HAMILTON WARD REVIEW: REJIGGING BOUNDARIES

NRU
Feb. 8, 2017
Leah Wong

Hamilton is set to update its ward boundaries for the first time since its 2001 amalgamation. While the preferred option addresses existing population imbalances among the wards, opponents say it does not go far enough to address the structural challenges that exist in the current system.

At its meeting last week Hamilton general issues committee endorsed an option that would adjust its 15-ward system to improve the distribution of the population by ward. Committee’s preferred option is not recommended by the consultant team— comprising Watson and Associates and Dr. Robert Williams—but was created based on the recommendations of councillors.

“[Adjusting the boundaries] represents a marginal improvement to the status quo. However, it does not address the structural deficiencies present in the existing ward structure,” Williams told committee. He added that growth projections suggest the population distribution across wards will become even more unbalanced over the next decade.

Committee’s preferred option is not supported by the consultants, who presented two recommended options last October. At that time council asked the consultants to develop additional options based on feedback from council members. Williams said the majority of councillors’ feedback focused on adjusting the existing boundaries.

Hamilton’s existing ward boundaries were created by a provincial regulation, when the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth and the former City of Hamilton were amalgamated in 2001. This regulation maintained the boundaries of the eight wards in the former city—which were adopted in 1985—and created seven new wards out of the surrounding municipalities.

The city’s population has increased by 9 per cent since amalgamation. Williams noted that the growth since then, as well as what is anticipated in the next decade, is not equally distributed across the city.

Wards 7 (Central Mountain) and 8 (West Mountain) are already larger than many of the other wards, while Wards 9 (Heritage Stoney Creek), 11 (Glanbrook, Stoney Creek and Winona) and 15 (Flamborough) are anticipated to grow over the next 10 years.

Williams said that the two options proposed by the consultants in October would improve the population distribution between wards. But it would also group communities in a more logical way than in the current system, which is based on former municipal boundaries.

The first option, a 15-ward system, proposes significant changes to the existing wards. It changes the boundaries of most wards with the most significant realignments along the periphery of the city and on the western side of the mountain. Williams said this option solves the population imbalances that exist in the current system—using 2015 population projections, only two wards are more than 25 per cent from the optimal ward size of 37,685 and by 2026 all 15 will be within the preferred range of 42,190.

The consultant’s second option is a 16-ward system, which would add one member to council. William said this option creates a better distribution of population by ward than the first option. As the proposed wards are smaller it is also better at keeping communities of interest in tact than the first option. Williams noted that there is greater variation among the numbers of people living in each ward than in the first option, but this will balance out by 2026.

Ward 8 councillor Terry Whitehead told committee that the consultant’s recommended options would “dramatically and intrusively separate... and put boundaries [in place] that completely divide neighbourhoods.” He said this would reverse the progress that has been made towards creating connectivity among neighbourhoods in the existing wards.

Whitehead said the options recommended by the consultant would split up two neighbourhoods that are presently in his ward that have been working together on a comprehensive stormwater management plan. This is a shared issue and the consultant’s recommended ward systems divide them.

Ward 3 councillor Matthew Green disagrees. He told committee that the consultant’s proposed 16 ward configuration results in “equal and equitable representation” across the city, preserves communities of interest and addresses some of the city’s geographic barriers.

Green said the city needs to adopt a ward system that focuses on ensuring residents are represented fairly across the city. Adopting new ward boundaries is an opportunity to address the city’s “democratic deficit” that has grown due to shifts in the population. Green raised concerns that committee is ignoring the consultant’s recommendations.

“Anytime we intercede in this process it does lead to gerrymandering and unequal weight in how the decisions are made,” said Green.

Some council members questioned whether it should be up to elected officials to decide the configuration of their ward boundaries.

“This is a bit of a fool’s game for municipalities. For councillors to be in this position it is a very difficult, if not an impossible, situation to be in,” Mayor Fred Eisenberger told committee.

Eisenberger said he would like the provincial government to improve the way municipalities determine ward boundaries. He suggested that having an arm-slength organization, similar to Elections Ontario, that makes recommendations to councils could improve the process.

At its meeting today council will consider a motion from Ward 1 councillor Aidan Johnson directing Eisenberger to request the province to update guidelines for ward boundary reviews and create an independent body to conduct the reviews.

Williams noted that in Nova Scotia there is a municipal electoral commission that reviews proposed ward boundary changes. It proposes changes after every two elections, so it is proactive, rather than reactive to growth.