Strong mayor powers

[danbrotherston]

The Mayor of Waterloo made a statement today affirming her intent to refuse the strong mayor powers.

Honestly, I don't agree with this. This is why progressives fail. We are not driven to win.

Yes, I disagree with the existence of the strong mayor powers, I think they are harmful to democracy.

However! Conservative mayors--friends of DoFo--will not hesitate to use those powers to limit and restrict and ultimately harm our cities through regressive policies. We must be driven to win, we must use the powers they granted us to fight just a strongly as conservatives to push a progressive agenda.

Now, if that agenda involves eliminating strong mayor powers, all the better. But simply refusing to use them does not limit conservatives ability to use them to harm us.

https://www.youtube.com/live/7b7WUVG2TF0...ETN&t=7605

[ijmorlan]

How’s this for a strategy: overuse them, in an attempt to get them removed?

[timc]

How could you overuse them? The strong mayor powers that are given are ones that align with the provincial government strategy of building more housing. Are you saying we could somehow build too much housing?

[ijmorlan]

How could you overuse them? The strong mayor powers that are given are ones that align with the provincial government strategy of building more housing. Are you saying we could somehow build too much housing?

Just because the powers align with a strategy doesn’t mean any use of them will necessarily align. There is a reason why we have city councils, legislatures, and Parliament, not just an elected top dog in each jurisdiction. It’s hard to imagine building too much housing starting from where we are (although it is definitely possible in principle), but it’s easier to imagine a mayor making poor decisions and using the strong mayor powers to push them through.

[timc]

My understanding of the powers is that they are only applicable in ways that the province wants things to go anyway. Maybe I'm wrong about that?

[ijmorlan]

My understanding of the powers is that they are only applicable in ways that the province wants things to go anyway. Maybe I'm wrong about that?

Example: mayor uses strong mayor powers to rezone a bunch of land from agricultural to single-family homes. Clearly a bad thing, even though in the short term it gives developers more places to build homes. If on the other hand the mayor used the strong mayor powers to upzone all single-family areas to medium density, that might actually accomplish something positive.

Note that I don’t know exactly what the powers allow, so the above examples might not be realistic. But the point is that the powers can be abused. On the other hand, there is no reason to think that the current allocation of powers between Council and Mayor is the best possible allocation, so it is possible that giving the mayors some additional powers might be a good thing.

[danbrotherston]

My understanding of the powers is that they are only applicable in ways that the province wants things to go anyway. Maybe I'm wrong about that?

Example: mayor uses strong mayor powers to rezone a bunch of land from agricultural to single-family homes. Clearly a bad thing, even though in the short term it gives developers more places to build homes. If on the other hand the mayor used the strong mayor powers to upzone all single-family areas to medium density, that might actually accomplish something positive.

Note that I don’t know exactly what the powers allow, so the above examples might not be realistic. But the point is that the powers can be abused. On the other hand, there is no reason to think that the current allocation of powers between Council and Mayor is the best possible allocation, so it is possible that giving the mayors some additional powers might be a good thing.

I think the powers are much less specific than that...

Like....not "the mayor can change zoning in this way" and more "the mayor can override council" and "the mayor can write the budget for council to review"

So the mayor could maybe do some of the things you say, but they can also do many other things as well.

FWIW...I disagree with the concept of "overusing them"...

You can only use them or not use them. They are inherently an abuse of power, a subversion of democracy because they concentrate power away from a broader elected group to a smaller elected group, that is inherently more autocratic.

But not using them doesn't make our society less autocratic or less at risk of corruption as a result, all it does is give conservatives, who won't shy away from using the powers to gain the upper hand, more tools to beat progressives.

Now, should we use these tools to advance our interests, like making a fairer society and reducing autocracy...obviously...but not using those tools does not accomplish those goals...it hinders them.

This is why progressives lose. And frankly, if I was still living or working in the city, I might even bother to tell the mayor this in a public delegation in council. But its really too late now...because she has made this statement, going back on it now would look even worse, and that's not likely something the Mayor will do.

