THE LANDSCAPE OF “LOCAL” IN TORONTO Alexandra Flynn A dissertation submitted to the Faculty

368 Pages·2017·10.9 MB·English

RE-IMAGINING LOCAL GOVERNANCE:
THE LANDSCAPE OF “LOCAL” IN TORONTO

Alexandra Flynn

A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Osgoode Hall Law School
York University
Toronto, Ontario

July 2017

Ó Alexandra Flynn 2017
Abstract

In 1997, the Province of Ontario formed the City of Toronto, amalgamating one regional
and six small municipalities into a single city government. This action altered the formal
institutions of local governance, replacing what was once regional with a City Council
meant to represent “city-wide” issues, and without providing a clear model for local or
smaller-than-city decision-making. The purpose of this dissertation is to conceptualize
the meaning of “local governance” within the City of Toronto as a result of the overlap of
wards (as represented by councillors), community councils, business improvement areas
and neighbourhood associations, each of which claim geographical boundaries as
justification for the representation of locally-based populations, and claim to be open to
participation to some degree. This research asks whether the overlap of these bodies has
unrecognized consequences, in particular, the effect on historically marginalized
residents. This dissertation offers a theoretical conceptualization of “local governance”
grounded in legal pluralism and legal geography that presents the city as a set of uneven
and overlapping local legal spaces operating on multiple scales. Using a mixed methods
approach that includes doctrinal review, case studies, and semi-structured interviews, the
dissertation finds that wards dominate the law and practice of local decision-making, and
do not represent an inclusive local governance model in Toronto. BIAs and
neighbourhood associations are unevenly distributed across and the city, exist mainly in
the socio-economically privileged areas and have grown in number and broadened their
mandates since Toronto’s 1997 amalgamation. Toronto’s community councils, which
were initially conceived by the province as a means to provide “local” access to
municipal decision-making, have failed to achieve their legislative potential. The
dissertation concludes that reimagined community councils, grounded within a normative
understanding of the urban commons, serve as a means to create a more inclusive and
participatory local governance model in Toronto.
ii
Acknowledgements

I am ridiculously grateful for the many people who have helped, inspired and cared for
me on this bumpy, zig-zaggy road.

I would not have started or finished this project without my many mentors and colleagues
at Osgoode Hall Law School, and especially my outstanding doctoral committee. Stepan
Wood was a perfect supervisor, calmly talking me down from the proverbial ledge,
correcting passive voices and incoherent arguments, and nudging (shoving?) me farther,
always with kindness. I cannot thank him enough for taking on this exhausting role
amidst his many other activities. Dayna Nadine Scott and Lorne Sossin were invaluable
chapter analysts, editors and sages, with each bringing wisdom and clarity to this project
(and life generally), and with good humour, too. I am also grateful to Liora Salter, who at
pivotal moments challenged me to think deeper, better and with more bravery, and to
Peer Zumbansen, who is the reason I began this degree. The classrooms and halls of
Osgoode provided a safe and warm community as I slowly shifted my lens from practice
to theory – thanks to the staff, students and faculty, and especially to Signa Daum
Shanks, Sara Ross, Ghuna Bdiwi, Roxanne Mykitiuk and Janet Mosher.

This journey was enormously enriched by the friends and colleagues that I made along
the way. To Estair van Wagner, for Skype calls across the ocean, crazy adventures in
Denmark, and heaps of wisdom. Roza Tchoukaleyska, for crucial geography translations
and for introducing me to the best writing group an unrooted Ph.D. student could ask for.
To Ronit Levine-Schnur, who politely but firmly urged me to get this written and then to
move on. To the property law grrrls: how fun to do this together - when and where are we
celebrating? Thanks, too, to my new colleagues at the University of Toronto, who have
warmly welcomed me into the fold, providing advice and support as I finished this
dissertation (mercifully with cake at regular intervals). And a humble appreciation to
Mariana Valverde, Nick Blomley and Doug Harris – who provided critical feedback on
portions of this work at conferences and over coffee.

iii
DRAFT (5/11/17) – PLEASE DO NOT CIRCULATE

I am deeply grateful to those who agreed to be interviewed, many of whom I met during
my years working at the City of Toronto. This dissertation could not have been written
without their thoughtful perspectives and their commitment to the City of Toronto.
Thanks especially to Lynda Taschereau and the late Peter Notaro, who provided support
as I juggled meetings and classes during the crucial first two years of this degree. The
staff at Toronto Archives deserve a medal for their patient explanations. And many
thanks to Sara Levy and Jeff Allen for their GIS know-how, and to Jennifer Code for
interview transcription.

