|
Let’s
flash back to the last century, or more specifically, the
1900s, when municipal affairs were handled in the
Ottawa-Carleton area by 12 governments, namely 11 local
municipalities and one regional government.
While the regional
government tended to be somewhat removed from the people, with
input coming mainly from the councils of the 11
municipalities, such was not the case with the 11
municipalities.
These 11 municipalities were
very much forums for local input and discussions of issues of
local concern.
Here in Goulbourn,
there was a local council meeting virtually every week at
which matters of local concern, be they planning, roads,
severances, speeding, animal control, wetlands – whatever –
were discussed and debated, with decisions ensuing, decisions
which reflected the local input. Here in Goulbourn, there was
staff working in all areas of municipal concern, all just a
phone call away. The municipal phone line was answered by a
receptionist, a real person, not a voice mail or recording
saying punch in the five digit extension of the staff person
being sought.
It is interesting to
note that before January 2001, there were 11 local municipal
councils which met all of the time to discuss and decide on
matters of local interest. There was continual public input
and involvement in these discussions and decisions.
People, generally, knew
where to turn if there was a barking dog next door or a
speeding problem on the street, or a planning proposal that
upset them, or a pothole on the street or a need for a
sidewalk in the area. They knew that if they and their
neighbours had an issue, they would give them a hearing and
certainly listen attentively. They also knew that the staff
would be advising council on the matter understood local
concerns and priorities and was receptive to local input.
You had this going on
in the municipal communities throughout Ottawa-Carleton at the
local government level. And, with the numerous local
governments, each area of the region was able to develop
somewhat differently, somewhat uniquely, in response to local
needs and priorities. Regional government brought more
harmonized, region-wide approach to the matters of municipal
interest under its jurisdiction, but the more local, more
quality of life matters tended to fall under the mantle of the
local governments, and as a result, each municipal area of
Ottawa-Carleton was governed municipally in a unique way.
Alternatively,
citizens of each of the former municipal areas felt a real
connection with their local government. While government at
the federal and provincial levels, in particular, were
becoming more aloof and removed from citizens in the years
leading to the 21st century, with people becoming
cynical about politicians and higher level politicians, by and
large this cynicism did not extend to the local level of
municipal government.
It
remained a government close to the people, a government that
people continued to feel they could influence, and a
government that the people believed was working in their best
interests and the best interests of their local community.
People developed a real ownership in the local level of
government.
But now, what do we
have? Whereas lower taxes, increased efficiencies and less
government were promised by the amalgamation proponents, we
now have a situation where taxes not lower and where there is
a general belief that the ONE municipal government serving
what was all of Ottawa-Carleton is a bloated, inefficient, top
heavy bureaucracy. It is this one word alone that tells much
about the current situation. City hall is now considered a
bureaucracy; before, local municipal staff was considered as
simply that, staff, working for the taxpayers. It was not a
bureaucracy; local government was more like a friendly corner
store where the local customer found respect, knowledge and
consideration. Whereas the former municipal governments
escaped the growing general sense of cynicism that prevailed
for federal and provincial politicians and their
bureaucracies, now with the big new city of Ottawa, this
cynicism prevails. No longer is the municipal government
viewed as the local organization that helps the little guy,
helps the taxpayer, listens to the taxpayer and responds to
the taxpayer. All of this has been lost as the big new city is
breeding a municipal government milieu that is leading to less
community involvement, less |
|
volunteerism, less of almost
everything – in other words, we have lost the feeling of
ownership that formerly prevailed at the municipal government
level with the local governments.
Municipal government has
become removed from the residents. Everything is becoming
harmonized, the “one size fits all” approach. An in arriving
at this state, we all in Ottawa-Carleton have lost something.
We have lost the former ability to be part of the whole and
yet be distinct and unique.
We have gone from a collection
of 11 areas where local concerns and priorities were reflected
in municipal government decisions to one huge big area where
everything has to be the same.
Where has the concept
of “village of villages”, which was touted as the vision for
the new city at the time of amalgamation, gone? How can we
have had 11 local municipal council meetings grappling almost
weekly in the past, dealing with local matters and issues and
receiving local input, now be replaced with two giant council
meetings a month at which no public input is received, and the
city council standing committee meetings at which people are
limited to five minutes of input. There are no more town
hall-type council meetings at which council and its citizenry
hash out the pros and cons of an issue. Rather, there is a
procedure for people to fill out a form and sign up for five
minutes of input to the council committee. Citizens now cannot
even address their full council. How can you expect residents,
anywhere in the city, to feel any kind of ownership toward
such a setup?
This is the failure of
the amalgamated municipal government in this area so far. It
has failed to retain the feeling among the people that
prevailed previously, that local municipal government was the
people’s government; that it is there to deal with people’s
problems and issues, and that it is there to make local
communities reflect the wishes and priorities of local
residents. Rather, municipal government has become like any
other form of government, big and removed from the people, and
as a result, the cynicism that prevails for other forms of
government these days now has hold on our local government.
We had it great before
in the sense that local government meant something to people;
that it provided a forum where an individual citizen could
make a difference; and where an individual citizen would get
involved, as a library volunteer, as a volunteer firefighter,
as an advisory committee member, as an interested ratepayer,
because it was theirs, it listened to them, it reflected their
views. We have lost virtually all of this with our big city
municipal government.
The challenge now is
how to get this feeling back. De-amalgamation is, in our view,
not the answer, at least not yet. Rather, what is required is
what in world terms would be called statesmanship. We require
our local politicians to show some leadership and work to
implement a model of local governance that makes our big new
city a “village of villages”, a “community of communities”.
We do not claim to
know what this model should be specifically, but we do know
that it has to include a meaningful way to involve residents
in decision-making; it has to include methods to allow local
communities or areas to be different, to have their unique
local concerns and priorities reflected in local government
decisions and operations; it has to be receptive to local
input; and it has to restore to people that feeling of
ownership of their local municipal government that they once
had but have now lost. If this cannot be done, if things
continue the way that they have been going, then our city
government will end up only going through the motions of
municipal governance, as the people will have tuned it out and
we will all have lost that sympathetic ear, that helping hand,
that willing partner, that we all had with our previous local
municipal governments.
We had something special in our previous lives under our 11
local municipal governments. We have to get that feeling back
and we have to get back the aura of ownership by the people
that we had prior to amalgamation in 2001.
This, in our view, has to be accomplished to make municipal
government work in this new city of ours. |