Windsor Wards. Unnecessary Change Not the Answer.

Current Ward Map

It seems that many have their knickers in a knot over Windsor Wards. Dr. Robert Williams, a consultant hired by the City has cobbled four options together for our review. Four, five, eight and and ten ward systems respectively. Of those, the lead contenders are the five and ten ward options. The underlying logic for these two specific options is born out of our current and familiar five ward system and our ten elected councilors. Five and ten, a two councilors per ward system.

So what is the contention? Why are some citizens and bloggers whipping themselves into a frenzy about all of this? On the surface they are upset with Council's seeming unpreparedness to deal with the subject or perhaps they think City Council just blew off a $20,000 consultant fee for nothing. When the layers get peeled off though the true underlying motive becomes apparent. They simply want change. A ten ward system with ten councilors is what they are really bucking for. Something, anything, but not the status quo. That in itself is fine and dandy but to date there has been no qualification as to why a ten ward system. Dr. William's report sites reasons like accountability, easy praise and blame, no buck passing and a greater possibility of acclamations. Others suggest that a one-councilor per ward system is less favourable to the encumbent (only in the first election - status quo after that), that it affords more personalized service, familiarity and lower cost. All of these are pretty weak reasons because all of them equally apply to our current two councilor per ward/five ward system. All of these points can be handily argued both ways. One rationale the good Doctor argues is that "other large Canadian Cities are doing it so why shouldn't Windsor"? Lets just throw that one out. Proponents of change seem to want to prove a conspiracy; perhaps the reason why they throw around terms like "ward reform". Since when did this become a revolution? It's just housekeeping; regular every day business. The bottom line is that all of our elected officials will still end up sitting around the same table and conducting business accordingly. Musical chairs will not affect that.

Evolution

Been there, done that. Windsor has already done the one councilor per ward thing (eight wards). That ended in 1978 and was replaced with the current ward structure that we have today. One has to wonder if there was a call for ward reform then. Historically Windsor has had as many as 18 councilors and as few as six. We have to be very cautious in proposing a change (to ten wards) which is essentially nothing more than a reversal. Perhaps "ward reform" is really not the big change that people are seeking. We have to answer that question in ernest.

Whats wrong with our current five ward system?

Nothing really. Our current ward map lays out quite well. Boundaries are in logical, meaningful places and the map flows accordingly. The election process is simple, orderly and familiar to a fault. In short, there have been no real complaints but time is hinting that some tweaking is necessary. The big issue is population disparities between wards; otherwise known as growing pains. Wards one and Five are experiencing all of the development and population growth which has left representation a little thinner than in other wards. Wards two and three are said to be in trouble because they are vulnerable to population loss (this is a subject of debate). Any true and real growth potential is limited to the southern and eastern fringes of the city. Windsor's population at large is shrinking. From 205,000 in 2006 to 203,000 today. That slide continues.

Where to from Here?

Dr. Williams has presented a five ward proposal that pretty much scrambles the map. Most of the wards are in completely different places than they are today and his boundaries seem quite choppy. If we really analyse our current five ward map it comes into plain view that windsor's ward structure has lots of promise for logical and functional improvement. Push the existing southern boudaries of wards two and three down to displace some of ward one. Ward two's western boundary can extend west also displacing a good chunk of ward one. The eastern boundary of ward two can move a couple of blocks to Aylmer/Howard which will solve the downtown boundary issue and the ward three eastern boundary can likewise move a couple of blocks east to take in Drouillard Road. The boundaries between wards three and five can be smoothed out in the north reach and wards four and five can be easily divided along the Jefferson Avenue and 9th concession corridors. If need be, ward three has plenty of growing room to the south. The result of all of this is a better balanced ward system in a familiar way, in a geographic way and in a socio-economic way.

One Five Ward Proposal. Ward 3 Can be Easily Adjusted to the South if Necessary.

The big question remains: Refine or change? Anyone looking at the ten ward system is purely looking at political consequences. They are looking for wholesale change no matter what. Some are looking for a one time, easy way to a councilor's seat and others are just looking to upset certain councilors chances of re-election. This cannot be the approach taken with ward boundaries. Common sense and cool heads have to prevail. Given the givens a refinement to our existing ward map is the best approach. Changing for change's sake, especially going back to a place where we have already been (an eight ward system), is less than progressive. If one wants to effect change within city council that is what elections are for.

So... council set the issue aside for a bit. No big deal. Give them as much time as required to deliver the right solution. After all, we will be living with their decision for a long time. The consultation fee is not lost. We paid for it and it remains at our disposal to be used however we wish. Or not. The nature of information. We use it or we file it for future reference. In the mean time, lets make the right change for the right reasons.