When two-thirds of local government services have been proven to be best distributed through municipalities no larger than 20,000 people, it is hard to understand Amalgamation Yes’s logic in calling for larger municipalities.
Behemoth governments result in increased service prices, less democracy and fewer consumer choices.
On top of that, amalgamated governments also cost more than smaller systems because wages across the municipalities are raised to be the same as those in the best-paid municipalities.
There is also a need for more unelected managers to oversee the larger-scale operations. These expensive changes coveted by amalgamation supporters are at odds with the fact that Canadian municipalities already require a further $200 billion to fix an infrastructure deficit.
I question whether Amalgamation Yes supporters have actually studied any evidence surrounding amalgamation of cities or are just relying on political push polls to trick citizens into believing this is an attractive option.
After all, how could anyone make an informed decision when the group pushing amalgamation itself refuses to listen to the evidence?