Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:41:59.491Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Patchwork of Participation: Stewardship, Delegation and the Search for Community Representation in Post-Amalgamation Ontario

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2016

Zachary Spicer
Zachary Spicer*
Affiliation:
Brock University
*
Brock University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St. Catharines, ON, L2S 3A1, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the wake of wide-ranging municipal amalgamations Ontario, the provincial government promoted the use of community councils, citizen-led boards that would have input in local matters. Community councils were touted as a way of preserving local identity and policy control. However, more than a decade removed from Ontario's restructuring process, few municipalities have community councils in place. Those that have implemented community councils established them with purely advisory functions. This paper asks why community councils were so inconsistently implemented and introduced with such limited powers. Overall, it is found that community councils were victims of restructuring politics. Blocked by city councillors fearing decentralization would dilute their authority and foster political rivals, constrained through a restrictive legislative framework and pushed aside by city officials fearing they would effectively recreate a two-tier system, community councils were either abandoned or installed with a limited mandate.

Résumé

Dans la foulée des vastes fusions municipales en Ontario, le gouvernement provincial a encouragé la mise sur pied de conseils communautaires, des conseils dirigés par des citoyens qui contribuent à la prise de décisions dans les affaires locales. Les conseils communautaires ont été présentés comme un moyen de préserver l’identité locale et le contrôle des politiques. Cependant, plus d’une décennie après la mise en application du processus de restructuration de l’Ontario, peu de municipalités sont dotées de conseils communautaires. Les quelques conseils communautaires qui existent n'exercent que des fonctions consultatives. Cet article interroge cet état de fait. Dans l’ensemble, il est établi que les conseils communautaires ont été victimes de la politique de restructuration. Les conseils communautaires ont été abandonnés ou limités dans leur mandat, parce que les conseillers municipaux ont craint qu’une décentralisation dilue leur autorité et favorise leurs rivaux politiques. Les conseils communautaires ont aussi été contraints par un cadre législatif restrictif et mis de côté par les responsables de la ville craignant qu’ils recréent un système à deux niveaux.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 129 - 150
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alford, J. 2002. “Why do Public-Sector Clients Co-Produce? Toward a Contingency Theory.” Administration and Society 34(1): 32–47.Google Scholar
Arnold, Steve and Di Gregorio, Ray. 1997. “Carrot Dangled for Suburbs: Hamilton Hints at Leaving Some Authority in Hands of Local Councils.” Hamilton Spectator, January 28, 1997.Google Scholar
Axworthy, Lloyd. 1980. “The Best Laid Plans Oft Go Astray: The Case of Winnipeg.” In Problems of Change in Urban Government, ed. Dickerson, M.O., Drabek, S. and Woods, J.T.. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier Press. 1980.Google Scholar
Ball, Rick and Stobbart, Jon. 1996. “Community Identity and the Local Government Review.” Local Government Studies 22 (1): 113–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, Benjamin R. 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Oakland CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Berry, Jeffrey M., Portney, Kent and Thomson, Ken. 1993. The Rebirth of Urban Democracy. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Bingham Blomgren, L., Nabatchi, T. and O'Leary, R.. 2005. “The New Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Governance.” Public Administration Review 65 (5): 547–58.Google Scholar
Bird, Richard. 1995. Financing Local Services: Patterns, Problems and Possibilities. Major report 31. Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Bird, Richard and Slack, Enid. 1993. Urban Public Finance in Canada. Toronto: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Blom-Hansen, Jens. 2010. “Municipal Amalgamations and Common Pool Problems: The Danish Local Government Reforms in 2007.” Scandinavian Political Studies 33 (1): 51–73.Google Scholar
