The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

- l WA’TERUX) CHRONICLE 0 Wednesday. October 20, 2010 - l3 ‘ ° - sive, but sometimes we don't A former chair of the successful in the new econ- Candldates dlsagree over B I I I l 77 understand what inclusive is school council at Winston omy. when you haven't lived it.” Churchill public school, he “I‘m not sure we‘re there Condnuedfrompap [2 changes in Bill 177 are as sents that so we know what Schell, who still has two also thinks that schools have yet," Schell said. radicalassome suggest. children aregoing home to." children in the system, and to supply students with the The school board elec~ costs." That also ties into (3,388” who is running Because of the influx of was spurred on to run skills that will make them tion is Oct. 25. sale and secure SChUOIS. for the school board for the people from around the because Of which remains a constant first time, said the instltw world, the school board has, security issues ' _- f, : .4 concern said the‘member 0t tion is still important to be more responsive to at their Water~ y‘ 5' 4 if the public boards eWWW)" because of its ability to what they are facing and '00 SChOOl said 3.13" tnbunal: , reflect the community. supports it provides them. he’s still adv0< a}? L; ' . tunding for W693] edu» And she wants to bring a “I know the school board cating for a a“ 3;. ‘4 I { cation also remains a “for” new perspective to the table has tried taking steps toward 10 C k ed - d 0 0 r . ’ 8“". = ‘3’” V ‘ ‘ ; ‘ ' :40"? at“: "10??“de in a region that is the fifth this," said Chagger. “At the policy. m l l . i v“? , A :8” , are eing I enti '9 t0 ay largest in Canada for the set- same time if we have some- ”I couldn’t 7. as“ . ’ ' " . and there are less-and less tlement ofnew immigrants. one at the table who has get any traction “mm ,... 5; “50”?“ that 59mm them “I know there wasn't a lot experienced it, they might from the board . . g. ‘ L ,,_ .1 wire" , and 8'"? them the educa- of diversity growing up in provide different options on“. $0 nowl'm ‘ {“11“ ‘ , tiona_l opportunities they Waterloo," said Chagger. and consider things differ~ gotng to try WM. . need. ' said Hendry. “We need to have a perspecâ€" ently. from the other -‘ L’s; ,3” f 3‘" he doesn't think the tive at the table that repre- “We try hard to be inclu~ side," he said. ‘ 5" ”*3“ ' - Amalgamation Discussion Referendum: An Open Letter to the Community City of Waterloo Residents, Next week you will be asked ifWaterIoo City Council should enter into discussions with Kitchener City Council about the advantages and disadvantages of merging the City ofWaterloo with the City of Kitchener. We strongly urge you to vote NO. Do not support the discussions ofamalgamating Waterloo and Kitchener. As former Mayors ofWaterloo, we know how our city operates and what makes Waterloo such a great place in which to work, to learn, to live, and to play. We love Waterloo and - we certainly do not support merger discussions: . Talk is expensive. Merger discussions will involve costly spending on staff resources, lawyers, accountants, consultants, and take away valuable councillor time from important city and ward matters. The Sweeney Report created to explore amalgamation discussions in 1995, cost almost $1 million. What would it cost taxpayers this time? . . Loss of representation and control. This would not be a negotiation between equals. Kitchener with twice the population ofWaterloo would dominate. Waterloo would be outvoted 2 to 1 on every issue. Why would we ever enter into discussions where we give up our control, our identity, and ignore more than 150 years ofsuccess? . Lower involvement and engagement. As other amalgamated cities have discovered, people tend to participate less in larger cities - i volunteer rates decline, there are fewer neighbourhood initiatives such as local arts and cultural events, sporting activities, as well as often the loss of local newspapers. . Unique communities. Waterloo and Kitchener have been separate cities with very different neighbourhoods, ambitions, priorities, and approaches for over 150 years. Each city‘s Official Plan demonstrates how much our goals, challenges, and decision-making processes differ. . Consistently rejected. Since 1857 amalgamation has been consistently rejected by the residents ofWaterloo and Kitchener. As recently as ‘ 2009, every other municipality in Waterloo Region strongly rejected discussions and attempts to amalgamate. . Amalgamation is not necessary. Some ofthe most successful cities in the world are clusters ofcommunities: Silicon Valley, CA (40 municipalities); London, England (33 boroughs); and Boston, MA (282 municipalities). At present, 75 co-operative agreements with Kitchener have been created and there is no reason why Waterloo cannot maintain its independence and identity while working together with all ofour neighbouring municipalities. . Amalgamations don't work In Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, Kawartha Lakes, and elsewhere amalgamations have resulted in significantly higher costs, less representation, and bloated, less responsive bureaucracies. They have never achieved the expected efficiencies or savings. Why would anyone want to pay more for fewer services, less representation, diminished democracy, and reduced control while facing a significant loss of community and identity? Please consider what amalgamation will mean for your neighbourhood. lfyou love Waterloo, please vote NO on October 25th to amalgamation discussions. Your former Mayors of Waterloo, Herb Epp Lynne Woolstencroft Marjorie Carroll