Rural Restructuring: A Response to Saskboy and Northern Farmer
Over at John Murney's blog we've been talking about possible policy platforms for a new and improved Saskatchewan Liberal Party and about sensible economic renewal in our province. I've suggested reducing the total number of municipal entities which are currently vastly disproportional to their population as one way of reducing costs. Both Northern Farmer and Saskboy have taken issue with me. Northern Farmer, I can safely bet, speaks with some knowledge of rural life. However, Saskboy doesn't seem to understand the issue at all, and has even mistaken my intent. He seems to be of the opinion that I'm suggesting all rural governance be delivered from Regina, by which I presume he means the provincial government. In his words, after first quoting one of my statements (in italics), he says:
To follow your argument to its logical conclusion, why doesn't Regina have 4 municipal councilors for each 75 of its citizens? If you believe so passionately in democracy, you should be disturbed by that glaring discrepancy and you should be fighting right now for the installation of another 9800 city councilors down at City Hall. It's called economies of scale, and although there are critical differences between major cities and rural areas, such as distances between communities, the discrepancy is something that seems absurd on its face, wouldn't you say? I mean you can vote in municipal elections in Regina regardless of whether you live in the Cathedral district, Uplands or North Central. It's all one city as far as governance is concerned. But that doesn't stop you from also participating in neighbour activities that are political in nature, or joining local organizations that work on local projects and having some influence on what happens in your parks and on your streets.
You may know that when the Municipal Act was created it set population benchmarks that a community had to reach in order to gain city status, town status or village status, if it chose to apply for such status. That legislation is 100 years old. Well, 99, actually, but you get my point.
The vast majority of towns and villages that were created under that Act have dropped below that threshold, thanks to continued rural depopulation over the past 60+ years. But population patterns aren't the only thing that has changed since the Municipal Act was created. Technologies of communication and transportation have also changed, as have a lot of the technologies used in rural economies. We don't drive horses and wagons around any more to get into town. Farming isn't done with horse drawn plows.
Not only that, but for two generations now the kids have left the farms and haven't come back. Not only that but the average family size today is only about half or less than what it was in the 1950s. Because of that, the average age in most rural communities is far older than the average age of the population in Regina. That's why schools are closing. There are fewer and fewer young people standing ready to take over in the role of municipal governance, whether elected officials or paid employees.
Vast numbers of the small villages and towns do not have a viable retail sector so most people have to travel to the larger centers just to pick up their groceries or their mail, let alone see a doctor, if the town can find one, or get a prescription filled. You talk about the absence of policing service. Well, you know, someone has to pay for that. Without a population base sufficient enough and capable of paying taxes, who is going to pay? That's the rural reality and it has been driven by forces far larger and remote than local or even provincial governments can control, such as technological advances. Bill Gates doesn't live in Saskatchewan. MRI machines weren't invented at the University of Regina, but we've all adopted those technologies into our daily lives.
But, all is not lost. Thanks to those technologies, those 75 people living in that village can participate in the governance of their jurisdiction just as easily whether they live in an incorporated entity or not. I'm saying that dissolution should be mandated if a community drops below a certain threshold, but I'm not saying that people should or will lose the capacity to participate in decision making. Teleconferencing and computer connections make that possible.
Saskboy, you might want to think a bit more about complexity and change and how democracies must and should deal with that ever present reality. If change does not happen, democracies stagnate and stagnation leads to rot. It's time to take another look at the legislation and it's time for a big shakeup. Reducing the numbers of municipal entities substantially could very well have the added benefit of reducing the size of our provincial civil service, since they deal with municipal governments and institutions on a daily basis. If they have substantially fewer municipal governments to deal with, I would think that we don't need so damned many of them. We could also transfer much of their legislated mandate to the regional authorities. I think most rural folks would appreciate that. I know I would. What I'm really talking about is genuine revitalization of rural life and bringing control back closer to the grassroots. That means that teensy tiny governments must go as well as big huge bureaucracies. I'm salivating at the possibilities but I'm betting civil service rich populations such as the city you live in, Saskboy, will not allow it happen.
"Why does a village of 75 people need a municipal council?"
"It's called democracy Louise, you should learn to love it; it's here to stay if I have anything to say about it. There's nothing democratic about some wonk in Regina determining how someone a 3 hour drive away ought to chlorinate their private well, pay for policing that doesn't happen, or tell them they have to close their school and pay more for busing than what it cost to run the school."Well, Saskboy, the "wonk" would not have to drive from Regina, unless, of course, the municipal office is in Regina. Only about 30 to 40 miles at the absolute maximum, give or take, from the closest viable town would be required in the vast majority of cases. No one said anything about obliterating all municipal entities altogether.