My friends and family provided encouragement, celebration, and love at all the right
moments. A huge tribute and big hugs especially to my ever-cheerleading mom Florence
Flynn and my dear friend Cassandra Atherton, as well as to Jennifer Orange, Judy Taylor,
Dagmar Timmer, Maia Kareda, Alex Dosman, Fiona Koza, Shona McGlashan, Laura
Tamblyn Watts, Ummni Khan, Ygal Leibu, Judith Leibu, Myra Leibu, Jennifer Code,
Naomi Lightman, and Marika Samson. And to the late Sheila Moore, whose passion for
politics continues to make me smile, even though I miss her terribly. Thank you all so
very much for believing in me, even when I struggled and doubted.

But, there are three people – the lights of my life – whose love propelled me to push
through this project, to wake up before the sun to get words written, and who overlooked
heaps of family time in favour of my finishing this beast. To my boys, Jonah and Simon:
their sweet voices, encouraging drawings, and invigorating energy motivated me to say
something meaningful and to try, however small, to make a better world. Now, I promise:
backyard camp-out, Minecraft, and a much more fun mom. And to Daniel, my love and
my rock, who knows more about this project than anyone else in the world (poor him!).
All the best clichés come to mind when I think of how much amazing he is and always
has been, in big and small ways, in good times and hard ones (see, there I go). So, I’ll just
say this: elephant shoe.
iv
Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... III
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ V
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... VIII
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ IX
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .......................................................................................... X
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
I. WHY LOCAL GOVERNANCE? ......................................................................................... 2
II. MAPPING TORONTO: COMPETING TALES OF PROSPERITY AND INEQUALITY ............... 5
III. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................ 8
IV. CASE STUDIES: EXPLORING “LOCAL GOVERNANCE” IN “CITY-WIDE” DECISIONS ... 10
V. STRUCTURE OF THE ARGUMENT ................................................................................ 12
VI. THE NORMATIVE ASPIRATION ................................................................................. 15
CHAPTER 1 – A THEORETICAL MAP-MAKING OF “LOCAL
GOVERNANCE” ............................................................................................................ 17
I. LEGAL GEOGRAPHY: INTERLEGALITY AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SPACE .................... 18
II. CONCEPTUALIZING LOCAL GOVERNANCE .................................................................. 36
1. A pluralist conception of local governance .......................................................... 37
2. State iterations of local governance ..................................................................... 38
III. CHARACTERIZING LOCAL GOVERNANCE AS AN URBAN COMMONS ........................... 57
1. The meaning of the urban commons ..................................................................... 58
2. Connecting the urban commons and local governance ........................................ 62
3. The urban commons as a normative framework for local governance ................ 66
IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 69
CHAPTER 2 – THE METHODOLOGICAL PUZZLE ............................................. 71
I. DOCTRINAL ANALYSIS: TEXTUAL REVIEW OF CASE LAW AND LEGISLATION ............... 75
II. CASE STUDIES ............................................................................................................ 80
III. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH METHODS .............................................................................. 83
1. Semi-structured interviews .................................................................................... 83
2. GIS data and Quantitative methods ...................................................................... 87
3. Participant observation ........................................................................................ 89
4. Archival research .................................................................................................. 91
5. Media analysis ...................................................................................................... 94
CHAPTER 3 – DEMYSTIFYING TORONTO’S MESSY LOCAL GOVERNANCE
MODEL ........................................................................................................................... 96
I. GOVERNING TORONTO ................................................................................................ 98
1. A brief history of Toronto’s boundaries ............................................................. 100
2. Toronto’s decision-making authority .................................................................. 109
3. Authority for local governance ........................................................................... 116
4. The community council: Toronto’s “local” governance body? ......................... 120
v
DRAFT (5/11/17) – PLEASE DO NOT CIRCULATE