Byrnes, Joel and Dollery, Brian. 2002. “Do Economies of Scale Exist in Australian Local Government? A Review of the Research Evidence.” Urban Policy and Research 20 (4): 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Heather and Marshall, Robert. 2000. “Public Involvement and Planning: Looking Beyond the One to the Many.” International Planning Studies 5 (3): 321–44.Google Scholar
Church, Gardiner, Greenberg, Kenneth and McPhedran, Marilou. 1997. “Toronto: An Urban Alternative.” In Cities in Our Future, ed. N'Dow, Wally and Spengler, John. Toronto: Island Press.Google Scholar
City of Hamilton. 2007. Community Councils Task Force Report. Hamilton: City Clerk's Department.Google Scholar
City of Ottawa. 2001. Report to Council: Political Infrastructure Options. Ottawa: Office of the City Clerk.Google Scholar
City of Ottawa. 2007. Effective and Efficient Council—White Paper 3: Governance Structures to Support Council's Role. Ottawa: City of Ottawa.Google Scholar
City of Toronto. 2003. City of Toronto Council Governance Review—Discussion Paper. Toronto: Strategic and Corporate Policy.Google Scholar
City of Sudbury. 2007. Community Action Network Terms of Engagement. Sudbury: Office of the City Clerk.Google Scholar
Collin, J-P and Robertson, M.. 2005. “The Borough System of Consolidated Montréal: Revisiting Urban Governance in a Composite Metropolis.” Journal of Urban Affairs 27 (3): 307–30.Google Scholar
Côté, Andre. 2009. The Maturing Metropolis: Governance in Toronto a Decade on from Amalgamation. Toronto: Institute on Municipal Governance and Finance.Google Scholar
Dalhberg, Matz. 2010. “Local Government in Sweden.” In Local Public Sector in Transition: A Nordic Perspective, ed. Mosio, Antti. Helsinki: Government Institute for Economic Research.Google Scholar
Elliot, Howard. 2000. “How Will New Council Govern Hamilton? Civic Election: Accessibility a Key Ingredient.” Hamilton Spectator, October 11, A12.Google Scholar
Ekos Research Associates Inc. 2004. City of Ottawa Citizen Satisfaction Survey: Final Report. Toronto: Ekos Research Associates Inc.Google Scholar
Fagotto, Elena and Fung, Archon. 2006. “Empowered Participation in Urban Governance: The Minneapolis Neighbourhood Revitalization Program.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30 (3): 638–55.Google Scholar
Feldman, Lionel D., Graham, Katherine A and Phillips, Susan D.. 1997. Governance Structures for the New City of Toronto. Toronto: Toronto Transition Team.Google Scholar
Found, Adam. 2012. Scale Economies in Fire and Police Services. IMFG Paper 12. Toronto: Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Fung, Archon. 2006. “Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance.” Public Administration Review 66: 66–75.Google Scholar
Golden, Anne and Slack, Enid. 2006. “Urban Governance Reform in Toronto: A Preliminary Assessment.” In Metropolitan Governing: Canadian Cases, Comparative Lessons, ed. Razin, Erin and Smith, Patrick. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem Magness Press.Google Scholar
Greater Sudbury Community Solutions Team. 2007. Constellation City: Building a Community of Communities in Greater Sudbury. Sudbury: Hamel, Pierre. 2009. “Services centraux, services en trop: La dérive centrifuge des arrondissements de Montréal.” In La Métropolisation et ses territories, ed. Bherer, L. and Sénécal, G.. Sainte-Foy: Presses de l'Université du Québec.Google Scholar
Hall, Joseph. 2003. “Local Democracy: Seeking A Better Way.” Toronto Star. July 26, B4.Google Scholar
Hamel, P. and Rousseau, J.. 2006. “Revisiting municipal reforms in Québec and the new responsibilities of local actors in a globalizing world.” In Canada: The State of the Federation 2004: Municipal-Federal-Provincial Relations in Canada, ed. Young, R. and Leuprecht, C.. Montréal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Higgins, Donald J.H. 1977. Urban Canada: Its Government and Politics. Toronto: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hughes, Rick. 1997. “Hardeman Report Confirms Suburbs Worst Unicity Fears: Community Councils Size and Nature Suggestions Worrying Mayors,” Hamilton Spectator, February 22.Google Scholar
Kathi, P.C. and Cooper, T.L.. 2005. “Democratizing the Administrative State: Connecting Neighbourhood Councils and City Agency.” Public Administration Review 65 (5):559–67.Google Scholar
Kotler, M. 1969. Neighbourhood Government. Indianapolis: Bobs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Kushner, Joseph and Siegel, David. 2005. “Are Services Delivered More Efficiently After Municipal Amalgamations?” Canadian Public Administration 48 (2): 251–67.Google Scholar
