The Municipal Collective

I keep meaning to write about this and life keeps getting in the way.

I suppose that I should predicate this whole post with the statement that this is one of my many ideas. Stuff that occurs to me out of the blue, or in this case, on a long bus ride between Kelowna and Vancouver. I post it here because I think that this idea has promise, and with the knowledge that it obviously needs work. If you're going to post comments about how the idea will never work etc. I'm just going to ignore you. As the saying goes: "Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it" ;-)

The Problem

Cities across the country are being burdened by more and more civil responsibilities and somehow, with their limited budget and tax-base, they're expected to support these services happily. We've all seen the results: ad-funded infrastructure, selling the naming rights to public buildings, reduced reliability of services and everyone's favourite: higher taxes.

The commonly-held solutions to these problems are multi-faceted, resting in part with an uploading of the financial burdens to the provincial and federal levels as well as widening the taxing powers of the cities while diminishing those of the higher levels of government. This is a good start, but I think we can do better before we go down that road.

The Collective

We have to start treating our cities not as a single element with unique needs, but rather a generic element with common needs. All cities require transit, roads, sanitation, water reclamation, and security, albeit in varying capacities. The city of Oakville for example obviously has very little in common with Vancouver, but perhaps it may have a great many things in common with London, Ontario. Similarly, Calgary and Edmonton share a great deal, and Vancouver has much in common with Seattle.

Currently, each of these cities must act alone when looking to improve its services. All too often, cities are offering RFPs to private business for everything from garbage collection to transit infrastructure, to what software will reside on the computers at City Hall. Corporations are then asked to bid against each other for the contract, but the costs are always exorbitant. Why not extend the powers of collective bargaining to the municipal level?

This would open doors for all kinds of collaborative projects:

• A transit system in Baltimore could be using the same technology as Boston trains reducing the cost of production and increasing interoperability.
• A waste reclamation project in Toronto could be linked to the surrounding cities to allow for a centralised sorting and processing facility at a shared cost,
• A cross-continental police exchange programme could help train officers regarding what works and what doesn't in the rapidly changing environment of the downtown core.
• Calgary, Edmonton and Saskatoon could agree that while producing street furniture independently may be too expensive, building it for all three would create jobs where they're most needed and drastically reduce the costs involved.
• BC Hydro, a long-time producer of hydro-electric power could lend it's expertise to the building of a new dam in Washington state in exchange for a favourable rate for electricity in BC's lower mainland.

It's important to note that alliances of this type are never meant to be permanent. A transit deal between Vancouver and Seattle may be a good plan, but that doesn't mean that they'd have to work together for waste management. Maybe Seattle would work with San Francisco on that one instead while Vancouver would handle that task independently. The idea is to facilitate the exchange of intelligence and forge collective bargaining agreements for the purpose of reducing cost and increasing interoperability.

Opposition

Nationality: Some people might take issue with the way I've tied cities together across national borders here. Politically, this may be a problem, but as I see it, cities with similar needs should work together to satisfy those needs collectively.

Identity: Another objection is likely to come in the form of a need for uniqueness from city to city. This is a valid concern and it should be addressed as part of the collective RFP. Where appropriate, cities should decide to either act independently or amend the collective agreement to accommodate their individual needs. The preference however should always go to working with others, since that will always produce the greatest benefit.

Corporate: This system is not in the best interest of the corporations bidding on these contracts as it further pits them against each other and drives down their profit margin. I'm unapologetic for this.

Next

If this is to work, it will require an intermediary. A person, (or in the long run, a non-profit organisation) that keeps track of who needs what and brings those bodies together. I want to do more than just offer the idea here to be swallowed by Internet noise on this one. I want to make this happen. Maybe one day this will be a reality and I'll be able to quit my day job and Use My Powers for Good full time. We'll see.

The first step is to locate a good test "site". Find two smaller cities who could benefit from working together on a small inconsequential project and make it work. Obviously, it'd be crazy to try this sort of thing on a large scale to start. It's hard enough to pitch an idea this complex to the council of a city of 3 million people without it being your first time ever. A smaller city, like Kelowna or Surrey might make for a better start -- though their needs are admittedly not as well served by this model. Suggestions for cities and/or projects are welcome.

So that's the whole plan. What are your thoughts?