Amalgamation

[Spokes]

I've always wondered, is Minneapolis–Saint Paul formally amalgamated, or are they just side by side like Kitchener and Waterloo?

[jamincan]

They are still individual cities.

[Spokes]

I wonder if they've had a push to join together

[nms]

It doesn't sound like it according to the local historians:
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2018/08/07/good-question-minneapolis-st-paul-joining/

The article includes this little tidbit too:

During the 1890 Census, [local author Mary] Wingerd says both Cities were cheating the books and counting people in cemeteries to make their Cities appear larger than they were.

[jeffster]

It doesn't sound like it according to the local historians:
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2018/08/07/good-question-minneapolis-st-paul-joining/

The article includes this little tidbit too:

During the 1890 Census, [local author Mary] Wingerd says both Cities were cheating the books and counting people in cemeteries to make their Cities appear larger than they were.

Kinda like Waterloo does when it over-counts by a staggering 30,000 because they add student population. In a year like 2020, those students won't even be there for 1/2 the year. I can't think of any other city that does that, until you mentioned those twin cities.

[ijmorlan]

Kinda like Waterloo does when it over-counts by a staggering 30,000 because they add student population. In a year like 2020, those students won't even be there for 1/2 the year. I can't think of any other city that does that, until you mentioned those twin cities.

In a normal year, students are always here (OK, fewer in Spring term, May-August, but still a substantial number).

That being said, temporary residents should be counted in a standard way, which should probably be figured out by Statistics Canada in connection with the census. A similar but different issue arises in connection with seasonal residents of cottage country.

Temporary residents should count, because they are part of the size of the city — in the extreme, imagine that our city existed only to support the universities, and 80% of our population was students — but on the other hand they shouldn’t count twice; if I add up the size of every locality in the province I should get the provincial population.

[jeffster]

Kinda like Waterloo does when it over-counts by a staggering 30,000 because they add student population. In a year like 2020, those students won't even be there for 1/2 the year. I can't think of any other city that does that, until you mentioned those twin cities.

In a normal year, students are always here (OK, fewer in Spring term, May-August, but still a substantial number).

That being said, temporary residents should be counted in a standard way, which should probably be figured out by Statistics Canada in connection with the census. A similar but different issue arises in connection with seasonal residents of cottage country.

Temporary residents should count, because they are part of the size of the city — in the extreme, imagine that our city existed only to support the universities, and 80% of our population was students — but on the other hand they shouldn’t count twice; if I add up the size of every locality in the province I should get the provincial population.

For one thing, the census doesn't not count temporary residents, be it students or cottage dwellers or seasonal workers.

My point was, though, that only Waterloo does this. Kingston, London, Guelph, are all university cities. They don't add university population. For one thing, as you pointed out, you run the risk of counting a person twice. You also run the risk of counting commuter students. Even Conestoga College has a large FT student population, those numbers are not added to Kitchener's, Brantford's or Cambridge' numbers. But they are added to Waterloo.

At the same time, then, should the city deduct citizens that are perhaps out of city attending schools? I guarantee that Waterloo doesn't. And likely no city does.

But one thing I do believe, if you are going to be counting temp residents, who might be there for no more than 180 days per year (as I guarantee many of the students go home for weekends, holidays, summer, etc), you then need to factor them into other numbers. For example, when Waterloo talks about their household income being higher than Cambridge or Kitchener -- it is NOT when you factor in student population. They'd be on the low end.  They can't have it both ways.

First picture, 2009, Waterloo had 119,000. 10 years later, it's at 105,000. The sign changed downward because Waterloo had changed the sign prior to 2009 to reflect student population. When the census was done, MTO reverted to sign to provincial standards (Waterloo had zero rights in changing the provincial sign in the first place). After the MTO did this, for some unknown reason, the city of Waterloo removed the signage going into Kitchener.

2009
   

2019
   

[ijmorlan]

For one thing, the census doesn't not count temporary residents, be it students or cottage dwellers or seasonal workers.

Doesn’t not count?

[…]
At the same time, then, should the city deduct citizens that are perhaps out of city attending schools? I guarantee that Waterloo doesn't. And likely no city does.

I’m pretty sure you’re right about that one

But one thing I do believe, if you are going to be counting temp residents, who might be there for no more than 180 days per year (as I guarantee many of the students go home for weekends, holidays, summer, etc), you then need to factor them into other numbers. For example, when Waterloo talks about their household income being higher than Cambridge or Kitchener -- it is NOT when you factor in student population. They'd be on the low end.  They can't have it both ways.

