THE MEGACITY QUESTION

Article 2

From The Vancouver Sun

Tuesday, January 9, 2001

Second of a series by Scott Simpson

Patchwork of cities makes no sense, experts agree

Complex urban issues require larger, more sophisticated government, bureaucrat argues

While many urban experts think it's time to give Greater Vancouver a better regional government, there is a wide range roof opinion on how to make that happen.

One suggest chopping up Vancouver and the rest of the region into smaller, community-sized municipalities that would be subordinate to an elected, regional mega-government.

Another says it would make more sense to simply shrink the number of cities to reflect the region's geography.

There are also suggestions that we make better connections with the Fraser Valley - or anticipate the next trend in urban government by privatizing such things as water delivery and turn management of watersheds over to community groups.

One thing they all agree on is that the current arrangement doesn't make much sense.

When Doug Lychak arrived on the West Coast in 1994 to take over as manager of Surrey, one of the first things that struck him was the odd patchwork of municipalities scattered across the local landscape.

Lychak, the bureaucrat who is overseeing the mega-city amalgamation in Hamilton, Ontario , says Greater Vancouver would work better as a group of no more than four municipalities, rather than the current 20.

"To deal with the issues that we will face in local government in the future, we need larger, more sophisticated units of government - because it's becoming that much more complex," Lychak said.

Take White Rock, a narrow strip of land along the southern edge of Surrey, population 17,000. Why should it be a separate municipality?

Or North Vancouver city, population 42,000 bordered on three sides by North Vancouver district?

Or Langley city, 23,000 people, just a thumbprint on the regional map of Surrey and Langley district?

Or the Tri-Cities, with their absurd boundaries and residents who live, shop, and recreate there as if it were a single city.

Even Vancouver and Burnaby, he said, should probably be one city.

Since 1996, local government reforms have erased hundreds of municipalities from the political landscape in Ontario, compelling clusters of adjacent municipalities to merge into single cities.

Lychak said that even when amalgamation is forced , the concerns of the publ subside quickly.

After all the shouting is over, and the whining and moaning and wailing, quite frankly the vase majority of people just acknowledge that it need to be done and get on with it, "Lychak said.

"You know what, for the vast majority of taxpayers, they won't notice a difference. Quite frankly, most people don't care what colour the garbage truck is."

Stronger regional government urged

But a patchwork of many more local governments would improve service delivery, former professor argues

Two experts, two ways of reorganizing local boundaries: Alan Artibise says there should be more political divisions than we have now. Doug Lychak wants fewer. The result: these somewhat fanciful renditions of their ideas.

Alan Artibise, an urban government expert and former University of B.C. professor, supports a strengthened regional government - but he wouldn't do away with individual municipalities.

In fact, he'd make more more of them. "My argument (in the GVRD) is that we have the worst of all worlds," Artibise said.

"We have big ones and small ones. If I was redesigning, it, I would create... many more of equal sizes rather than trying to say let's get down to four or something, because then you have large groups that can fight against each other.

"Rather than talking about doing away with all those governments I would prefer a debate about restructuring local government in a more radical way, creating more governments rather than fewer - but balancing it with a more effective regional government.

"Ideally I'd like a directly elected regional body.

"I'm quite prepared to settle for some structure where, in recognition of local government, all the mayors sit there alongside an equal number of directly elected people from districts that cut across city boundaries.

"We need people whose only job it is to think about the region. When they get up in the morning, that should be what they think about."

I'd take the city of Vancouver and make it, to make a rough number, 10 cities. We'd have "X" number of communities with 50,000 people that are based on geography, history and so forth.

"I'm one of the great believers that there should be distinctions in a region, that living in West Vancouver is different than living in Burnaby. There is nothing wrong with that.

"But there are, also regional issues that cannot be left up to local government. As I always say, 50 perfect local plans don't make a good regional plan.

"We have to find a way in our democratic process to resolve those issues. The way you resolve them is by saying, the will of two million people is more important that the will of 50,000 people in any one area."

Artibise says smaller cities would ensure that local neighborhoods retain control over truly local issues.

That kind of thing is already happening in Vancouver, where community associations are the de facto managers of local services ranging from child care to hot lunches for seniors.

The associations design the programs, hire the staff and handle the budgets.

"That would make a lot more sense (across the region), because then you would be talking to people who understood the local community."

"Structure, in and of itself, doesn't determine the kind of government you get. It's the people within it.

"But structures allow you to do things more quickly, more effectively, sometimes more efficiently. Structure is important but is not the be-all and the end-all.

"You have to start by asking what you want to achieve with government. Then, a government design will come out of it, rather than some theoretical approach."

Michael Seelig, an urban planning expert and former colleague of Artibise, says the number one issue facing Greater Vancouver is the protection of the environment.

Greater Vancouver issues such as air quality have impact throughout the Lower Mainland and he'd reflect the scope of those issues by expanding the regional government to encompass the entire Lower Mainland - including the Fraser Valley.

He'd create a regional government in which politicians are directly elected and hold greater power and authority to make decisions that reflect the interests of the region as a whole.

"As it stands at present I think municipalities have no real obligation or incentive to cooperate, " Seelig said.

"The question is not whether they are capable of cooperating, but rather how we create a structure under which they must cooperate. The issues at stake are far too serious to allow municipalities to stand in the way of their resolution."

Finally, Tony Dorcey, director of the School of Community and Regional Planning at UBC, advises that a new government should anticipate coming trends, not just deal with current problems.

Dorcey said citizens' groups across North America are showing more interest in taking over management of resources that were, until now, the responsibility of municipalities.

That could mean anything from a watershed to the delivery of social services.

It's a trend that is already emerging in the Lower Mainland, where stream-keeper groups are springing up like mushrooms to take responsibility for the protection of local creeks and rivers.

Often, those groups clash with municipal governments that are unprepared to deal with resident who oppose developments that encroach on waterways under their stewardship.

"People's minds are turning to different models of governance," Dorsey said.

"Take water supply, for example, There are many examples now of that being delivered under contract by a private sector operation.

"It could happen in any sector. We're seeing it particularly in the environmental areas where citizen groups would take on watershed management - dealing with habitat restoration, even regulation of activity.

"When you have a very conservative board, like the GVRD board, this is even more of a challenge to them as people's minds turn to different models of governance - ones where government is more of a facilitator of helping the non-governmental and in some cases the private sector to deliver services."

Megacities need not bring loss of individual identities, Lychak says

You can make a megacity without surrendering the unique identity of your community, says one expert who has seen the situation from every angle.

"I grew up in a little place called Winona," recalls Doug Lychak, the former Surrey city manager who is now guiding a megacity amalgamation in Hamilton, Ontario.

Winona, on the southeast shore of Lake Ontario, a short drive west of Hamilton, is so small it's not even listed on the Canada Gazeteer Atlas.

"About the only claim to fame it has is that E.D. Smith jam comes from there. Quite frankly, Winona has never existed as a political entity.

"It still doesn't exist."

"But my parents still live there. They go to the Winona bank, the mail goes to Winona, the Winona public school is still there and it's still a community.

"Political boundaries, often are totally inconsistently with communities, communities of interest, economic communities."

Lychak noted that long-established communities in Surrey, such as Cloverdale, still retain their unique local character. Like Winona, they remain distinct.

"Is Cloverdale still Cloverdale? I guess so, for one reason or another."

Scott Simpson