Two Contrasts in Municipal Governance
Municipal governance is filled to contrasts. For many Canadians, the politics of their local government is often not very front of mind, and they may even pay closer day-to-day attention to American politics than the politics of their own town or city. This is despite the incredible amount of services Canadian municipalities provide for their residents. Many Canadians take these services for granted (myself included, until some deeper reflection and as a result of the Urban Policy course materials) and expect them to work seamlessly. These services are some of the most important to our daily lives; emergency response, sanitation, maintenance of roads, bridges, public transit, and water and sewerage systems. Beyond maintaining the networks of vital infrastructure that support city life, municipalities also manage important social and cultural services like libraries, parks and recreational facilities, housing, immigration, and child-care. Canadians take many of these services for granted despite their foundational role in maintaining the quality of life in our municipalities.
A more significant (for the operation of municipal services) contradiction that exists in municipal governance in Canada beyond the apparent apathy many Canadians feel towards municipal politics is the mismatch between the role of municipal governments and their ability to act autonomously and maintain sufficient revenues. Despite providing services for a majority of Canadians, municipalities are reliant on the very limited instrument of property taxes to accrue revenues. I was surprised (but not shocked), to learn about the regressive nature of property taxes. This makes them a particularly tricky tool to rely on for additional revenues as the population of cities grow, their importance to the Canadian economy continues to increase, and the services they provide increase in scope and complexity. It will be important for municipalities to identify non-regressive — preferably progressive — revenue streams to address their growing budgets and service areas. This may not be possible under the current framework municipalities are operating under, and the provinces or federal governments will have to either step up and increase their own revenues and financial transfers, or initiate reforms to allow more flexibility in how municipalities can increase revenues.
As Canada’s major metropolitan areas continue to gain importance in the structure of Canadian governance, municipal policymakers will have to address the contrasts I discussed above in order for them to effectively improve the quality of lives of the citizens who municipal governments serve. Finding meaningful ways to engage with the public and encourage higher knowledge of and participation in municipal governance can prevent a small group of actors from having outsized influence at a local level. Finally, a newfound commitment on the part of provinces and the federal government, and/or legitimate efforts to provide municipalities with more revenue options seem to be required in order for the most effective public policy to be implemented at the municipal level. Municipal public servants are already doing incredible work developing, operating, and maintaining a plethora of services with the limited resources they currently have access to. As the populations and economies of Canadian cities continue to grow, reforms that allow municipalities to access higher revenues can allow these public servants to further maximize the potential and quality of life of Canadian cities.
