ºÚÂí´ÅÁ¦

Former B.C. premier Mike Harcourt put the fox among the chickens last week when he threw out a proposal to radically redraw the map of Metro Vancouver.

He suggested reducing the current 21 municipalities in Metro down to six to eight.

His map would merge a host of communities – Surrey and White Rock; ºÚÂí´ÅÁ¦ City and Township; Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows; the Tri-Cities plus Anmore and Belcara; and the entire North Shore, including Bowen Island, and Lion's Bay.

The idea comes in the wake of a report into Metro Vancouver governance that found some issues with the unwieldy organization. We could reform Metro Vancouver as a regional district, or we could simplify by simply reducing the total number of its member cities.

But if you want to merge cities, Harcourt doesn't go far enough. Here's my plan:

• South of the Fraser: Delta, Surrey, White Rock, ºÚÂí´ÅÁ¦, and, absorbed from the Fraser Valley Regional District, Abbotsford

• Mega Vancouver: Vancouver plus Burnaby and New Westminster

• Mega Coquitlam: As Harcourt suggests, smoosh together the Tri-Cities and their small neighbours

• Alternatively, we could have Vanquitlam – everything between the City of Vancouver and the Pitt River as one big city.

• North Shore: We'll go with Harcourt's plan

• Greater Ridge Meadows: Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, and throw in Mission, too

That leaves island city Richmond as the odd community out – it could be linked to Vancouver, or the South of the Fraser, or it could stay solo.

That would leave us with four to six cities, based mostly on geographical dividing lines.

Will it ever happen?

Well, someday, maybe the ºÚÂí´ÅÁ¦s or North Vans will merge. But for all the people clamouring for it, there are pretty big constituencies opposed as well.

If you live in the city out of your regional group that has the lowest property taxes, you have a good incentive to dig in your heels.

So do mayors and councillors, most of whom would lose office based on simple math. If South of the Fraser merged from Delta to Abbotsford, you'd go from 46 councillors and six mayors down to one mayor and 10 to 14 councillors. The odds of re-election get a lot worse.

But would taxpayers save money through efficiencies, cutting back on elected officials? Some, yes, but there's also the issue of equalizing the pay of unionized staff. You can either have a huge fight with your public sector unions, or you can set the rates at the level of the highest-paying municipality in the newly merged city. Non-union senior staff would also want salaries befitting their new roles.

The other argument against these kinds of mergers is that each city has its own character and history, which is true. But it's also true that our cities are so big that neighbourhoods are highly distinct. Do Whalley and South Surrey have the same needs? Fort ºÚÂí´ÅÁ¦ and Willoughby? Point Grey and Chinatown?

City boundaries are artificial – the goal is to draw them in a way that works for their citizens. That might mean amalgamations, but it's not a sure thing.