The Quarterly
Toronto: Considering Self-government
by Jane Jacobs and Mary W. Rowe
This article is excerpted from the Introduction to the book,
Toronto:
Considering Self-government recently published by The Ginger Press
In June of 1999, Alan Broadbent, a private businessman and philanthropist
with a long-time interest in all things urban, convened a two-day meeting
entitled The Evolution of Toronto, to discuss other forms of governance for
the city. The invitation list was modest, limited largely by the logistics
of facilitating useful discussions. The attendance list was not
representative of the diversity of interest, ethnicity, class and
circumstance of Torontonians, but the members recognized their
representative weaknesses and, whenever one forgot, another would pointedly
remind them.
Nor was the group representative of the many other interests that share a
stake in the fate of Toronto, as they extend beyond Toronto, beyond the
Greater Toronto Area, beyond the Golden Horseshoe, beyond southern Ontario,
beyond central Canada; in fact, they extend across the country and into the
northeastern part of the United States, and perhaps even further into the
American heartland.
Despite its limitations, the group was able to raise pertinent questions
and provide considerable expertise and experience concerning a topic of
shared interest and concern: the evolution of Toronto. Toronto:
Consider-ing Self-government recounts some of their ruminations, with the
objective of sparking consideration of governance among Toronto’s
widespread constituency.
Toronto has become a region of global significance. How we actually define
that region geographically may not matter for now; the southern boundary
seems to be the only one that is irrefutable. The Toronto region generates
wealth, incubates culture, fosters innovation, harbours capital, educates
and trains people, welcomes thousands, employs hundreds of thousands, and
transports millions every year. Toronto matters–not just to those who live
or work in it. It matters to everyone concerned with the economic and
cultural vitality of Canada and North America.
Thus, Toronto: Considering Self-government is a collection of ideas
exploring the conditions that suggest a new form of governance may now be
required for the city. Its chapters are derived primarily from papers
prepared by their authors as background to the June 1999 meetings–the
Mirvish meetings, as they have become affectionately nicknamed, because
they took place in one of Toronto’s most venerable institutions: The Royal
Alexandra Theatre, owned by the Mirvish family.
Is self-government for Toronto an idea whose time, finally, has come?
Alan Broadbent argues the infrastructure needs of Toronto go unanswered by
senior levels of government with “less specific knowledge, experience or
motivation.” He surmises that altering the constitutional make-up of
Canada to allow for more autonomous cities may be resisted by the federal
government–whose singular focus has been appeasing Quebec–and also by
provincial leaders unwilling to cede power. But are those obstacles
insurmountable? Is there no opportunity for a “win-win” solution–where a
stronger Toronto benefits all?
Broadbent posed three critical questions as precursors to considering
self-government: Do the conditions exist for Toronto to assume greater
control of its own destiny? What are the potential models for Toronto to do
this? What are the political paths to a new governance structure for
Toronto?
David Crombie traces his sixty-or-so years of association with Toronto and
provides a context for the consideration of alternative governance models.
He suggests that Toronto is marked by a vigorous history of citizen
engagement, where its denizens have actively worked to prevent harmful
development (the Spadina Expressway) and to encourage remediation (Bring
Back the Don). Crombie posits that Toronto has been “metropolitanising”
for over forty years, but he stops short of suggesting that any change in
governance is either desirable or feasible. He suggests that “there are
tens of thousands of people who are unconcerned with the nature of
relationships between governments, but who care deeply about the issues
that are before them.”
The next two authors provide contrasting arguments for what one might call
the Toronto imperative: get more autonomy or else. Joe Berridge makes a
strong case that capital investment in Toronto’s aging infrastructure has
fallen drastically behind what is required, not only to maintain services
at their current level but, more critically, to ensure Toronto is equipped
to compete globally.