[tomh009]

[quote="ijmorlan" pid="110855" dateline="1694602849"]
But not using them doesn't make our society less autocratic or less at risk of corruption as a result, all it does is give conservatives, who won't shy away from using the powers to gain the upper hand, more tools to beat progressives.

Any upper hand for conservatives would require them to have a conservative mayor. I don't think that's the case in Kitchener or Waterloo, for example (not so sure about Cambridge).

And even without using those powers, the mayor's ability to use them will give second thought to opposition: should they try to kill the initiative (which might get overridden by a mayor) or try to negotiate an acceptable compromise?

[danbrotherston]

But not using them doesn't make our society less autocratic or less at risk of corruption as a result, all it does is give conservatives, who won't shy away from using the powers to gain the upper hand, more tools to beat progressives.

Any upper hand for conservatives would require them to have a conservative mayor. I don't think that's the case in Kitchener or Waterloo, for example (not so sure about Cambridge).

And even without using those powers, the mayor's ability to use them will give second thought to opposition: should they try to kill the initiative (which might get overridden by a mayor) or try to negotiate an acceptable compromise?

I dunno...the previous mayor of Waterloo was very much in the neoconservative sphere...and I'd argue the same is true of the current mayor of Kitchener.

They might be less conservative than the mayor of Ottawa or the previous mayor of Toronto, but they're still far more conservative than the current Mayor of Waterloo.

And sure, you can argue that she could have used the threat of those powers to force the opposition into giving her concessions, which is exactly how these powers are most effective...but she cannot do so now, because she has stated she will not use the powers.

[tomh009]

I dunno...the previous mayor of Waterloo was very much in the neoconservative sphere...and I'd argue the same is true of the current mayor of Kitchener.

Vrbanovic a neo-conservative? I'm curious, on what do you base that assessment?

[danbrotherston]

I dunno...the previous mayor of Waterloo was very much in the neoconservative sphere...and I'd argue the same is true of the current mayor of Kitchener.

Vrbanovic a neo-conservative? I'm curious, on what do you base that assessment?

You think he is not? That was the impression I got. He seems to prioritise business development. I've never seen him challenge any establishment issue.

But maybe I'm just biased...I was rather disappointed by him as mayor.

[tomh009]

Vrbanovic a neo-conservative? I'm curious, on what do you base that assessment?

You think he is not? That was the impression I got. He seems to prioritise business development. I've never seen him challenge any establishment issue.

But maybe I'm just biased...I was rather disappointed by him as mayor.

In my view, he sets a pretty good balance between employment (business) and social issues (housing, addiction, discrimination etc). Municipalities can't really effect overall social policies, and I think the efforts under his leadership have been making have been quite decent. But that's just my view ...

[plam]

You think he is not? That was the impression I got. He seems to prioritise business development. I've never seen him challenge any establishment issue.

But maybe I'm just biased...I was rather disappointed by him as mayor.

In my view, he sets a pretty good balance between employment (business) and social issues (housing, addiction, discrimination etc). Municipalities can't really effect overall social policies, and I think the efforts under his leadership have been making have been quite decent. But that's just my view ...

It's mostly about the highways that I've been disappointed in him.

[ac3r]

Supporting economic progress in the region is neocon now? Haha. Some people need to actually study political philosophy, not just throw around buzzwords.

Of course a mayor is going to be pro-business...if they weren't then they have no business being mayor.

[cherrypark]

Supporting economic progress in the region is neocon now? Haha. Some people need to actually study political philosophy, not just throw around buzzwords.

Of course a mayor is going to be pro-business...if they weren't then they have no business being mayor.

His embarrassing comments during the Lancaster ramp debate certainly lend themselves to that view of him. My take is more in alignment with him being sort of reflective of the balance of the city's priorities, but he could afford to put a little more leadership into asking the businesses to adapt to a changing city (or at least not pretend minimal impact changes are going to end business viability in the city broadly...).