It's hardly an 'election issue'...

...but I'm glad someone's actually admitting the need to talk about de-amalgamation.

In an article in today's Spec, Mayoral candidate Bob Bratina says:

"It's not working. Everyone agrees with that," he said yesterday of the merger of Hamilton with its suburbs 10 years ago. "(De-amalgamation) is a possibility, and I'm going to confront it."

I believe that you cannot solve a problem until a) you first acknowledge it, and b) make an honest and thorough examination of its history, its particulars so as to understand it.

I don't think too many politicians have been willing to open this can of worms, to go through this process...but I believe they should. So hats off to Candidate Bratina.

In any city, there are always 'divisions'. The magnitude of these divisions depends on the city's particulars: its geography, its demographics, its history. Even within almost perfectly homogenous cities, divisions crop up.

When you take a city...and arbitrarily attach to it a handful of established community-towns...the safe bet is that there are going to be problems. And I don't mean 'growing pains', respecting the amalgamated entity's newfound existence.

The fact is that amalgamation was a bad idea from the start. And you don't have to look too far to find the accepted -and extolled- notion that 'smaller is better' when it comes to local governance.

Think about it: What do the needs of Dundas have to do with the needs of Hamilton? Or of Stoney Creek, of Waterdown, of Glanbrook, of Flamborough, of Ancaster?

Each of these locales has its own history, its own challenges, its own priorities. Only a fool would declare that it's possible to equitably address the various needs, and to deny the realities of the 'forced marriage' is folly. One only has to look to the tax issue of 'area rating' and the fact that it's been swept into the corner, held in abeyance to realize just how irreconcilable the differences are.

Look; Hamilton has always had its distinct divisions: Downtown...Mountain...North End...Industrial Strip...East End...Westdale... (I'm not being as precise as I could be here, but cut me some slack.) Why on earth would anyone willingly submit to a plan that takes these extant realities...

...and effectively exacerbate them by attaching five other equally distinct areas?

So while I'm for a strategic alliance, I'm against (and always have been against) amalgamation.

As I consider that last statement, I can't help but muse on 'How Things Would Look in The Six Cities Had Amalgamation Never Happened'.

Hmm...