Ward Boundary Review

Why shelving the WBR is the fair thing to do

Council voted today to shelve the Ward Boundary Review and keep the status quo for the next municipal election in November 2010. I think this is a good and fair decision.

The consultant did his job by meeting with Councillors, holding three public meetings across the city, and going on local radio programs to discuss his report. The report argued that the status quo was not a viable medium to long term option because of the disparity in populations between the wards (specifically wards 1 and 5 vs 2, 3, and 4) - suburban wards have been expanding and core city wards declining. The report was detailed, the maps were great, and the options (5 wards, 2 councillors each, adjusted boundaries; 10 wards, 1 councillor each, adjusted boundaries; 8 wards, 1 councillor each, adjusted boundaries) explained in detail, and, most importantly, the populations balanced across the wards.

The problem with the options as presented is that community assets are not balanced across the wards, the new economic circumstances of the city are not considered, and diverse neighbourhoods are mishmashed together. Let me explain: I met with the consultant back in February to discuss my concerns as a Trustee. He advised that it wasn't in his mandate to balance services, schools, rec centres, etc. through the wards. His mandate was to balance population while taking into consideration the diverse local cultures within various historic neighbourhoods.

I believe that a consultant undertaking work of this nature has an obligation to advise their clients that re-jigging the political boundaries in any community requires more than just population data be considered. People don't live in a vaccuum and you can't create amalgamated communities overnight. Many attempts to do so have met with abject failure. One example in our region is the amalgamated Town of Essex which seems to debate the secession of one of it's parts on an annual basis. Combining neighbourhoods like Sandwich Towne and Bellewood Estates into one ward makes no real sense. The communities have nothing in common.

I certainly have a stake in this. As a Catholic Trustee representing Ward 3, each of the options would have significantly altered my ward and the constituents I represent. One option actually put me in a different ward altogether, based on the neighbourhood in which I live. Some of the options actually result in wards without schools, with only secondary schools, or only elementary schools. The chaos that would have resulted from choosing any of these options would have, in my personal opinion only, thrown our board into complete disarray. I strongly believe that we would very likely have ended up opting for a modified "at-large" election of trustees similar to what the Public board does (4 trustees from Wards 1, 2, and 3 combined; 3 from Wards 4 & 5 combined). I don't like at-large elections because the wards that get the most representation are the wards where people actually come out and vote. Voter turnout in areas of poverty or economic decline are historically lower than suburban areas of relative prosperity and civic engagement.

Speaking of economic decline, the report uses population data from January 2009. The issue with this is that many of the major layoffs weren't announced when the data was collected. My observations regarding enrolments in core city schools for September 2009 are that the out-migration from the core to the suburbs has slowed significantly enough to suggest it's either stopped altogether or is being balanced by in-migration from the suburbs by families who have lost their homes or cashed out of their big mortgages and opted for something less expensive. I also believe, but have no proof to base this belief on, that families are looking to relocate near extended family (grandparents, aunts & uncles, etc.) in order to save on child care costs. But I digress...Let me sum up: shelving it was the right thing to do, although I know the issue will raise it's ugly head again after next November.