As Minister Gilchrist ponders his choices for special advisers to aid four key Ontario regions with their restructuring efforts, the local battle lines have been drawn and the fear -mongering and mythology being perpetuated in each community by pro- and anti-merger forces has reached a fever pitch. While we shouldn't be surprised at this level hyperbole - an inevitable by-product of the governance debate - the myths can not go unchallenged.


Myth #1: Our communities will disappear. Anti-merger forces in the suburbs usually spread this myth. It's pure rubbish! Communities do not derive their identity from lines on a map or the fact that city hall is next door. Their identity is built upon shared values, a common history and recurring events and activities. Forty-four years after Metropolitan Toronto was created communities like the Beaches, Long Branch, Mimico, and Rexdale continue to exist and thrive.


Myth #2: Why merge We're debt free while the others have loads of debt on their books. Again, another zinger from the suburbs. Yes it is true that core cities usually carry more debt, primarily due to aging infrastructure. And let's remember that a majority of suburban folk derive their living by driving/busing on this core infrastructure on a daily basis before returning to their pristine suburban enclaves when the day is done.

In the Toronto amalgamation, municipal debts were apportioned to the originating jurisdictions (read: the old cities' taxpayers) over an eight-year period. But mergers are like marriages (albeit this round will be more akin to a shotgun wedding); you take the good with the bad. If suburban dwellers don't want to share in new supercity debts, should they reasonably expect to share in the rich commercial industrial assessment base that usually accompanies the core city


Myth #3: Supercities ensure economic success by streamlining economic development agencies that currently work at cross-purposes. This is the favourite argument of pro-merger forces and business groups. To be fair, municipal politics is replete with examples of little turf wars resulting in lost economic and investment activities. But simply merging cities doesn't solve this problem of preferred parochialism.

Cities like Sydney, Australia (3 million people, 30 cities) won the 2000 summer Olympic games. And here in North America, Silicon Valley North (anchored by the City of San Jose in the Santa Clara valley) is a cluster of 15 municipalities and 1.2 million people that seems to do extremely well in the high-tech field.

Economic development success is built on several key factors: a product to sell, a preferable geographic location, a competitive tax climate, and a skilled workforce. Yes coordination is necessary in attracting investments, but this can be accomplished with or without overarching governance structures.


Myth #4: The province is bluffing and not much will change. This one is believed only by the truly stupid. Rightly or wrongly, the current provincial government sees all sorts of political and economic advantages in dealing with a smaller number (read: larger single tier cities) of municipalities. Ignoring this reality will not make the looming legislative changes disappear. This one is believed only by the truly stupid. Rightly or wrongly, the current provincial government sees all sorts of political and economic advantages in dealing with a smaller number (read: larger single tier cities) of municipalities. Ignoring this reality will not make the looming legislative changes disappear.

Dispelling these myths is crucial if this debate is to move forward. Next week we'll identify areas where municipal mergers can run off the rails including transition costs, exorbitant labour attrition packages and averaging up in service delivery standards.