The Hamilton Spectator

Councillor­s vote for their own ward boundary plan

Study says it fails to address representa­tion by population; likely headed to OMB

- MATTHEW VAN DONGEN

Councillor­s will adopt their own suggested ward boundary changes over the expert advice of a $260,000, yearlong independen­t review — and the threat of an appeal.

The consultant­s who worked on the review said Wednesday the political map created from councillor submission­s fails to address the concerns that kick-started the study in the first place — growing ward population disparitie­s and fair representa­tion.

Consultant Robert Williams also warned if the proposed new ward map is appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, “I’ve told you in black and white, we couldn’t endorse it.”

That prospectiv­e appeal is “100 per cent going to happen,” said Matt Jelly, one of the organizers of a petition to change ward boundaries the city’s own consultant­s called “no longer defensible.” He said the group behind the petition has already talked to a pro-bono lawyer about an appeal.

An angry Jelly stalked out of council chambers after councillor­s voted 11-3 to endorse their own suggested ward map over two consultant-recommende­d alternativ­es, yelling “bye a-holes.”

The debate inspired passionate rhetoric on both sides.

Coun. Terry Whitehead argued the consultant-suggested boundaries would “decimate” neighbourh­oods while Coun. Matthew Green denounced the councillor-suggested map as “gerrymande­ring.”

That term means manipulati­ng boundaries of an electoral district to create a political advantage for a particular group.

Green urged councillor­s instead to support a consultant-pitched 16-ward configurat­ion that would have added a new councillor on the populous Mountain. But only Green, Mayor Fred Eisenberge­r and councillor­s Jason Farr and Aidan Johnson supported that idea.

The review consultant­s actually made recommenda­tions last year, but were asked to collect councillor­s’ suggestion­s and incorporat­e them into an additional option.

Williams said at Wednesday’s meeting the councillor-suggested map “straighten­s out some lines” but doesn’t “fundamenta­lly change the existing structure.”

Under that option, the city’s most populous ward by 2026 would still be Ward 7, with around 70,000 people represente­d by one councillor. The same number of residents would live in Wards 10, 13 and 14 combined, yet be represente­d by three councillor­s. Council must ratify Wednesday’s decision at an upcoming council meeting. If that decision is appealed, the Ontario Municipal Board could uphold the councilapp­roved boundaries, send the city back to the drawing board, or impose its own changes.

Coun. Sam Merulla said he’s not opposed to that outcome. “It should have gone to an independen­t body right from the start,” said the Ward 4 councillor, who added he was “uncomforta­ble” with a process he believes sets up councillor­s for conflict.

The mayor also later voted with the majority, noting the “flawed” process of asking councillor­s to make decisions about their own political boundaries “leaves us in an untenable position.”

Councillor­s Rob Pasuta and Doug Conley missed the vote for health reasons.

It should have gone to an independen­t body, right from the start. COUN. SAM MERULLA

 ??  ?? Coun. Matthew Green urged support for new Mountain ward.
Coun. Matthew Green urged support for new Mountain ward.
 ?? COURTESY CITY OF HAMILTON ?? This ward boundary review map shows Option 1, which is a modified version of the existing ward structure based on council feedback. A consultant says this option doesn’t “fundamenta­lly change the existing structure.”
COURTESY CITY OF HAMILTON This ward boundary review map shows Option 1, which is a modified version of the existing ward structure based on council feedback. A consultant says this option doesn’t “fundamenta­lly change the existing structure.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada