Public Participation and Community Councils in Toronto - Coursework Example

Public Participation and Community Councils in Toronto Introduction Public participation entails the distribution of the power of rule to the given citizens of the given jurisdiction to participate actively in making decision affecting their jurisdiction. The participation of the public in the matters of governance remains a challenge that many authorities are yet to establish and effectively engage. Many government approaches execution of the mandate of the authorities continue to take the central and authoritative approach despite the establishment of decentralization of the centers of power in executing government projects and development agenda (Spicer, 2014). The existence of a variation in the approach to take in engaging public participation in issues of leadership remains contagious, as the defining of the terms entailed challenges the unity and commitment of the stakeholders. In various aspects, many perceive that public participation is a means of self-help while another think it is the public input on the issues of governance and in extreme extends, they think it is the public having total control of the government processes. Local and comparative context of the Public Participation and Community Councils in Toronto The Toronto amalgamation in 1998 is the latest establishment of a jurisdiction in the United States. Consequently, the adoption of a style of governance in the City is essential for the promotion of growth and success among the constituents of the jurisdiction. In facilitating the rule in the municipality, the city sought to adopt established approaches of governance such as those constituted in the New York City or at the Montreal. It is notable that amalgamation led to the merger of many of the smaller local units of authority leading to establishment of the larger metropolitan area, in which the residents of Toronto would receive services and resources from through the leadership (Spicer, 2014). It is evident that the reason for the merging of the local authorities also raises issues regarding the governance process, as the belief entailed is that merging into a single large metropolitan area would allow for easier allocation of resources and consequent planning for the same. The understanding is that it is cost effective to deal with the provision of resources and services to the larger municipality as compared to the smaller units of local authorities (Schwartz, 2010). However, the establishment of the larger Toronto municipality also has its disadvantages, as reflected in recent developments within the municipality. The centralization of the power into the municipal unit is not working for the Toronto municipality. Further, comparing the Toronto unfolding of events to established units such as the New York City style of rule is the key to developing solutions for the Toronto municipality. Therefore, following these developments, this dissertation evaluates the core procedures entailed in the city and gives a structural approach to solving this issue, through the means of public participation. Public participation as an approach to the running of successful metropolitan of Toronto incorporates several elements including the evaluation of community councils and their contribution to the success of the Toronto municipality. Toronto initially comprised of two key entities making the regional government. The entities included the Metropolitan Toronto, which is from the upper side while the lower side entailed the municipalities of North York, East York Scarborough and the borough of York. Until the proposition of the amalgamation, each of these units operated differently although all were under the regional Toronto government. Consequently, the proposal to amalgamate the Metropolitan Toronto came in 1996, with several arguments to support the proposal. The proposal saw that the amalgamation would save them a huge amount, amounting $645 million at the time of transition and additional $300 million in the years that would follow (Schwartz, 2010). However, it is notable from established reports that the city faced remarkably uphill task in facilitating the transition as it managed to save only a fraction of the estimated savings envisioned. Further, in the following years, the budget of the entire city began to rise until it reached $8.1 billion in the year 2008 from $5.1 billion in the year 1997 before the amalgamation. Therefore, the question of the cause for such developments arise, leading to the establishment that the amalgamation only reduced the number of politicians and instead raised the number of council officers leading to increasing in costs of running the Metropolitan (Spicer, 2014). Thus, need to evaluate alternative propositions of solutions for running the Toronto Metropolitan. Borrowing from the establishment of the Montreal system of Borough Councils, it is notable that the option of amalgamation in this aspect was a failure as it later resulted in partial de-amalgamation in the ear 2006. The amalgamation saw establishment of twenty administrative areas, nineteen being boroughs and one a central city (Darchen & Tremblay, 2013). Each administration has a mayor and council. However, in 2006, the Agglomeration Council established that the amalgamation complicated the entire governance of the Montreal jurisdiction and increased the costs of running the administrative duties. Another concept of amalgamation is that entailed in the New York City model, which is among the most successful systems of governance today (Bedford, 2010). The amalgamation occurred over a century ago and to date, the population of the city remains evenly distributed across each of the fifty-one wards established. The factor of success as many scholars establish from the New York City system is that it is able to maintain