The January issue of urbanicity has a piece by Graham Crawford, 'A Tale of Two Cities'. (At the time of this editorial being written, there was no direct link to the article. But here's a start.)
It's about the idea of 'rethinking ward boundaries'. Something that has captured my imagination a little lately...mostly because of how, as a Stoney Creeker previously, and currently a Dundas resident, I'm more aware than many of how amalgamation has skewed things.
I've known Graham a little while. I've always been a fan of his editorials, no matter where they've been featured, at urbanicity, at Raise the Hammer, or at The Spec.
But I while I agree with many of his background sentiments (read the article, it's well worth your time), ultimately Graham and I veer and take entirely different approaches when it comes not only the actual framing of the discussion, but also how to approach any redrawing of the boundaries.
But there's no surprise there: from long, personal talks with him, I know that his passion is the management of the city (specifically its current negative attributes), the political. Graham has a strong background in things-management, things-corporate, things-organizational, so it's certainly no surprise to me that his sentiments are thusly weighted.
But we're certainly not aligned in this regard.
At all.
Even the lead-in phrase 'Could rethinking ward boundaries help Councillors see Hamilton differently?' sets off alarms for me. How he stresses the framing of the discussion is entirely different from the way I would. Mostly because-
Well, as I say, Graham's favoured bias is the political. Mine's not. Mine's on the other part of 'The Great Governance Formula', the residents. The citizenry. The neighbourhoods. So the focus for me can't be Council. Because ward boundaries are about the people in the wards, not about the people representing said wards. The emaphasis to me should be about rectifying the out-of-balance representation that's currently going on in The Newfangled Amalgamated City of Hamilton. While also bringing into play to a much greater extent the astounding goldmine of resources that our residents represent...and that lay effectively untapped.
Graham suggests that all wards should run north-south and include pieces of the lower and upper city, including farmland. Honestly? If Councillors need to be artificially forced to play nice, to see every part of the city with the same degree of regard, then I think we're more fuckled than we want to admit.
Wards are accumulations of neighbourhoods. Of communities. Not wanting to get all sociological or wander recklessly down Margaret Mead Lane, this is all about identity. 'Kith and kin'. Pride of place. And while all boundary-lines are compromises, the fact remains that at the core, we're still talking about essential commonalities grouped together.
These commonalities are vital.
They're what help provide strong voices, they're what engender responsibility, ingenuity, competition, help foster the best manifestations of 'belonging'. And in a skewed, Internet-infused, pseudo-connection world, they should not only be acknowledged, but embraced.
Though I understand Graham's logic in his well-meaning proposal, it's woefully misguided. In a city where 'identity' is on the 'Must Address' list, I can't believe that removing (or at the very least, diluting) what's extant could end up be anything other than- Well, something akin to the Pan Am Games Stadium Site Selection Process, or the Gore Park Fiasco of last century, or countless other missteps.
In his piece, Graham muses about the benefits of 'giving Councillors challenging new ward boundaries' towards the accepted organizational philosophy of helping managers and executives develop new perspectives and skill sets by moving them around all the time.
And while I certainly can't take issue with the general idea as it applies to companies, a city is a different animal entirely.
And in Hamilton's case, we haven't maxxed-out our paradigm in its current state. (Not that there isn't a need to reassess and realign boundaries; more on that, presently.) So to me, the analogy Graham uses falls down almost immediately: the natural assumption within a company is that it has employees who are working capably, contributing to the cause at high levels. Hamilton's version of the 'employees', namely the residents and their neighbourhoods, aren't working anywhere near their capacity.
In fact, I believe I've gone on record to state that I don't think that Hamilton is currently utilizing more than about 30% of its potential when it comes to citizen engagement, involvement and participation. We simply can't be when our voter turnout rate sits barely over 40%.
Graham and I have both been involved at a professional level (albeit in areas that while cross-overs can be identified, were certifiably different) in getting the most out of employees. And I'd be loath to inject such a huge variable into the mix management-wise when the 'employees' haven't even been utilized to anything approaching their full potential. In fact, that strikes me as pure folly.
Such a dramatic change as what Graham's suggested in his piece could only be considered when we've gotten to an entirely different place...and frankly, once we were there, what he's suggesting would be rendered moot.
How would we know we'd arrived there?
-Our voter turnout rate is about double what it is now. I'd settle -initially, anyway- for 75%.
-Every neighbourhood in Hamilton has an association. Currently some wards don't even have NAs. (Neighbourhood Associations.)
-We have a 'congress' of NAs in Hamilton, sharing information, pooling resources. (This end goal was bookmarked by this site.
-There are regular town halls across the city, ward-centric, neighbourhood-focused and issue-specific.
-There are salons and seminars providing opportunities for residents to get involved, become more aware, contribute to the ongoing process of not only resurrecting and reviatlizing Hamilton, but re-imagining it, too.
-We have attained a far higher penetration towards a bonafide 'open data city'.
All of the above would indicate that people are invested in their own governance, that the innate cynicism has been sloughed off, and that we're no longer burdened by our 'legacy malaise', but are engaged in our own reinvention.
What should be done regarding boundary line redrawing?
Well, the 2010 Census results will be made public next month. But until then, here are the facts and figures from 2006:
Now, my understanding is that there is a provincial mandate that the ratio between ward population be limited to at most a 2:1 ratio.
Take a look at Wards 7 and 14. That's almost a 4:1 ratio.
And really; does the 2:1 ratio really seem 'fair' to you when we're talking about 'equal representation'? Because to me, we absolutely, positively do not have 'equal representation' in Hamilton.
We should.
And we could.
Never mind that there are some common sense geographical changes that need to be made, some inequities that deserve proper attention at being reconciled. (More on the specifics in a future editorial.)
It would all take some effort. It would take some initiative, it would take no small amount of marshalled insight and collaboration and dialogue. But what an opportunity to 'reboot'. What a great way to relaunch ourselves.
However, it's important to state that when it comes to moving towards changes, nothing should be pushed forward unless it's initiated and mandated by the residents. (A reminder: all such rejigging of boundaries is something Queen's Park looks after...once they've been convinced that it's necessary and beneficial.)
So getting back to the lead-in phrase for Graham's article. Were I proposing ward bouncary changes, it would have read:
'Could rethinking ward boundaries help residents feel more confidence in their local governance?'
Because change must start with us.
No comments:
Post a Comment