Public Participation and Community Councils in Toronto - Assignment Example

Public Participation and Community Councils in Toronto Public Participation and Community Councils in TorontoIntroduction It is apparent that citizen participation is a critical aspect: in principle, it is a good idea. However, opinions begin to diverge at the point of defining the term. Some people believe that citizen participation is “self-help”. Others think it is “citizen engagement”, “citizen input” or “citizen involvement”. Still, others believe that it is “absolute control”. Citizen participation is none of these. Rather, the term refers to the redistribution of power such that citizens who were hitherto excluded from decision-making processes begin to take an active part in the processes(Garau, 2012). There are several vehicles that authorities can employ to realize the genuine, effective participation of citizens in the governance process. One such vehicle is community councils. Following the amalgamation of Toronto in 1998, six community councils were established. The community councils were meant to serve as the platform for “participating” the residents of Metropolitan Toronto, the new amalgamated city. The notion of "amalgamation" entails merging smaller local authorities with one larger municipality to form one large metropolitan area. Promoters of city amalgamations argue that it is more cost-effective to provide services and goods to one larger municipality than in several small local government areas(Schwartz, 2010). However, many scholars are of the view that amalgamation has not worked for Toronto and that the community councils are weak. This paper compares the Toronto model with two others: New York and Montreal. Scholars consider New York a success and Montreal, like Toronto, a failure. Based on the findings of the case studies, the author recommends two reform options for Toronto. Why Toronto’s System was Chosen Until 1997, Toronto had a two-tier regional government. The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto comprised the upper tier while the lower tier comprised the municipalities of North York, East York, Scarborough and Toronto and the borough of York. In late 1996, the premier of Ontario proposed the amalgamation of Metropolitan Toronto. They argued that the move could save $645 million during the transition and $300 million a year afterthat (Schwartz, 2010). However, a report by KPMG revealed that the transition cost the government of Ontario $275 million while they managed to save only $135 million a year. As of 2008, the city’s budget stood at $8.1 billion, up from $5 billion in 1997. Only the number of politicians fell, but increases in the councilors staff and office budgets have canceled any cost savings. Montreal’s System of Borough Councils Montreal was amalgamated in 2000 before being partly de-amalgamated in 2006. The main feature of amalgamated Montreal is twenty distinct administrative areas – nineteen boroughs and a central city. Each administrative area has its Mayor and Council. The central city has a total of sixty-four councilors. In 2006, an Agglomeration Council comprising thirty-one members was established. These members included the Mayor of Montreal, fifteen councilors of Montreal and fourteen Mayors each representing the fourteen reconstituted municipalities. Critics of this system consider it complicated and costly(Spicer, 2014). Consequently, they conclude that the system does not work. New York’s System of Community Boards New York City’s model of amalgamation is considered one of the most successful in the world(Bedford, 2010). The city was amalgamated more than a century ago. Today, the city has 8.4 million people spread across fifty-one wards of approximately 165, 000 people each. Many scholars agree that the city’s ability to maintain a roughly uniform population size across all the wards of the city is commendable. The even distribution of population makes the cost of providing services predictable and promotes equal political representation as the councilor to citizens is uniform throughout the city. City planning is a major function of city governance. Yet for many cities around the world, genuine, effective citizen participation remains a pipe dream despite many constitutions making it mandatory(Jabareen, 2013). New York City has achieved what comes closest to effective citizen participation in city planning. The city has been able to do this through its three-tier system of planning. The first tier comprises 59 Community Boards, each representing a Community District.The members of the boards are non-elected and represent both residential communities and communities of interest. The boards are an integral component of the city’s governance structure are enshrined in the New York City Charter. Thus, the boards enjoy legal legitimacy. The Community Boards are the first to consider applications for development. The next tier is the city-wide Planning Commission. The commission comprises 13 non-elected members and considers development applications from the Community Boards before forwarding them to the City Council committee responsible for planning. Even though it is not clear the extent to which the Community Boards can influence the outcomes of planning processes, scholars regard New York Citys system as working(Jabareen, 2013). This is in spite of the criticism that most Community Boards or Councils exist to rubberstamp the predetermined decisions of city officials. Community Council Reform Options for Toronto In order to reform Metropolitan Toronto and make the amalgamation work, the government of Ontario should take at least two measures. First, they should simplify the current system of political representation by replacing it with a leaner council representing the wards. Secondly, the Community Councils should be replaced with Neighbourhood Advisory Committees (NACs). NACs will promote effective citizen participation in the governance of the metropolitan region. Some scholars have gone farther and suggested that eleven to twenty-two NACs would be optimal(Bedford, 2010). The NACs should represent the diverse interests of the residents of the metropolis. Area councilors should be allowed to sit on NACs, but not vote. Lastly, the NACs should be independent of city hall. For instance, they should be able to hire their professionals rather than draw technical support from city hall. Annotated Bibliography Garau, C. (2012). Citizen participation in public planning: A literature review. International Journal of Sciences, 21-44. Garau provides a review of the literature on the subject of citizen participation in planning. The article provides a theoretical basis understanding the concept of citizen participation. The author underscores the point that there are levels of citizen participation. These fall into three broad categories: from non-participation to citizen power through tokenism. At the level of non-participation, there is no real participation, only manipulation by authorities. At tokenism, some level of participation is introduced although the citizens have no influence on the outcome of the process. Citizen power represents the highest level of participation where citizens significantly influence the outcomes of processes, mostly through voting positions. Bedford, P. (2010). Rethinking Toronto’s Governance. Toronto: University of Toronto. Bedford, a professor of planning at Toronto University has been studying Metropolitan Toronto since its inception in 1998. In this paper, he compares Toronto’s model of amalgamation with those of Montreal and New York City. He arrives at the conclusion that like Toronto, Montreal’s model of amalgamation is a failure. By contrast, New York City’s model, based on the system of Community Boards is a success story. New York Citys model presents lessons from which Toronto can learn and revamp its model. Indeed, the strength of New York Citys system is strong grassroots support that is entrenched in the Citys charter, by that giving it legitimacy. Schwartz, H. (2010). Toronto Ten Years after Amalgamation. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 32.3483-494. Schwartz’s article reviews the performance of Metropolitan Toronto since its inception in 1998. He reveals that the goal of the government of Ontario in amalgamating the city was to cut the costs of running it. They believed strongly in the amalgamation theorists’ idea that it is more cost-effective to provide services to the residents of one larger municipality than several smaller ones. Evidence presented in the article shows that the government has failed in that goal: on the contrary, costs have increased. This paper demonstrates that by itself, cost reduction as a goal of amalgamation is a narrow one. Instead, the government should focus on other benefits of effective amalgamation such as efficiency in city planning. Spicer, Z. (2014). Too Big, Yet Still Too Small: The Mixed Legacy of the Montréal and Toronto Amalgamations. Toronto: Institute of Municipal Finance Governance Spicer’s report compares and contrasts the amalgamations of Montreal and Toronto. He bases his comparison on the goals of the initiators of the amalgamations: to reduce the costs of running the cities. The author concludes that overall, Toronto was a little more successful relative to Montreal. He makes this conclusion despite the fact that Toronto was able to cut costs only by a fraction of the initial target. Even then most of the savings made were eroded by increased by councilors on their staff and office budgets. Montreal’s failure is largely blamed on a bloated and complicated governance structure. The report underscores the significance of clarity of the governance structure in the success of an amalgamation. Jabareen, Y. (2013). Planning for Countering Climate Change: Lessons from the Recent Plan of New York City — PlaNYC 2030. International Planning Studies, 18.2 221-242 Jabareen reviews the lessons we learn from the recently concluded long-term plan of the city of New York. While exemplifying the role of Community Boards, Jabareen questions the degree to which they influenced the final plan. Bearing the above-cited levels of citizen participation, this critical approach to community boards is necessary. Indeed, there have been complaints from community advisory committees that city officials are using them to approve their decisions even though they have not participated in the processes leading to those decisions. The NACs of Toronto must be empowered to have adequate bargaining powers in matters of city governance. Research Strategy There exists the need to reform Torontos community councils so that they can play a more effective role in the governance of the metropolis. So far, the case of New York City has demonstrated that community boards, if properly organized and empowered, can significantly influence the governance of the city such that it is more responsive to the needs of the residents. However, the circumstances of Toronto and New York City are quite different. First, New York City is very large with a population of 8.4 million while Toronto has a much smaller population. Secondly, New York City has a long history of amalgamation spanning over a century; Toronto has less than two decades of experience in amalgamation. Hence, the next step is to modify New York Citys model so that it suits the circumstances of Toronto. References Bedford, P. (2010). Rethinking Toronto’s Governance. Toronto: University of Toronto. Garau, C. (2012). Citizen participation in public planning: A literature review. International Journal of Sciences, 21-44. Jabareen, Y. (2013). Planning for Countering Climate Change: Lessons from the Recent Plan of New York City — PlaNYC 2030. International Planning Studies, 18.2221-242. Schwartz, H. (2010). Toronto Ten Years after Amalgamation. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 32.3483-494. Spicer, Z. (2014). Too Big, Yet Still Too Small: The Mixed Legacy of the Montréal and Toronto Amalgamations. Toronto: Institute of Municipal Finance Governance. Read More