II. THE GOVERNANCE OF TORONTO’S LOCAL LEGAL SPACES ....................................... 133
1. Formal spaces: wards and community councils ................................................. 134
2. BIAs and Neighbourhood Associations as competing spaces of local governance
................................................................................................................................. 138
III. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 167
CHAPTER 4 – THE LOCAL CLAIMS AND COMPETING FORUMS OF
TORONTO’S CASINO DECISIONS ......................................................................... 171
I. THE 2012-2013 CASINO DECISION ............................................................................ 172
1. The legal context and history of gambling law in Toronto ................................. 173
2. Genesis of the debate .......................................................................................... 176
3. Distinction between a “city-wide” and “local” process .................................... 178
4. BIAs, neighbourhood associations and other iterations of “local” ................... 191
5. The Final Report and Executive Committee’s Decision ..................................... 197
II. THE 2015 CASINO DECISION ................................................................................ 202
1. Resurgence of the debate .................................................................................... 203
2. The “local” in a “city-wide” decision ................................................................ 205
3. BIAs and neighbourhood associations ................................................................ 209
III. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 213
CHAPTER 5 – THE SPACES OF LOCAL IN TORONTO’S WARD BOUNDARY
REVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 218
I. CONTEXT FOR THE WARD BOUNDARY REVIEW .......................................................... 219
1. Disparity in ward population size across Toronto ............................................. 219
2. Federal and provincial electoral reviews ........................................................... 221
3. A complex legal arena ........................................................................................ 223
II. THE CITY OF TORONTO’S WARD BOUNDARY REVIEW PROCESS ............................... 230
1. Design of the WBR process ................................................................................. 230
2. Role of the Executive Committee and City Council in WBR Design .................. 234
3. The meaning of “local” in the ward boundary review process .......................... 237
4. Engaging communities of interest ....................................................................... 246
5. Contested “Local” Boundaries .......................................................................... 253
III. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 259
CHAPTER 6 – ROAD-MAPPING THE NEW THEORETICAL TERRITORY OF
LOCAL GOVERNANCE ............................................................................................ 262
I. CONCEPTUALIZING LOCAL GOVERNANCE: LESSONS LEARNED ............................. 265
1. Understanding local governance in the Toronto context ................................... 266
2. The implications of local exclusion ..................................................................... 271
II. CORE PRINCIPLES IN DESIGNING LOCAL GOVERNANCE ............................................ 281
1. Geographic boundaries: distinguishing spaces of belonging and places of
representation ......................................................................................................... 282
2. Accountable representation: accessibility and fair process for local residents and
businesses, and to the broader vulnerable public ................................................... 292
3. Localizing “City-Wide”: Rethinking the “Local” and “City-wide” Binary ...... 296
4. Decision-making: participation as deliberation or outcome? ............................ 299
III. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 305
CONCLUSION - RE-IMAGINING LOCAL GOVERNANCE ............................... 307
vi
DRAFT (5/11/17) – PLEASE DO NOT CIRCULATE

I. SUMMING UP: TORONTO’S LOCAL LEGAL SPACES ..................................................... 308
II. THE LIMITS OF “LOCAL” LITERATURE ...................................................................... 311
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 314
A. LEGISLATION ........................................................................................................... 314
Canada .................................................................................................................... 314
United States ........................................................................................................... 315
United Kingdom ...................................................................................................... 315
B. CASE LAW ............................................................................................................... 315
Canada .................................................................................................................... 315
United States ........................................................................................................... 316
C. SECONDARY SOURCES ............................................................................................. 317
APPENDIX A – LIST OF INTERVIEWS ............................................................................. 347
APPENDIX B - TORONTO’S BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREAS .................. 348
APPENDIX C - TORONTO’S NEIGHBOURHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ............... 350
APPENDIX D - DATA ON NEIGHBOURHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ..................... 355
APPENDIX E - COMPARISON OF WARD/ELECTORAL BOUNDARY
APPROACHES OF OTHER MUNICIPALITIES .................................................... 358
vii
List of Tables

Table 2.1: Interview participants ...................................................................................... 86
Table 3.1: Population and representation of City of Toronto community councils ........ 125
Table 3.2: Community council activities (2013) ............................................................ 130
Table 4.1: TEYCC Subcommittee reports related to the 2012-13 Casino Debate ......... 190
Table 4.2: Etobicoke councillor votes in 2012-13 casino decision ................................ 201
Table 5.1: Ward Boundary Review Options Presented in the Final Report ................... 233
Table 5.2: Involvement of local actors in the WBR process .......................................... 242
Table 5.3: Public engagement in the ward boundary review .......................................... 248
viii
List of Figures

Figure 3.1. Inventory of Laws ......................................................................................... 110
Figure 4.1: Organizational Structure of the City of Toronto .......................................... 179
Figure 5.1: Toronto Ward Boundary Review Steps ........................................................ 232
Figure 6.1: Principles of Local Governance Rooted in the “Urban Commons” ............. 281

ix
List of Illustrations

Illustration 3.1: Map of Pre-amalgamated City of Toronto, 1967-1997 ......................... 104
Illustration 3.2: Map of Toronto’s existing ward boundaries ......................................... 108
Illustration 3.3: Map of City of Toronto wards and community council boundaries ..... 123
Illustration 3.4: “Whose Job is it?” ................................................................................. 142
Illustration 3.5: Locations of BIAs and neighbourhood associations ............................. 155
Illustration 3.6: BIAs and neighbourhood associations, and income levels ................... 156
Illustration 3.7: Map of BIAs, neighbourhood associations and density ........................ 164
Illustration 4.1: Map of Preferred OLG Casino Zones ................................................... 177
Illustration 4.2: Map of Toronto’s Study of Casino Locations ...................................... 183
Illustration 4.3: Map of proposed casino sites, with BIAs and NAs ............................... 210
Illustration 4.4: Map of BIAs and local businesses ........................................................ 212
Illustration 5.1: Map of 2011 Population Differences Among Wards ............................ 220
Illustration 5.2: Map of Federal Electoral Districts and Toronto Ward Boundaries ...... 223
Illustration 5.3: Map of Recommended Wards With Refinements (47 Wards) ............. 237

x