What if we had one big city at council instead of 15 little ones?
Some imagination a few years ago when we were redrawing the wards would’ve helped
With some city councillors and members of the public complaining in recent days about the level of decorum — mostly the lack thereof — at city hall, let’s take a step back for a moment and consider how this might’ve been prevented. Or at least, reduced.
There was a way. Though it requires a little imagination.
Three years ago, Hamilton was considering various options for ward boundary realignments. Sorting out who each councillor represents, in other words. Changes were ultimately made but the overall effect could hardly be described as a creative, swing-for-thefences adjustment.
What might’ve happened if, on the other hand, if we had gone big? Say, kept the same number of wards but divided them differently so each councillor represented a section of the old city and a section of the suburbs and outlying areas?
Or what if we’d decided to go with 15 councillors-at-large, elected across the city much like the mayor? Each being voted on by the entire city and therefore theoretically being driven by what’s best for the whole city as opposed to a small portion of it.
Suddenly nobody would’ve been primarily serving urban interests or mostly considering suburban interests or looking out first and foremost for rural interests. They would’ve had to balance the concerns of constituents in a variety of regions who would’ve had different and, in some cases, competing priorities. They would’ve been forced to become big-picture politicians all the time instead of lords or ladies of a fiefdom with blinders on, often directing their attention to the area they represent.
Crazy? Perhaps. Legal? Probably, though someone could certainly challenge it in court.
Big-city thinking does happen at times around the table. It’s not all combative. But think of how different the discussions would’ve been around the stadium, the downtown versus Mountain arena, bike lanes, various capital ventures, roads, area rating, defunding police, pet projects, transit, the Commonwealth Games, the LRT — especially the LRT — and a bunch of other things had this been in place. On both sides of the debates, lest anyone think this only applies to the other side.
If councillors were forced to adjust their focus from wardcentric to citywide, the amount of battling for home-base issues that seems to dominate so much of the dialogue would surely be reduced. Decisions would have to be made on what’s better for the broader interests of the entire municipality rather than what’s popular in one ward or one area. Naïve thinking? Yeah, maybe. Councillors absolutely could still end up voting based on their political leanings, philosophical beliefs or from where the majority of their votes came. They could still push other members’ buttons. And personalities would still factor into the equation so things could still become heated at times.
It wouldn’t be perfect. No system is, including what we’ve got now. Not when battles and battle lines — between upper and lower city, or downtown and suburbs, or old guard and newer arrivals — seem predictable even before the first word on a contentious issue is spoken.
But this would almost certainly make everyone a little less protective of their turf. Which would quite likely engender a little more compromise and ratchet down both the sanctimony and the belligerence.
Alas, it’s too late for this idea. These redesigned wards still have their new-car smell and nobody’s about to suggest another round of studies and debates on change right now. Besides, you can be pretty sure some councillors would be pretty darn uncomfortable with these kinds of changes so there’s almost no hope they’d ever pass. Maybe it it’s too wild, anyway.
But it’s OK to imagine what might’ve been. And to think about what some ambitious city council may want to consider next time. Whenever that may be.