The real risks of using a ‘strong mayor’ system to get things done

Municipal democracy relies on hearing many voices ---- and having non--partisan civil servants loyal not to a single politician, but to the city itself.

Thestar.com
August 3, 2022
Ken Greenberg-- OPINION

By the time the next municipal elections take place in Ontario on Oct. 24, the province may change the governments Toronto and Ottawa so that each will be led by a “strong mayor,” with power to decide key matters such as budgeting regardless of the wishes ---- or votes ---- of those cities’ elected council members.

The idea of a strong mayor has supporters and detractors on all sides of the political spectrum, but there’s not a lot of clarity on what it means. Based on my work experience with strong--mayor systems in the U.S., I can tell you that the system is not a panacea and it comes with risks.

Supporters of a strong--mayor system see it as a way to “get things done” in key areas that have been bottlenecked. Even as the housing market cools, Toronto and Ottawa still face an acute shortage of affordable homes. Transit projects take decades to build, and developers complain that city governments tie their plans up with endless debate.

Those against having a strong mayor see the move as a sinister plan by Doug Ford’s provincial government to ignore the wishes of elected city councils.

Ford’s record is already alarming on this front. His previous government sliced the number of councillors in half just before the last municipal elections in 2018, and his cabinet has had a field day issuing Ministerial Zoning Orders (MZOs) to let developers build sprawling projects slicing up Ontario’s much--loved Greenbelt and unsustainable hyper--dense towers that don’t help with housing affordability.

Critics also worry about what might happen if a strong mayor comes to power who is also a populist bent on crushing the careful Official Plans drawn up by cities for sustainable smart growth. When he was a Toronto city councillor, Ford himself actually road--tested this scenario when he tried to strike a unilateral deal to undermine Waterfront Toronto and get hand--picked developers to build a luxury yacht club, megamall and Ferris wheel by the lake with little or no parkland.

Thankfully, his scheme failed.

I have worked in the U.S. for strong mayors. Municipal government is different there, as is the definition of “strong mayor.” U.S. cities typically operate with party politics at the municipal level, since the mayor and councillors run on party platforms. They also have taxing powers we do not have.

But these same powers also can let them back dubious schemes, such as massive “urban renewal” projects that destroy neighbourhoods. Many big American cities have faced bankruptcy too.

An American mayor’s biggest rival for power is not the city council, it’s the city manager ---- an appointed bureaucrat who has vast power and can make elected councils weak or irrelevant.

Canadian cities have chief administrative officers, but they’re not really the mayor’s rival; they’re professional civil servants who have only a fraction of the powers that many U.S. city managers enjoy.

I worked in Boston for former mayor Tom Menino as interim chief planner. He was a relatively good mayor according to many, but all decisions happened in his offices. I rarely had any interaction with the councillors.

While it is true that a “good” strong mayor may be able to accomplish more things more quickly, what happens when we elect a bad one who tries to run the city with hare--brained slogans and schemes?

My concern is that under the guise of seeking to “get things done,” Doug Ford’s strong--mayor move to centralize power may undermine a critical virtue of Canadian cities: the need for consensual city building.

Democracy, in cities and everywhere else, relies on hearing many voices ---- not just the strong one ---- and having a non--partisan group of civil servants who are loyal not just to a single politician, but to the city itself.