Leaky Governance by Furlong Kathryn

Author:Furlong, Kathryn
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: University of British Columbia Press

Environmental Allies: The Water Watchers

Local activists who organized against ASD reform echoed the reservations that were expressed within local government. Water Watch alliances formed to contest PSP in Hamilton in 2004 and the MSB in Toronto in 2002.70 In both cities, the groups garnered extensive public support, which was important in the return to direct delivery in Hamilton and its retention in Toronto. Below, these campaigns are presented only briefly to show how the positionalities reflected in them intersected with those of certain parts of municipal government, further demonstrating the relevance of opening up the local state container.

The campaigns were similar but not identical. In Toronto, the coalition was much larger and was composed predominantly of environmental groups.71 Hamilton Water Watch, by contrast, consisted of primarily labour and social justice organizations.72 This meant that the continued ability to advance an environmental agenda for water under ASD was a key concern in the Toronto campaign. For environmentalists, the sustained influence of council on water supply is important because it is by lobbying council that they are able to advance more environmentally sustainable forms of water management. As such, ASD could (further) limit the influence of environmentalists because it is designed to increase the autonomy of water management from local government.

Indeed, an important aspect of the Toronto campaign was the public’s relationship to local government. By drawing on the public’s mistrust of local council, the coalition was able to couple the MSB with privatization (via the slippery-slope argument). This was arguably the most effective aspect of the campaign in terms of halting the proposal. During the public consultations on the MSB in November 2002, for example, the most frequently expressed concerns were privatization and mistrust of local government (Table 6). These issues were also prominent in the Toronto Water Watch literature and in newspaper articles on the reform.73 Because of the efforts of Toronto Water Watch, privatization dominated the public debate, despite the fact that city council adopted a clause in November 2001 “ensuring that the public assets are not privatized or sold” and that “there be no privatization of water.”74

Table 6

Concerns expressed by the public regarding ASD in Toronto

Concern/issue Percentage of statements addressing the concern

Privatization 37

City council and staff are not trustworthy 20

The MSB cannot raise capital (money) 11

Purchasing 8

Lack of political will 8

International trade (NAFTA/WTO)1 7

Public health or water quality 7

Employment 6

Historical underfinancing of infrastructure 3

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.