Council Size

Things are tough when a blogger links to his own archives.
http://londont.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_londont_archive.html
In the midst of these posts is a Sept 2002 op-ed proposing 4 wards for the suburbs, 2 for mid-town, and one for the rural south. Scroll to: Better Model For City Government.
Inclusion of the far southern lands draining into a Lake Erie watershed was an accident of annexation. Since they could not be urbanized, the Annexation Act stipulated a distinct rural ward.
In spoke wards, councillors have to pretend they are qualified to represent all of the above distinct communities. They struggle with their given cross-section ...and the central and rural areas are marginalized.
With re-population of core underway (in spite of fights over demolition of every low-density eye-sore that has out-lived its usefulness), burgeoning central inhabitants deserve meaningful representation. Without a ward shake-up, the bulk of voters will live in the subdivisions and those they re-elect will continue to cater to suburbia.
Were candidates drawn form broad "Community of Interest" wards, they would have an excellent grasp of local concerns ...and constituents (and the city) would be better served. Using the proposed structure with 1 councillor per ward we get 11 elected civic servants --including controllers but excluding the Mayor.
Servants who won't put aside self-interest (job protection & name recognition) to advance the public good are requested to make the case for London having over 50% more elected reps than well-managed Mississauga. A comment of 25 to 30 words on this post should suffice. If they have no comment ...or their case is not not convincing, they risk being rejected by their masters at the polls. Incumbents are always an important election issue. Let the spin begin.
Given historical turn-out, voters themselves are perhaps the most pressing issue; that calls for a separate post.

PS posted May 26~~In reacting to a 14-ward proposal by the Urban League, Prof Sancton commented that London is too small for communities of interest. Such conundrum is avoided by the Sept 2002 proposal for 7 wards based more on communities of common economic interests than on feuding neighbourhoods.

~PS posted on eve of 2006 municipal election ~~~ Voters coping with 14 wards rather than 7, might want to review the 1991 Supreme Court decision in the Saskatchewan Povinicail ridings case. Professor Sancton was prescient in observing that groups will inevitably argue "effective representation" means boundaries must be drawn to take account of their particular concerns. As applied to London, an OMB Chair (not a boundary commission) determined "the right to effective representation" meant a doubling of wards.

Better Model for City Government

All organizations represent the basic idea of community of interests. A few years ago such a structure was circulated to stimulate thinking on how to attract a strong team of political candidates. That was expecting too much. Through the device of an "appointed" task force, the status quo report council so desperately wanted was delivered.
The city has three main economic engines -agriculture, commercial/ industrial, and university/medical. There are three somewhat corresponding population bands: the outlying rural area, the expanding circle of of post-war suburbs, and the more mature central area. In the spoke configuration, the mid-town and rural sectors are marginalized since councillors cater to the concentration of voters in the "burbs."
Spoke wards neither reflect distinct communities nor optimize the mix of skills and experience needed. A more balanced council respectful of distinct community needs corrects the slide to a suburban agenda at the expense of central job growth and agri-enterprise. Eliminate a profusion of ward boundaries, and there will be less infighting over dollars for road upkeep and sports facilities. And, with the focus on community conditions and outcomes, more spokespeople will engage the civic process.
Better to allocate four wards to the urban ring, two wards to mid-town, and one to the rural south. This helps counter disruptive rivalry amongst too many councillors in too many wards. The board of trade in Brampton contends the 17-member council is too large for their city of 300,000. Neighbouring Mississauga functions well with a 10-member council. At 19 members, London is bloated.
The challenge: change both size and structure to put broad community interests ahead of special interests. That is the only way we will get what we need -a lean team of the brightest and the best.
There is always a better way; find it, refine it.
Proposal Advnced in a September 2002 issue of TheLondoner