Undoing megacity messy: report

Toronto is the city that loves to obsess about itself.

Its (pitiful) hockey team. Its (terrible) gridlock. Its (growing) income inequality. Its (aging) transit.

But get enough Torontonians in a room, start talking politics, and almost inevitably amalgamation comes up.

No one has ever quite gotten over Premier Mike Harris’s move in the 1990s to merge Toronto and its outlying cities into one Megacity.

“It seems like after every election people blame the results on amalgamation, especially if they don’t like the results,” said Lydia Miljan, co-author of a report set for release Tuesday by the Fraser Institute, titled “De-Amalgamation in Canada: Breaking up is hard to do.”

But would it be possible to de-amalgamate at this point? Perhaps more importantly, is it a good idea?

“All things are possible … with a lot of work,” said Miljan.

Whether it’s new mergers or ripping apart old, Miljan said “what our two studies have shown is that changing governance really involves a lot of upset and doesn’t result in a lot of savings.”

Her earlier work has shown that amalgamation in Ontario didn’t produce the intended cost-savings, but it did improve and help better distribute services.

In her latest report, she looks at two cities that have de-amalgamated: tiny, rural Headingley, which pulled away from Winnipeg, and Montreal.

Headingley, since its 1991 separation, has maintained the rural character it desired, but it required lengthy court battles to determine who owns what. People forget that roads are built in merged cities, assets bought and sold, recreational spaces created, Miljan said.

“You can’t just get the benefits of amalgamation and not pay for the costs,” she said. But Headingley shows de-amalgamation can be done, it’s just complicated.

But Montreal is another story all together, and one that should make Torontonians think twice.

“De-amalgamation does not necessarily mean a return to amalgamation boundaries,” the report notes. “De-amalgamation in Montreal has created a patchwork of governance within the region and blurred the lines of accountability.”

The Island of Montreal went from 28 cities to one in 2002, then back to 15 in 2006. A new “Agglomeration” government was created to oversee the still-larger Montreal and its outlying boroughs.

“Servicing responsibility for the Island of Montreal is divided between the Agglomeration, the City of Montreal, and the boroughs,” the report notes. “The amalgamation and subsequent de-amalgamation of Montreal has led to a great deal of complexity in governance.”

For Toronto, the reports finds, “de-amalgamation is possible but it’s likely not desirable, mostly because such a decision would further complicate the region’s co-ordination challenges.”

Transit needs more co-ordination, not less, as just one example, the report notes.