a uniform distribution of population, which gives each of the council units equal representation at the municipal council. Thus, the administration of services is evenly distributed, and development occurs accordingly, leading to success of the system of governance. Thus, New York model remains the basis for establishing a successful unit of governance incorporating even participation among the various sub-jurisdictions of Toronto. The subject of planning is the entire cause of establishing the given procedures of governance that factor the contribution of the public to the issues affecting them (Jabareen, 2013). The process of city planning in proposition in Toronto aims to establish the public participation accordingly in the running of the structures affecting their very existence in metropolitan Toronto. Consequently, in comparing the city councils procedural undertaking, it is notable first to understand how such success is achievable. The Ney York City planning techniques and incorporation of public participation are going to serve as the basis for this establishment. The subject of city planning remains major in the functions of city governance. However, the genuine participation of the public in these procedures of planning remains the most underachieved strategy. The people could prove remarkably useful in facilitating input to the planning of the city. The New York City model of governance is among the jurisdictions that have achieved the model of public participation to the success. The city of New York established workable public participation through the creation of community boards, which, in essence, are similar to the community councils in Toronto. The New York City plan comprises of three-tier systems, in which the first entails 59 given Community Boards whose members represent a given Community District and the members are non-elected and represents the residential communities of interest. The board operates legally as they are in the New York City Charter, and they are key in initiating projects for development. The second layer entails the city-wide Planning Commission with 13 non-elected members. This layer of public participation facilitates consideration of the proposed development projects or applications from the Community Boards and then forwards the applications to the last tier, which is the City Council Committee for planning. It is notable that from the Community Boards are key as they operate from the ground with direct contact to the public; hence, the incorporation of public participation in the matters of development and governance. However, the claims that the Community Boards in some extend exist to initiate predetermined decisions of city officials raise questions about the success of the system. Nonetheless, the New York City system of public participation is considerably working. Advantages and disadvantages of policy options The advent of public participation in the United States saw the incorporation of many structures and government guided platforms for public contribution in matters of governance. There are various forms of public participation, and each has its considerable input in the development. The widely applied public participation strategy is the use of public hearing, where the representatives of the higher government give proposed decisions to the public and allow the public to input their views regarding the proposals. This policy option is advantageous for the councils in that it gives the public a chance to present their views on the proposals. However, it is disadvantageous in that it does not give the clear indication of the overall opinion of the public. Additionally, this policy option does not yield good information regarding the proposals hence it is ineffective in facilitating problem-solving and mutual cooperation of the public. In this proposal for Toronto, the option policy in place is the use of community councils to represent the vast public and present their contribution in matters affecting the running of the given government proposals for development. The community councils in place are also replaceable with advisory committees, which constitute of the citizens of the given jurisdiction; in this case the Toronto Metropolis residents (Spicer, 2012). The advisory committee requires an established level of commitment and value input in their working progress. Consequently, these committees are advantageous in that they facilitate better measure of the overall public opinion. This factor is considerable since the entire reason for public participation is to facilitate their contribution n the development agenda that affects their daily lives. However, the policy option has its given share of challenges, which in effect impair the contribution of the citizens. The committees constitute of members of different values and differences in these values can result in disagreements and infighting. Such destructions will detract the committee from facilitating the effective contribution to the council for planning and development. Further, the committees also have the disadvantage that they are slower and relatively more expensive to maintain. For instance, with the current system of community councils, it is evident that the vast composition of the council members is affecting the costs of running government structures accordingly (Spicer, 2012). Thus, it is essential to create community councils or advisory committees that feature lean representation of the citizens to minimize the costs. The advisory committees will facilitate communication of the interests of the people in the matters of decision and policy affecting them. Thus, the public participation process will give a meaningful way for the Toronto Metropolis to perform duties and mandates given to them by the people. Further, the aspect that public participation through the committees