Will suburbs’ problems become the majority big city problems?

This week’s class discussed Ontario’s regional boundaries. To my surprise, the regional boundaries not firm. The boundaries are nuances and flow into each other. This idea was supported by our alumni working for the different regions. Given the realities of North America, many citizens do not live where they work. Municipal and regional issues do not stop at boundaries. Climate change, pollution, the pandemic, sewage, and water pipes system are examples. Also, the bus lines starting in Toronto flows in Mississauga, Etobicoke, and more. Cities and regions cannot put hard dividing lines because of their populations’ freedom of movement. To better serve its people, regional policymakers have to flow within each other’s territories.

Regional governments initially followed the Metropolitan Government model as the population began living outside the boundaries. This model influenced the creation of the two-tier systems. According to David Gordon, the suburban edges are growing five times faster due to increased movement from the core to the suburban as the population grows. This growth increases the pressure for regional governance and municipalities to work in unity to solve growing policy challenges affecting suburbs residents.

When people get more income, the traditional change is to own a house in the suburbs. It is well known that many voting demographics and higher taxpayers live in the suburbs. As people consistently move to the suburbs, I am afraid that many upcoming policies and programs may be created to serve more of the suburban voting blocks. The big city problems may soon resemble more suburban problems and not a mix of suburban and core problems. There may be a slight focus switch from the inner lower-income voters to the wealthier voters. This potential reality highlights the importance of a united and reliable approach to regional and municipal governance and policies.