Q&A With The Boundary Bargain’s Zachary Spicer

Today on our blog, Zachary Spicer, assistant professor of political science at Brock University and author of The Boundary Bargain: Growth, Development, and the Future of City-County Separation, joins us for a Q&A with MQUP Editor Jacqueline Mason.

Together they discuss the implications of urban sprawl in once-rural Ontario, and what this means for existing policy and municipal institutions.

Jacqueline Mason: Your book, The Boundary Bargain, provides a strong historical account of city-county separation.  With ever-increasing urban sprawl, what are the implications (both positive and negative) for neighbouring rural areas?   

Zachary Spicer: City-county separation is an institution that was designed for a different era. The type of growth pressures Ontario communities are facing now is obviously much different than when the system was introduced in 1849. The main challenge is that in some communities those in rural communities are advocating for growth. This goes against the underlying logic of city-county separation: growth was supposed to be pushed towards urban areas so rural communities could remain rural. Many rural politicians, however, are not content to simply remain rural in a strict traditional sense. They want to grow, but in a very managed way. This creates pressure and tension in some areas, as city-county separation creates a clear division between rural and urban, which does not allow separated cities to benefit from growth outside of their borders. Because of the rigidity of city-county separation, growth pressure is increasing and the institution is unable to respond.

JM: How can we insure that existing policy and municipal institutions continue to reflect the changing needs of both rural and urban areas?

ZS: This is the million-dollar question, so to speak. In areas where there is tremendous growth pressure, city-county separation can cause more problems than it is likely worth. The continuing challenge, of course, is that getting rid of the system is equally as challenging, as many separated cities have grown over time to a point that they would dominate any reconstituted two-tier system. Simply put, rural voices would be diminished if separated cities were brought back into their counties. So, what do we do now? There is a range of options. Perhaps the easiest might be a series of inter-local agreements addressing growth limits and service sharing. The most challenging would likely be some form of consolidation. In the book I argue that we need to propose solutions on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, there is not any kind of one-size-fits-all solution to be had.

JM: In twenty years’ time do you predict collaboration or separation between rural and urban areas?  What might this dynamic look like?

ZS: I would say collaboration is the likely route. There has certainly been a considerably amount of bad blood between urban and rural communities in some areas across the province. This can only last for so long. Solutions will be found and I hope collaboration will be the name of the game going forward.

To learn more or to order The Boundary Bargain.