gives a considerable and uniform involvement of all parties is another added advantage of the option. In reflection, the council representations fail to achieve equal development for the entire Metropolis from the disparities observed in representation numbers (Spicer, 2012). However, with public participation, the advisory committees will have members of equal proportion and reasonable representation of each of the various ward units incorporated in the vast Toronto metropolis. Another advantage of the policy to incorporate the community councils or advisory committees from the public is their role in the running of the city. It is evident that the community council will have the responsibility to identify the issues to the public rather than waiting for issues to be brought before them. Thus, comparing community council and the municipal council, the advantage of public participation is evident, as the public will have the opportunity to present the challenges affecting them directly to the council, which then forwards to the municipal council for planning and action. Thus, the advantage of the policy is evident for the residents of Toronto metropolis. Recommended solutions The Toronto council is failing from the vast composition of the council members despite the established reduction in the number of politicians active. Further, the redundancy of many of the sections established to facilitate governance is another notable aspect of the system, which is not working. Therefore, for the Toronto establishment of an Amalgamated government that will effectively work, it is essential to factor in system of rule that incorporates the public in the planning processes, while maintaining efficiency in the work process (Darchen & Tremblay, 2013). The proposal policies to incorporate in establishing the successful unit of governance for the metropolitan entails two key measures. The governance approach should aim to facilitate the simplification of the existing system of the political structure. These strategies will also factor in the subject of the Council and its members, as the vast population of council officials is another component of the system of rule, which is leading to increased costs of running and sustaining the government. Therefore, the proposition will produce a lean composition of the Council members leading to diversified representation yet maintaining equality at the center of the governance procedures. The community councils entailed in the facilitation of the governance in the city remains challenged since the vast composition always leads to mismanagement of various applications for development (Schwartz, 2010). Therefore, reducing the council members’ population and facilitating a structured simplified political representation will aid accordingly in facilitating proper planning and participation of the public in the matters of governance for the Metropolitan Toronto. The second concept of reform to employ in facilitating the work of the community councils is to replace the current existing structures with a new model, which they will call the Neighborhood Advisory Committees (NAC). These Neighborhood Advisory Committees are equivalent of the community councils only that they will have a more defined role in the assurance of public participation in matters regarding the government activities and planning for the Metropolitan of Toronto (Bedford, 2010). The citizens in this new proposal will have a direct impact on the activities regarding their issues as members of the NACs will come directly from the community and will have direct contact with the members of the community. Consequently, a leaner representation in this newly proposed system for citizen representation will be key in facilitating the entire understanding and running of the government matters. The proposed representation of the members in NACs is bout eleven to twenty-two members. Thus, the committees will be leaner compared to the community councils and will aid in facilitating independent contribution and representation of the diverse interest in the members of the Metropolitan Toronto. Further, it is observable that previous community councils failed from the interference of the city hall members. The influence of the higher representation at the municipal council saw the ineffective and inefficient working of the community members’ increase. Therefore, with the new NACs the involvement and influence of the higher authorities in the matters of the project application and development planning at the public level will reduce. Thus, facilitating the success in the proposed procedures of development and incorporating wider and better public participation. Conclusion The subject of governance is key to structuring the procedures for development and proposing solutions to problems affecting the public. The Toronto Metropolitan is majoring in alternatives for facilitating effective service delivery to the constituent citizens. Thus, the policy proposal to incorporate effective public participation will aid accordingly in achieving the success it envisions. Consequently, with the Neighborhood Advisory Committees, it is notable that public participation policy will work accordingly for 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. Darchen, S., & Tremblay, D. (2013). The local governance of culture-led regeneration projects: a comparison between Montreal and Toronto. Urban Research & Practice, 6(2), 140- 157. doi:10.1080/17535069.2013.808433 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. Schwartz, H. (2010). Toronto Ten Years after Amalgamation. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 32(3),483-494. Spicer, Z. (2012). Post-Amalgamation Politics: How Does Consolidation Impact Community Decision-Making?. Canadian Journal Of Urban Research, 21(2), 90-111. 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