Yes, those are good points. That being said, depending on the purpose to which the numbers are being put, different numbers may be appropriate. For example, when planning transit (or roads, or any other municipal function, for that matter), it would be insane to ignore people who are only here some of the time. I understand in Ottawa there were a bunch of idiots arguing the LRT was not a good project because it’s mostly for students, and “they just leave after 4 years”, as if the students aren’t replaced by new students.

First picture, 2009, Waterloo had 119,000. 10 years later, it's at 105,000.  The sign changed downward because Waterloo had changed the sign prior to 2009 to reflect student population. When the census was done, MTO reverted to sign to provincial standards (Waterloo had zero rights in changing the provincial sign in the first place). After the MTO did this, for some unknown reason, the city of Waterloo removed the signage going into Kitchener.

That’s pretty funny. So, do you happen to know, did Waterloo just slap stickers over the MTO sign, or put up its own, or what?

[jeffster]

For one thing, the census doesn't not count temporary residents, be it students or cottage dwellers or seasonal workers.

Doesn’t not count?

Right....that was a double negative, making it appear that the census DOES count. Whoops. Keeping it there as you already quoted it. I meant to say "census doesn't count temporary residents...."

That’s pretty funny. So, do you happen to know, did Waterloo just slap stickers over the MTO sign, or put up its own, or what?

Waterloo had altered a bunch of numbers when they were doing their city signs. I do believe cities can do population estimates on their own signs whenever they want, and in Waterloo's case, though, they altered the MTO sign, which isn't allowed. This is why all the major signs going into Cambridge/Kitchener have the 2016 Census population, and it was in 2017 (last time they were updated) that the MTO corrected Waterloo's sign on that provincial land.

To be clear, I have no issue cities updating their sign (on city property) before a census count. But I do think they should try to make it accurate. Kitchener, for example, had updated its sign around the cities to 237,000 in 2015, while Census had it at 234,000 in 2016, a 1.3% difference. Waterloo updated its sign to 130,000 in 2014, while the 2016 Census had 105,000, a 24% difference.

This just got me thinking though, I had mentioned the missing sign as you go into Kitchener from Waterloo. It also made me think how there is no sign, and never had been a sign, as you go into Cambridge from Highway 8 bypass. That sign technically would have to be at or just before the 401.

[Coke6pk]

This just got me thinking though, I had mentioned the missing sign as you go into Kitchener from Waterloo. It also made me think how there is no sign, and never had been a sign, as you go into Cambridge from Highway 8 bypass. That sign technically would have to be at or just before the 401.

   

I know nothing of the rules on where these signs are placed, but Cambridge is near the lanes heading into Kitchener, not the other way.  If it needs to be at or after the boundary, you would need to put it on the crossover (Not happening) or on the 401, and I could see how multiple signs for the one city can be confusing.

Coke

[neonjoe]

Looks like Ford is taking another shot at manipulating our local government.
https://kitchener.citynews.ca/around-ont...wa-6112546

The legislation would also appoint "facilitators" to assess the regional governments in Durham, Halton, Niagara, Peel, Waterloo and York, and look at the best mix of roles between upper-tier and lower-tier municipalities with an eye to expanding strong mayor powers beyond Toronto and Ottawa.

This doesn't necessarily mean that there will be Amalgamation but these facilitators may change our local governance model

[panamaniac]

Looks like Ford is taking another shot at manipulating our local government.
https://kitchener.citynews.ca/around-ont...wa-6112546

The legislation would also appoint "facilitators" to assess the regional governments in Durham, Halton, Niagara, Peel, Waterloo and York, and look at the best mix of roles between upper-tier and lower-tier municipalities with an eye to expanding strong mayor powers beyond Toronto and Ottawa.

This doesn't necessarily mean that there will be Amalgamation but these facilitators may change our local governance model

May recommend changes.  Then we'll see what happens.

[tomh009]

Luisa D'Amato brings up a very good point: regional government structure has next to nothing to do with the housing shortage (this is the rationale the provincial government is giving for assessing regional governance).
https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...egion.html

[panamaniac]

Luisa D'Amato brings up a very good point: regional government structure has next to nothing to do with the housing shortage (this is the rationale the provincial government is giving for assessing regional governance).
https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...egion.html

It's not clear to me that any of the proposed municipal governance changes have much to do with housing.  I guess the developers who will benefit could provide a good explanation.

[Chris]

My take away from the news cycle this week is that they are stopping short of amalgamation. But between this move and the developers that bought land in the greenbelt, DoFo is setting up his developer buddies to build everywhere.