International ThinkTanks Views on Amalgamation and some of their misleading prediction, but Globalization it is

 

Please find  four different documents here below with some extra comments inserted (black color) to reflect real developments since these articles were published.

We feature the beginning of those articles here and at the break (clicked) will automatically link to the rest of the article where you can continue reading

This is the nice thing with computers, you can break at any time and come back as you feel like it. If you feel challenged too much, relax, back off and  start again if you new to all this.

Unless you taught yourself extracurricular style, loved reading etc, the school system failed to instill into you an appreciation of written(listened to) knowledge, the ability to connect facts, to grow your own understanding and enable critical thinking, the system did this to keep you at a lower level to better control and rule over you.

It is called dummbing down and is part of the matrix to rule.

It takes effort to be free and nothing to stay enslaved, virtually. But you are here and that means you are on the way to change and improve, Congratulations


 

WHY MUNICIPAL AMALGAMATIONS? HALIFAX, TORONTO, MONTREAL

by Andrew Sancton, University of Western Ontario <
asancton@uwo.ca>
prepared for a conference on “Municipal-Provincial-Federal Relations in Canada”
Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen’s University, May 9-10, 2003.

Globalization is indeed having a profound effect on the physical, societal, and economic characteristics of our (not only)metropolitan areas. These changes have been well documented by scholars from a wide variety of disciplines in the social sciences.

Many of these changes in turn lead to pressures for new governmental arrangements of one sort or another.

page 5
Between 1995 and 2001 legislation was passed in three eastern Canadian provinces – Nova Scotia,
Ontario, and Quebec – to implement major municipal mergers within the largest of their respective
metropolitan areas. There have been three types of explanations for the adoption of these similar
policies

1) provincial governments were responding, directly or indirectly, to pressures caused by globalization;

This point is lacking in all those MOU docus in Pictou County keeping citizen ignorant of this very important fact

2) provincial governments were responding to demands of internal political forces, which may or may not have been similar in each province, but which were clearly(false) independent of globalization;

This point is virtually the same as  point 1 above, if you respond to demands you are not independent!

or 3) provincial government were acting “autonomously,” with little regard to internal political pressures. ( given the various facts like  promising the $ 26 Mill extra provincial transfer a misinformation and blatant at that)

The main argument of this paper is that it is the third type of explanation that best fits the facts.
This argument will be advanced first by exploring each of the other two types of explanation and then by examining, in more detail, the political causes of municipal amalgamation in Halifax, Toronto and Montreal.
Did globalization cause amalgamation?
In many respects, it is simply absurd (?? not any more) to claim that globalization is directly related to municipal amalgamation. By definition, globalization is widespread. If it has a direct impact on the structure of governmental institutions, we should expect to see similar changes everywhere.(and in 2016 we did, worldwide and  this needs to be noted)
But contrary to what many in Canada have assumed, the recent round of municipal amalgamations in eastern Canada has not been part of any world-wide trend.(why is it so important to negate this actual situation? but this experienced is now a fact why several times dismissed, it has become true!  intential white wash at that time)
Since 1990. Municipal amalgamations in the western world outside
Canada have occurred only(only??) in New Zealand, the states of Victoria and Tasmania in Australia, a very
few local authorities in England, and in post-apartheid South Africa. If globalization causes municipal
amalgamations, surely there should be many more cases than these. In particular, we would expect to find them in the United States
(and so we can today!)
If anything, pressure in the United States has been for municipal secession, not municipal
amalgamation. In the early 1990s, there was a movement on Staten Island to have it secede from New York City, but the plan was blocked in the State Assembly.
On the eve of the centennial of the New
York consolidation in 1898, the Brooklyn borough president saw no reason to celebrate. He wrote:
If consolidation had not taken place…continued independence for Brooklyn, Long
Island City or Queen’s and New York would have fostered intense competition among
the municipalities, resulting in dynamic economic growth and an even stronger
metropolitan region than we have today.
It has been in Los Angeles, however, where the issue of municipal secession has been most
prominent. In the end, as a result of local referenda, the City of Los Angeles continued with its same boundaries, but only after secession had been impartially evaluated by a government agency and only after all the plans for its implementation had been made. The case of Los Angeles is therefore highly significant for anyone claiming that there is a direct link between globalization and municipal amalgamation.(no link?? notice some other trends we will also talk about)
Although there were various other proposals for breaking up Los Angeles (including the

establishment of a new City of Hollywood), the main one involved the establishment of a new city in the San Fernando Valley. The Valley had been incorporated into the City of Los Angeles in 1915. By 2002 its population was over 1.3 million, while that of all of Los Angeles was 3.7 million. For almost ninety years, the Valley had been part of the City. At various times during this period, secessionist movements had appeared, but none was more strong than the one that developed during the 1990s.