Richard Gilbert was initially asked to prepare a document on what the
political paths might be for self-government for Toronto. He deferred, once
he’d reviewed the overall meeting agenda, opting instead to lay out a
direct appeal for Toronto to assume greater control over decisions of
significant environmental importance. Gilbert supports concerns raised by
other contributors regarding sprawl; the impact of increased automobile use
on global warming is a threat he sees as having an inevitable impact on
Toronto. In contrast to Joe Berridge, Gilbert queries the advisability of
expanding the airport or creating a superhighway to Buffalo, and suggests
that the city needs to find ways soon to diminish our dependency on the
job-generating automotive sector.
Meric Gertler examines the economic pillars he sees as critical to
determining if the economic conditions present in Toronto support more
autonomy. Gertler argues that all of Toronto’s economic ducks are pretty
much in a row although his principal concern is the absence of a regional
“unity of purpose” which he concludes may be “our most scarce
commodity.”
Enid Slack paints a less-than-optimistic picture of Toronto’s current
financial ability to pay its own way, given the current rules for municipal
finance and revenues. Slack does not query the city’s ability to generate
wealth. In her view, capturing a share for municipal public needs is what
poses the problem. Together with Gertler, Slack provides a kind of reality
check. She queries the rationale for downloading social services–a means
of income re-distribution–to municipalities that have only property tax
from which to finance them.
John Sewell raises the most plaintive question: are the values of social
justice and cultural vibrancy prized in the portions of the city built
before 1950 at odds with the values of individual autonomy and less
government presence that infuse portions planned later? He wonders to what
extent these values have been reinforced by urban form, pointing out that
the greater density of the older portions supported participation and
neighbourhood involvement. Sewell questions how the city can begin to think
about greater autonomy when common values cannot be assumed and efforts
towards enhancing local autonomy will likely be thwarted by “the evil
uncle.”
Michael Mendelson was invited to explore the political paths and
proposes three options: lobby the provincial and the federal governments
for more autonomy; create a new, regional level of government; or create an
Urban Party and run candidates both provincially and federally.
David Nowlan wrote the final essay twenty years ago. We’ve included it
not only as a tribute to Nowlan for his acute foreknowledge, but also as a
reminder of the timelessness of the issue he suggested: “to aim for more
legislatively liberated cities.” Nowlan’s conclusion supports a belief I
(Jane Jacobs) first published over thirty years ago: that cities
endure–they outlast everything except the carbon that inhabits them– and
that facilitating their continued evolution socially, economically and
politically is a perpetual task, inherently both necessary and
creative.
Toronto is a region and should not be confined by an artificial boundary
drawn more than a century ago. Whether people live in Swansea or
Buttonville, Erindale or Dun-barton, the point at which their lives
converge with others is the new Toronto.
As these authors suggest, this isn’t just about economics, although the
arguments illustrating that Toronto is an economic region are most
compelling. It’s about environmental stewardship, social equity,
education, housing, the arts. It’s also about petty politics, inability to
share power, legally entrenched authority versus eyes-on-the-street
knowledge, delivery of services and redistribution of wealth.
So this inquiry comes as an exploration–a starting point–into some
form of self-government for the Toronto region. It speaks to “that deadly
interplay” (Jane Jacobs, Cities and the Wealth of Nations, Random House,
1984) that develops between nations and their cities as each tries to milk
and manipulate the other with the result that both are put into confusion
and peril. In fact, this political evolution is proposed as a common sense
and practical solution to ensure the ongoing health and vibrancy of the
region’s economy and life, which would benefit the rest of Canada and its
other urban and rural regions.
There are many questions this volume does not address: What would
self-government for Toronto look like? Would greater autonomy result in a
better, more economically competitive and socially just Toronto? Subsequent
discussions will begin to tackle these issues.
In Canada, cities were initially totally dependent, minor subsidiaries
of the province but, as the authors of this volume suggest, their
development can no longer be constrained by the tutelage of the past. As
history has shown us again and again, prospering cities have identities and
lifespans of their own. They are not only a country’s economic engines,
they are places where everything comes together and then is disseminated,
again and again. And they–like most children–will certainly outlive the
circumstances of their parents. To shed old dependencies in order to take
on increased responsibilities and more self-reliance is not a sign of
failure of either parents or children. Rather, it is the most vital sign of
success on the part of both parties, an aim that merits the most serious
encouragement and respect.
