It looks like we are about to have another round of claims and counter-claims about taxes. Two prime candidates for mayor are blasting each other on this very topic. Neither of them seem to have much to say other than to dump on the other.
Mr. O'Brien is reviving his "zero means zero" slogan from 2006 and Mr. Watson, who has pulled the number 2.5% out of the air, is criticizing O'Brien for his failure to deliver zero for the last four years.
Rather than having a serious discussion about the City's finances, the two gentlemen are engaged in political slogan swapping.
As I write this, I am reading the text of Mayor O'Brien's press release of September 11. Apparently all Council candidates are to be approached and asked for their comments on Mr. O'Brien's proposals. My understanding is that if I fail to sign on and swear fealty to this "plan", I will be cast into outer darkness and other candidates for Council will be blessed with the warmth of Mr. O'Brien's embrace.
Hidden behind the over-the-top rhetoric of both Watson and O'Brien, there may be some worthwhile ideas. I hope through many re-readings I will be able to find something of value.
Showing posts with label Jim Watson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jim Watson. Show all posts
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Council numbers and ward boundaries
Just to add to the discussion about the Watson proposal for reduction in the size of City Council, I think there is an interesting comment in Walter Robinson’s column in today’s Sun. (I rarely agree with Mr. Robinson but I don’t dismiss everything he says.) The quote is "I have long advocated for a reduced council size – ideally two per federal ward,.which could yield a potential of eight partially rural-minded councillors up from the current designated four councillors."
Robinson’s point is that rural issues would receive more attention at City Hall if there were more Councillors with a rural component in their ward. In fact it is the insistence that rural residents be represented by Councillors with no urban or suburban content that has limited the rural voice at City Hall. The only real exception to this rule is the present Cumberland ward which combines rural and suburban areas.
When the ward boundaries were last re-examined in 2005, I appeared before the OMB to challenge the process adopted by the then Council. In my argument I made reference to the two classic ways of gerrymandering electoral districts – either concentrate a particular group or interest in a limited number of districts (so they get only representatives from those limited districts) or spread the interest group around so that they are always a minority in every electoral district (and thus never succeed in electing a representative).
The 2005 boundary revision used the Greenbelt and the urban boundary to define three groups of wards. Stated simply there are urban wards inside the Greenbelt, suburban wards outside the Greenbelt and rural wards outside the urban boundary. Only Cumberland (ward 19) is an exception.
I would argue that in defining our wards we have gerrymandered to deliberately reduce the rural voice on Council. Under the present system only four out of twenty-three Councillors have any interest in rural issues.
This approach of creating three defined types of ward contributes to the divisiveness of Council. In addition, it has created wide variations in the number of voters per ward. According to the figures on numbers of electors issued by the City Clerk, there are 35,093 electors in Orleans ward (46% above average) and only 13,554 electors in Stittsville ward (44% below average).
No matter what you think the magic number is for representatives on Council, there is good reason for the new Council to look into ward boundaries for the 2014 election. I think this requires a lengthy discussion following the election. I would have preferred Jim Watson to have pledged to have a Good Government Review without prejudging the outcome in the midst of an election campaign.
Robinson’s point is that rural issues would receive more attention at City Hall if there were more Councillors with a rural component in their ward. In fact it is the insistence that rural residents be represented by Councillors with no urban or suburban content that has limited the rural voice at City Hall. The only real exception to this rule is the present Cumberland ward which combines rural and suburban areas.
When the ward boundaries were last re-examined in 2005, I appeared before the OMB to challenge the process adopted by the then Council. In my argument I made reference to the two classic ways of gerrymandering electoral districts – either concentrate a particular group or interest in a limited number of districts (so they get only representatives from those limited districts) or spread the interest group around so that they are always a minority in every electoral district (and thus never succeed in electing a representative).
The 2005 boundary revision used the Greenbelt and the urban boundary to define three groups of wards. Stated simply there are urban wards inside the Greenbelt, suburban wards outside the Greenbelt and rural wards outside the urban boundary. Only Cumberland (ward 19) is an exception.
I would argue that in defining our wards we have gerrymandered to deliberately reduce the rural voice on Council. Under the present system only four out of twenty-three Councillors have any interest in rural issues.
This approach of creating three defined types of ward contributes to the divisiveness of Council. In addition, it has created wide variations in the number of voters per ward. According to the figures on numbers of electors issued by the City Clerk, there are 35,093 electors in Orleans ward (46% above average) and only 13,554 electors in Stittsville ward (44% below average).
No matter what you think the magic number is for representatives on Council, there is good reason for the new Council to look into ward boundaries for the 2014 election. I think this requires a lengthy discussion following the election. I would have preferred Jim Watson to have pledged to have a Good Government Review without prejudging the outcome in the midst of an election campaign.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Strange Mix
It was surprising that Jim Watson proposed a borough council system for Ottawa at the same time as suggesting that City Council be reduced to 14 to 17 Councillors. Both ideas are worth discussing, but by bringing the two concepts together, Watson may have ensured that little progress can be made on either.
On the borough idea, surely the former Minister of Municipal Affairs realizes that a real borough system would require legislation from Queens Park. Nevertheless the concept of devolution of decision-making to a local level does have merit and could be accomplished with relative ease.
The question is why Watson did not stop there, but went on to talk about cutting the number of Councillors. This provoked the knee-jerk reaction of protecting rural voices on Council and the counter-reaction about "rep-by-pop" as the basis of democracy.
The trial-balloon about a Council cut-back has drowned out any meaningful discussion about devolution, and that is a pity. The editorial in today’s Le Droit speaks about Watson’s diversion. By talking as if reducing the number of Councillors would be a meaningful saving of expenditure, it could be argued he has effectively concealed the shallowness of his thinking about devolution. I hope that was not his intention.
On the borough idea, surely the former Minister of Municipal Affairs realizes that a real borough system would require legislation from Queens Park. Nevertheless the concept of devolution of decision-making to a local level does have merit and could be accomplished with relative ease.
The question is why Watson did not stop there, but went on to talk about cutting the number of Councillors. This provoked the knee-jerk reaction of protecting rural voices on Council and the counter-reaction about "rep-by-pop" as the basis of democracy.
The trial-balloon about a Council cut-back has drowned out any meaningful discussion about devolution, and that is a pity. The editorial in today’s Le Droit speaks about Watson’s diversion. By talking as if reducing the number of Councillors would be a meaningful saving of expenditure, it could be argued he has effectively concealed the shallowness of his thinking about devolution. I hope that was not his intention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)