Although we love to celebrate our heritage, no one should be surprised that City Hall decided not to host celebrations for the tenth anniversary of amalgamation on January 1^st.

 

Certainly amalgamation remains unpopular. But after ten years we ought to know whether it was the right decision.

 

It certainly has stood the test of time. In the three municipal elections and two provincial elections since amalgamation no significant mayoral candidate or provincial party has proposed de-amalgamation.

 

Let’s take look at some of the key measures of what we’ve accomplished in the last decade.  Crime is down; by many definitions Toronto is Canada’s safest city. Our beaches are open longer. On the other hand there are more smog days. Our waste diversion levels are among the highest in North America, and on par with cities in Europe.  Our commuting time has increased, as it has in other Canadian cities. Although we invest prodigous sums on public transit, there is no change in the proportion of trips taken by transit. Our social safety net attracts both immigrants and migrants from across Canada. In terms of our cultural life, the symphony has eliminated its deficit thanks to public support, and investment continues in our other major cultural institutions. Even some unusual services from pre-amalgamation times – like leaf vaccuuming and windrow clearing – have been retained or expanded.

 

In short, Toronto excels in some areas, and rates less well in others. Overall our quality of life remains among the highest both nationally and internationally.

 

Political scientists will say that in many ways amalgamation was but one step on Toronto’s growth to maturity. Empowerment from the new City of Toronto Act would not have been possible without amalgamation.

 

Yet bitterness remains. Some say that the bad memories are due to the harshness by which the measures were implemented. There was no meaningful consultation, no concessions were made for alternatives, and interim powers were exercised through appointees. Referenda in which about three quarters of voters rejected amalgamation were ignored.

 

Others will point to their loss of influence. Residents who had influence with one of perhaps twelve Aldermen on a local Council now feel powerless dealing with a Council of forty-five members.

 

Putting all of these factors together hardly sets up amalgamation as the decision that everyone loves to hate. 

 

What does qualify as a first class problem were decisions made at the same time that gave municipalities major responsibilities without corresponding revenues. Study after study has shown that although the City met amalgamation savings targets, Toronto was no longer financially self-sufficient.

 

Unwilling to curtail services or sufficiently raise taxes, a decade later Toronto finally stood at the edge of financial distress.

 

So while residents understood – and probably are willing to accept – the reasons for amalgamation itself, they also recognize that downloading unfunded liabilities put their entire quality of life at risk. The results are unsurprising: for the last ten years no Progressive Conservative provincial candidate has been elected in Toronto.

 

Those following the saga of Toronto’s finances might think that this year’s new land transfer and automobile registration taxes plus the provincial funding announcement for transit finally has stabilized Toronto’s finances.

 

Up to a point.

 

The new taxes will generate significant income. With the exception of transit perhaps they might even cover the expenses of a prudent Council.  But that transit funding announcement was firmly in the provincial tradition. It is only a one-year commitment. Like similar previous funding it is ostensibly for public transit, which Council can use to relieve financial pressure elsewhere. The only difference this time is that the announcement came early. Long term financial prospects for Toronto are as uncertain as ever.

 

And so amalgamation continues to be vilified – not for failing to make our City move with the times, but for succeeding in creating a City unable to achieve its potential.