Under the state rules that were legislated in 1985, any proposed municipal break-up of a city within Los Angeles County required the approval of the Local Agency Formation Commission for Los Angeles County (LAFCO). Before it could allow a local referendum, a detailed study needed to be made of all of all the implications, the theory being that voters needed to know what was at stake and that implementation plans needed to be worked out, before the break-up was approved rather than after.

On April 24, 2002 the Executive Officer’s Report on the Special Reorganization of the SanFernando Valley was released. It is a landmark document for the study of municipal secession because it lays out exactly how a secession would be implemented, including a detailed financial plan for the new city to compensate the City of Los Angeles for its fiscal losses as the result of the secession.

On the subject of the implications for future municipal costs resulting from the establishment of the newcity, the report stated:
The academic studies on this topic have found that economies of scale are relevant only among the smallest of cities.
For larger metropolitan cities the literature suggests that dis-economies [emphasis in original] of scale exist in policing as well as refuse collection, general government and fire services. This means that the per capita costs of providing of local government rise
as city population, crime or other measures of government output increase…
The evidence does indicate that in the area of street maintenance and possibly, sanitation, there are likely economies of scale. The Executive Officer encourages the parties [i.e. the two potential cities] to consider a long-term contractual relationship in such areas with clear efficiencies from a large-scale operation.

go to page 4 to continue reading, it gets bizarre how this author tries to whitewash Globalization as an none issue and has been proven in the meantime as more of similar document will show.

It is really scandalous how higher Governments delegate this import element to implement Globalization to lower level local counselors (Patsies) who are mostly void of important understandings and facts; as the absence of this issue has been completely left out of MOU documents and committee member shown as totally unable to grasp . This is a nefarious tactic!

You also can see how different parties in Parliaments do not matter; they all follow a certain line and mislead us the citizen independent of legislative periods  and who holds the reigns.




Mixed success at Toronto’s Metropolitan merger

by Guillaume Poiret & translated by Oliver Waine, le 20/11/2013

Savings that never came – au contraire

The economies of scale that the merger was supposed to create have never, in fact, materialized: in the very first year of its existence, the new City of Toronto had to borrow C$200 million from the provincial government to help cover the costs of amalgamation. None of the pre-merger reports had anticipated the transition costs – despite being inevitable – not just in terms of infrastructure and logistics (the move into, and reconfiguration of, City Hall on Nathan Phillips Square, where council meetings are held) but also in terms of salary harmonization (as each former municipality had its own salary scales and rules [2]). While the merger led to the abolition of six municipal councils politically, the staff of these councils remained in place, with only the central departments moving to the City Hall site. As a result, the new municipality had to deal with unplanned adjustment expenses that could not be compensated by any kinds of savings or additional resources.

In addition to these adaptation costs, Toronto’s budget increased on average by C$200 million each year, rising from C$5.6 billion in 1998 to over C$8 billion today. The city’s debt has also increased sharply, and now stands at more than C$2.3 billion. The new structure has – as predicted by John Sewell – proved too unwieldy to be managed at constant staffing levels; Toronto has consequently had to hire over 3,500 new employees in 10 years in order to function correctly. New needs, not accounted for at the outset, have also arisen, and a number of major projects have had to be funded by the new municipality. [3] In the short and medium term, amalgamation has proved to be a costly business.

 Read the whole article here



Here is a presentation describing in essence that governance once forced into a merged centralized singularity for decision making, control of power etc. be outfitted with  a net work of supposed counselors; community councils citizen led boards that would have input in local matters to impress a semblance of democracy, while business is run as those powers feel it should be.
Of course if this smokescreen not installed problems may be noted by common man etc…

This document is not supposed to be cited  that why only the link is given.

It is all about power you, me and most others must not come close to and be hidden !



More important articles will be added here asap

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “International ThinkTanks Views on Amalgamation and some of their misleading prediction, but Globalization it is

  1. yes, good blog, it is so true. The best example is the EU. Everything is decided in Bruessel. Nobody in Bruessel knows nor has an interest in the remote village they are voting on. How can they make decisions for the people? I want to recommend EURO FOLK RADIO, Andrew Carrington Hitchcock, he comes on every weekday at 10 am Eastern time. This is the man who made the movie “Synagogue of Satan” which is also a book and he also wrote “By Yahwe’s Design”. Great radio show, Great guests, John Kaminski,, people like that.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. It is recommended to watch and observe political events not just local or even provincial wide but worldwide.. I do, and much what happens in NS is remarkable preceded in other locals and many aspects clear while here in Pictou County the ability to look beyond is not very strong. Sad..

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s