Ward Boundary Re-Drawing v1.2: The Rationale

I was looking at making the simplest changes towards representative parity. So, as I've declared in comments online, 'If you want to sell the idea of MORE councillors to residents who traditionally aren't exactly enamoured of Council...good luck.'

Given this blog's name, it should come as no surprise that I began with Ward 9; I've had a longstanding beef regarding the notion of there being an 'Upper Stoney Creek'. I grew up within 'The Golden Square Mile' of 'Old Towne Stoney Creek', so I don't feel I have to defend this bias. As you may or may not know, I believe in pride-of-place. In community. Especially regarding the amalgamated communities. (Living in Dundas recently only reinforced this.) So a) I've always hated how 'Riverdale' has been Ward 5, that is, 'Hamilton', b) that 'Stoney Creek has been chopped off at Gray Road, and c) as previously mentioned, that there's this 'Upper Stoney Creek' designation. What's up 'there' isn't Stoney Creek to me. Yes, that's a purely arbitrary declaration, but considering the extent of the sprawl to the south, I'm quite content to render it all unto Hamilton. (Of course, there is an inherent 'Upper' and 'Lower' city conflict, but we're talking an entirely different animal.) So I took back part of what should always have been in Ward 9 to the west and got rid of 10 as it stood to the east. 

I then moved on to 10, got rid of the part of 11 that was down below the Escarpment, and extended 10 on top of the Mountain. Yes, this creates an 'upper' and 'lower' portion, but all things considered, a reasonable compromise. 

I then restored the integrity of 11, while taking off some of 6, 7 & 8 to up the population count of 11 towards 40,000, in turn reducing this triumvirate's. I aimed at 40,000 primarily because that seemed a pragmatic threshold, given trends. 

I then re-jigged 12, 13...again, to even out population counts...and then amalgamated 14 & 15. I saw the expansion of 12 to be a starting point, not only to get the population up to around the 40,000 threshold, but also to use the Escarpment as a natural boundary. 

Because I was trying to 'stabilize' things at around 40,000, there was no need to re-jig Wards 1 through 5. 

In the end, we're left with: 

-the same number of wards, 15

-better population distribution, therefore better representation ratios

-only one ward with a 'top and bottom' profile, Escarpment-wise. 

If I had to label this effort, I'd call it something like 'The Least Complicated Approach'. 

Is it perfect? No. 

Does it address everything a re-drawing might? Again, no. 

But I believe it's a pragmatic start to a difficult dialogue...especially when taking into consideration the ambivalence, the inertia, even the resistance that exists on the parts of councillors and their constituents. 

In terms of the goals of the discussion, more important to me than accomplishing changes in ward boundaries would be the raising of the general level of debate in the city. Because in certain ways this is not an issue that's fraught with dire consequences or something that must be remedied expediently, it's a wonderful opportunity to expand awareness of Hamilton, to increase the general facility of dialogue amongst its residents. That's the kind of result that has powerful ripple effects that many seem incapable of imagining. 

M Adrian Brassington