To follow your argument to its logical conclusion, why doesn't Regina have 4 municipal councilors for each 75 of its citizens? If you believe so passionately in democracy, you should be disturbed by that glaring discrepancy and you should be fighting right now for the installation of another 9800 city councilors down at City Hall. It's called economies of scale, and although there are critical differences between major cities and rural areas, such as distances between communities, the discrepancy is something that seems absurd on its face, wouldn't you say? I mean you can vote in municipal elections in Regina regardless of whether you live in the Cathedral district, Uplands or North Central. It's all one city as far as governance is concerned. But that doesn't stop you from also participating in neighbour activities that are political in nature, or joining local organizations that work on local projects and having some influence on what happens in your parks and on your streets.
You may know that when the Municipal Act was created it set population benchmarks that a community had to reach in order to gain city status, town status or village status, if it chose to apply for such status. That legislation is 100 years old. Well, 99, actually, but you get my point.
The vast majority of towns and villages that were created under that Act have dropped below that threshold, thanks to continued rural depopulation over the past 60+ years. But population patterns aren't the only thing that has changed since the Municipal Act was created. Technologies of communication and transportation have also changed, as have a lot of the technologies used in rural economies. We don't drive horses and wagons around any more to get into town. Farming isn't done with horse drawn plows.
Not only that, but for two generations now the kids have left the farms and haven't come back. Not only that but the average family size today is only about half or less than what it was in the 1950s. Because of that, the average age in most rural communities is far older than the average age of the population in Regina. That's why schools are closing. There are fewer and fewer young people standing ready to take over in the role of municipal governance, whether elected officials or paid employees.
Vast numbers of the small villages and towns do not have a viable retail sector so most people have to travel to the larger centers just to pick up their groceries or their mail, let alone see a doctor, if the town can find one, or get a prescription filled. You talk about the absence of policing service. Well, you know, someone has to pay for that. Without a population base sufficient enough and capable of paying taxes, who is going to pay? That's the rural reality and it has been driven by forces far larger and remote than local or even provincial governments can control, such as technological advances. Bill Gates doesn't live in Saskatchewan. MRI machines weren't invented at the University of Regina, but we've all adopted those technologies into our daily lives.
But, all is not lost. Thanks to those technologies, those 75 people living in that village can participate in the governance of their jurisdiction just as easily whether they live in an incorporated entity or not. I'm saying that dissolution should be mandated if a community drops below a certain threshold, but I'm not saying that people should or will lose the capacity to participate in decision making. Teleconferencing and computer connections make that possible.
Saskboy, you might want to think a bit more about complexity and change and how democracies must and should deal with that ever present reality. If change does not happen, democracies stagnate and stagnation leads to rot. It's time to take another look at the legislation and it's time for a big shakeup. Reducing the numbers of municipal entities substantially could very well have the added benefit of reducing the size of our provincial civil service, since they deal with municipal governments and institutions on a daily basis. If they have substantially fewer municipal governments to deal with, I would think that we don't need so damned many of them. We could also transfer much of their legislated mandate to the regional authorities. I think most rural folks would appreciate that. I know I would. What I'm really talking about is genuine revitalization of rural life and bringing control back closer to the grassroots. That means that teensy tiny governments must go as well as big huge bureaucracies. I'm salivating at the possibilities but I'm betting civil service rich populations such as the city you live in, Saskboy, will not allow it happen.
posted by Louise at 7:32 am
2 Comments:
"Not only that, but for two generations now the kids have left the farms and haven't come back. Not only that but the average family size today is only about half or less than what it was in the 1950s. Because of that, the average age in most rural communities is far older than the average age of the population in Regina."
You hit it on the nail their Louise. I live on a farm by a small town of 527 people, but we have a different problem here. Were close to a major city in the province that’s been expanding in our direction over the last few years. The RM here is in a learning curve here because of all the new housing developments that have been starting up over the last few years. You would not believe all the development going on around here and all the problems the RM has been facing. This is all new for them.
We have the opposite problem then most of the province. But its a good thing. The RM here is learning how to make sure development is done right, at least right now.
I believe I am in agreement with the thrust of your post. Maybe it is my city-boy point of view, but I don't see how your position is an attack on rural populations in anyway. There is definite room for a major redistribution of powers and decision making. Your point about individuals having the ability today to participate, even over moderate distances, is well made. That kind of technological ability wasn't available even 10 or 5 years ago.
On a related note, its the same technology that Saskboy suggests could be used in rural schools to give students there access to classes taught in the bigger centres.
Post a Comment
<< Home