feel that part of the biggest issues are likely at the regional level, or at the least, between the major outside-the-greenbelt suburbs and the core, though admittedly the rural parts of Ottawa have very different challenges.
I guess part of it comes down to what the regional level government looks like on top of a deamalgamated group of municipalities.
Agree that things need to change, though, and not wanting to wait for the perfect versus the good, but just trying to understand how this helps across all priorities. And I say that as a suburban voter who voted against the current mayor and my current councillor.