September 7, 2000

In the middle of a heated discussion among males, it's not uncommon for someone to form a "T" with his two open hands at right angles. This is supposed to mean, I think, "time out". This faintly irritating sign is in the same league with the "air quotes" people use when some one beckons backwards with their forefingers to indicate quotation marks - in reality looking as if they were trying to imitate a climbing rodent.

Well, Louis Bernard - he who was named by Premier Bouchard to make recommendations for reorganizing Montreal-area municipalities - has signalled a "time out" (imagine both air quotes and a hand T, please) in the battle between Pierre Bourque and the rest of the Island mayors. He has proposed what pleases him to call a compromise between Bourque's one-island-one-city fixation and our if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it position.

What Bernard proposed to us on the 3rd of August was the creation of a new, Island-wide city divided into 60 boroughs, each with limited powers and each having a representative on the new city council, some of whom would serve as "mayor" of the borough. Citizens would vote for 1) local councillors, 2) "new city" councillors and 3) a "new city" mayor. Got It?

Any city that did not measure up to his magic number of 30,000 citizens would either be summarily wiped off the map (the lot of 8 small cities) or be plumped up by acquiring citizens from neighbours. Montreal itself would be divided into 9 boroughs. Bilingual cities would keep their status.

For years I have argued for splitting up Montreal into more manageable units - favouring fission over fusion. For the first time, Quebec is not only admitting Montreal is too big to be run efficiently, but is suggesting the corollary: decentralisation is the best way to deliver municipal services.

As it stands, the Bernard proposal is completely unacceptable: it would eviscerate local cities by appropriating key services for the new city: fire brigades, industrial parks, major recreational parks and festivals, arterial roads, water production and distribution, and sewer systems. While we could let some things go, our fire brigade, for example, is untouchable.

A committee of mayors and I are conjuring up a counterproposal. Even if it were accepted, the thing that could keep me awake at night is the fear that our city would suffer a death by attrition, or what Mayor Yves Ryan calls amalgamation in slow motion. Just the direct election of a central mayor would put us on that slippery slope, not to mention the erosion of our powers. That's what happened in Toronto. But do we have a choice?

And even as we are working on a counterproposal, so is Bourque - his will be made public the 19th of September. The 30th of September, Bernard will make his report. The next key date is the 19th of November when you, dear citizen, will have your say in a referendum on the future of your city. By that time the white flag will be no longer flying. Let's make sure the Westmount flag will replace it. Forever. That would suit me to a "T".

The best the amalgamationists come up with (other than the "too many cities" non-argument) is that it would rid Montreal of all those suburban parasites. Oh, yes. And it would also create a uniform tax rate. A uniformly high tax rate, I might add. Since when is the mere fact of uniformity a virtue?

June 10 Menu page

• Menu of Trent's Stories
  
  
• March 21, 1999 GAZETTE EDITORIAL
• MAY 1999 URBICIDE AND MEGACITY MANIA
  
• May 13 PARTS OF IT ARE EXCELLENT
• May 27 MONTREAL: MISDIRECTION GENERAL
• Jun 10 BREAD AND CIRCUSES…AND DEBT AND TRUSTEESHIP
• Jun 24 ONLY QUEBEC CAN HELP MONTREAL
• Apr 8 MEGACITY MANIA - PART II
• Jun 24 ONLY QUEBEC CAN HELP MONTREAL