Latendresse, A. 2002. Réorganisation municipal sur l’île de Montréal: Une opportuné pour la démocratie montréalaise? Annals des Ponts et Chaussées, 102, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeSage, Edward Jr. and Garcea, Joseph. 2005. “Reflections on Municipal Reform: Reconfiguration and Reinvention.” In Municipal Reform in Canada: Reconfiguration, Re-Empowerment and Rebalancing, ed. Garcea, Joseph and LeSage, Edward C. Jr.Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meloche, Jean-Philippe and Vaillancourt, Francois. 2013. “Public Finance in Montréal: In Search of Equity and Efficiency.” IMFG paper no. 15. Toronto: Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.Google Scholar
Moisio, Antti, Loikkanen, Heikki A. and Oulasvirta., Lasse 2010. Public Services at the Local Level—the Finnish Way. Policy report 2. Helsinki: Government Institute for Economic Research.Google Scholar
Monroe, James A. 1990. The Democratic Wish: Popular Participation and the Limits of American Government. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pentergrast, Eudora and Farrow, John. 1997. Community Councils and Neighbourhood Committees: Lessons for Our Communities from around the World. Toronto: Canadian Urban Institute.Google Scholar
Portney, Kent and Barry, Jeffrey. 2002. “Bowling in Neighbourhoods: Civil Society and the Promise of Citywide Networks of Neighbourhood Councils in Los Angeles.” Urban News 16 (3): 3–7.Google Scholar
Portney, Kent and Barry, Jeffrey. 2007. “Neighbourhoods, Neighbourhood Associations and Social Capital.” In Acting Civically: From Urban Neighbourhoods to Higher Education, ed. Ostrander, Susan A. and Portney, Kent E.. Melford MA: Tufts University Press.Google Scholar
Pratchett, Lawrence. 1999. “New Fashions in Public Participation: Towards Greater Democracy?” Parliamentary Affairs 52 (4): 616–33.Google Scholar
Sancton, Andrew. 2000. Merger Mania: The Assault on Local Government. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's Press.Google Scholar
Sancton, Andrew. 2011. Canadian Local Government: An Urban Perspective. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scavo, C. 1993. “The Use of Participative Mechanisms by Large US Cities.” Journal of Urban Affairs 15 (1): 93–109.Google Scholar
Shortliffe, Glen. 1999. Report to the Minister: Local Government Reform in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. Toronto: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.Google Scholar
Siegel, David. 2005. “Municipal Reform in Ontario.” In Municipal Reform in Canada: Reconfiguration, Re-Empowerment and Rebalancing, ed. Garcea, Joseph and C, Edward. Lesage, Jr. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sirianni, C. and Friedland, L.. 2001. Civic Innovation in America: Community Empowerment, Public Policy and the Movement for Civic Renewal. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Slack, Enid and Bird, Richard. 2013. “Merging Municipalities? Is Bigger Better” IMFG Papers 14. Toronto: Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.Google Scholar
Spears, John. 1997. “What the Megacity Will Mean to You.” Toronto Star, March 29, A1.Google Scholar
Spears, John. 1998. “Give Community Councils Power, Toronto Urges.” Toronto Star October 30: A1.Google Scholar
Spicer, Zachary. 2012. “Post Amalgamation Politics: How Does Consolidation Impact Community Decision-Making?” Canadian Journal of Urban Research 21 (2): 90–111.Google Scholar
Spicer, Zachary. 2014. Too Big, Yet Still Too Small: The Mixed Legacy of the Montreal and Toronto Amalgamations. IMFG Perspectives 5. Toronto: Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.Google Scholar
The Strategic Counsel Inc. 1997. Torontonians’ Views on the New City: A Report to the Transition Team. Toronto: Toronto Transition Team.Google Scholar
Thomas, John Clayton. 1986. Between Citizen and City: Neighbourhood Organizations and Urban Politics in Cincinnati. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, Ken. 2001. From Neighbourhood to Nation: The Democratic Foundations of Civic Society. Hanover: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
Tomas, Mariona. 2012. “Exploring the Metropolitan Trap: The Case of Montreal.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 36 (3): 554–567.Google Scholar
Toronto Transition Team. 1997. New City, New Opportunities: Final Report. Toronto: Toronto Transition Team.Google Scholar
Vojnovic, Igor. 2000. “Municipal Consolidation, Regional Planning and Fiscal Accountability: The Recent Experience in Two Maritime Provinces.” Canadian Journal of Regional Science 23 (1): 49–73.Google Scholar
Wagner, F.H. 2001. “Freeing Agency Research from Policy Pressures: A Need and an Approach.” Bioscience 51 (6): 445–50.Google Scholar
Wandersman, Abraham, Florin, Paul, Friedmann, Robert and Meier., Ron 1987. “Who Participates, Who Does Not, and Why? An Analysis of Voluntary Neighbourhood Organizations in the United States and Israel.” Sociological Forum 2 (3): 534–55.Google Scholar