If You Can't Win Let's Change The Rules

Maybe Hume is right. Amalgamation isn't working because of the parochial attitude of councillors and the pressure exerted on them by ratepayer groups who, and maybe right fully so, are more concerned about their turf than the city at large. Our elected officials have not harmonized services, have not reduced staff, have not sold off excess property, etc. etc. Toronto is still six small towns rather than one large city.

Wake up, voters, it's party time
Oct. 16, 2006. 01:00 AM
CHRISTOPHER HUME

Poor David Miller — the man gets blamed for just about everything that's wrong with this city. As a mayor he might not be tiny, or perfect, but it's not all his fault.

Regardless of who occupies the chief magistrate's chair, the fact is that Toronto governance is dysfunctional. It doesn't work. The post-amalgamation council might be one of the worst ever, but even if many of its members weren't so dismal, it still wouldn't work.

As it's currently set up, we have 45 disparate voices screaming and shouting, largely at cross-purposes. Sadly, all this sound and fury signifies nothing.

In the meantime, there's a city to run.

Since amalgamation, the closest council comes to self-organization is urban versus suburban. Such an arrangement leads to fairly predictable outcomes, but it's no way to make Toronto a great city, assuming that's something people still care about.

It's time to look at different models. For instance, perhaps it's time to bring party politics to the municipal level. True, many councillors are already affiliated, but they don't seem to let that influence their behaviour. Clearly, what's needed is more discipline; council debates have become noisy, largely meaningless and even irrelevant.

It really isn't necessary to hear what every last member thinks on any given issue; most have very little to say that's pertinent. With party involvement, positions could be hammered out at caucus meetings held outside of council time and debates would be focused and to the point.

The introduction of party politics might also lead to greater voter turnout. Voters don't necessarily know the differences between candidates Jones and Smith, but they know where the parties stand on major issues.

In this way, party affiliation could also help level the playing field by reducing the huge advantage of incumbency.

Toronto might also consider changing the system so that there are councillors at large as well as ward-based representatives. The current arrangement has become so inwardly focused and local that elections are won or lost over issues as small as parking lots and proposed condo developments. Not that these matters don't deserve to be debated, but there are bigger problems facing the city.

Though few realize it, Queen's Park has given the city the power to make these changes and others, but so far nothing has been done.

And what about the mayor's role? Many feel he should have greater powers, perhaps be able to appoint his own "cabinet" or executive committee. Their decisions would go before full council, which would mean council would be more centralized though no less "democratic." But this debate has yet to take place.

Those who would dismiss these ideas out of hand should remember that cities around the world — many of them better run than Toronto — have party politics at the municipal level and councillors at large. Examples include Vancouver, Stockholm, Berlin, Paris. ...

Like so many civic institutions in Toronto, governance hasn't kept pace with the enormous changes that have altered the city. Toronto has become a big city that acts like a small town.

Defecating dogs, parking and fences will always be problems of city life, but many municipal leaders don't seem to understand there's more going on. The current system rewards these councillors; they get re-elected time after time.

The price we pay is that few residents — 38 per cent last time — bother to show up on election day.

Though Torontonians are passionate about their city, they feel disengaged from the political process. The municipality might deliver most of the services they expect, but they don't care enough to vote.

That alone is reason enough for change.