Dear editor:
A lot of people are very upset with the undemocratic amalgamation proposal.
An analysis of the situation seems to leave little choice for Bob Gale and the provincial government, but to move towards trimming government expenses through amalgamation, capitalizing on Niagara Region’s competitive advantages to generate additional revenue streams, expediting the required decision-making (by eliminating the negotiations for votes between regional councillors for goods and services in their geographical area) by moving the processes of economic expansion faster, and to create a more democratic rule of government.
It’s about government running more like an efficient business and being fiscally prudent, not the maintenance of excessive governmental oversight.
The region needs $2.7 billion to fund an infrastructure that has deteriorated to the point where it has exceeded or will be close to exceeding its useful life.
Real estate developments, both residential and commercial, have increased the population base and made the existing infrastructure obsolete. Councils over the years have been pushing core infrastructure costs into the future — their bad.
It’s acknowledged that the property taxes required to fund the infrastructure shortfalls are on an unsustainable upward trajectory. Are we prepared to absorb the increases in property taxes?
There has been revenue generated over the years from the real estate developments. These revenue sources appear to be significantly inadequate, leaving municipalities in a situation where they have to approve more real estate developments to keep up with their infrastructure requirements — much like an approval treadmill that eventually results in financial exhaustion.
Real estate developers have become wealthy, leaving taxpayers with an infrastructure liability that has to be primarily paid from our property taxes.
And then there is the forgiveness of a nearly $1-million fee for the Parliament Oak hotel, or the estimated $10 million for the unwanted and really unnecessary St. Davids roundabout that could be routed to more urgent needs.
It’s been touted that amalgamation would reduce the costs of running the Niagara Region by an estimated $250 million over 10 years.
We do know that the existing governing structure is bloated. There are 126 municipally elected officials in the Niagara Region, more than the number of members of provincial parliament in the entire province.
Organizational restructuring needs to occur to streamline operational functionality and hopefully optimize costs. In 2024, the City of Niagara Falls had 161 employees on the Ontario Sunshine List (salaries over $100,000), while Niagara-on-the-Lake had 29 people.
The NOTL chief administrative officer earns well over $200,000. There are 13 chief administrative officers in the region. These two municipalities are only a portion of the total 12 distinct local municipalities in Niagara Region. There are efficiencies to be had.
The Fraser Institute study is cited as evidence that amalgamation doesn’t work, but that study is antiquated, the municipalities reviewed have non-comparable attributes, and we are assuming that the government hasn’t learned from previous governmental stumbles. These municipalities didn’t seem to have a multi billion-dollar infrastructure problem.
Amalgamation, I believe, is a component of a broader provincial economic strategic plan that recognizes the Niagara region and the provincial government are underutilizing the revenue generating capacity of Niagara Region.
While I have no specific insight, it is conceivable that the 1,000 acres located on the closed Marineland property could be purchased by the province/investors for development as part of the establishment of an alternative destination to Las Vegas.
Caesars in Vegas utilizes 83 acres, which means that potentially 10 casinos could be built on that site. The Venetian in Vegas, for example employs roughly 8,500 individuals and has roughly 7,000 suites.
Part of the Marineland property could also be allocated for much-needed affordable housing to accommodate not only casino employees but others in the area that require affordable housing.
Just one casino would generate significant positive economic multiplier effects: increased demand for local housing and the correlated need for local builders to build them, transportation in the form of potentially increased local car sales/leases, incremental personal and business tax increases from the new casino attributable to the regional/provincial/federal governments, increased tourism which, in turn, would increase local businesses’ ability to generate more profits, and possibly a new international airport for international and/or domestic travellers.
Rather than Canadians going to Vegas, they would come to Niagara. This is going to pay for the infrastructure shortfalls, and it needs to be done quickly in an efficient consolidated governmental structure.
A lot of people have cited the lack of democracy in Mr. Gale’s approach and are revolting at having the provincial government’s ability to consolidate without public/political consultation.
In a democracy, each person has a vote and is equally represented. At regional council meetings, each representative (i.e. each 12 mayors, each 18 regional councillors, and the regional chair) has an equal vote.
However, for example, Fort Erie and St. Catharines have different populations — how can they each have an equal vote when their voter bases are so vastly different?
Where’s the representation by population democratic ideal? It’s not democratic. The entire Niagara regional government could be elected in a separate simplified electoral process by all the voters of Niagara Region.
If there are fears of losing the historical character of NOTL (which many people believe is happening under the existing mayor’s/council’s tenure anyway), then negotiate with the province for its preservation in the amalgamation process. Take a more constructive consultative approach to alleviate the potential adverse effects of amalgamation.
Amalgamation should happen.
How will we be represented and who will it be in the upcoming Oct. 26 municipal elections?
Gienek Ksiazkiewicz
St. Davids
