The lead on the cityoforleans.ca website, “no taxation without representation!” is certainly reminiscent of the continental experience with George III and indeed leads to the insight that Orleaneans may feel less than well-served by that turn of the century amalgamation folly with the City of Ottawa. The long-story, short version, probably hinges on the notion that a lot more tax dollars are going downstream to the Rideau than are returned in services or development, and the rank of councillors representing Orleans who could impact that flow or vision at the municipal coliseum is too thin.

At a ratio of 3/21, is Orleans adequately represented, or is amalgamation simply another example of conquering by division?

Perhaps use of the term amalgamation is too kind. The typical definition, to unite to form a single entity, was no doubt advertised with positive tales of efficiency and tax savings so profound that, when stretched end to end, would reach the outskirts of Kamloops.  My guess is that efficiencies and implied taxable kickbacks barely make it to the Queensway and no out-of-pocket savings were ever realized on the eastern front.

Combine the above two paragraphs and some citizens might tend to the tea in the harbor option.

There are a host of terms that can be employed, perhaps more accurately than amalgamate, to describe the behavior of a static or declining city state that needs new blood in the least and more dollars in the best outcome. There is annex, or take, join or incorporate as a subsidiary. Or what about Ottawaization, or become like us and wave OC Transpo transfers that are good for a hundred miles. Or, we can skip over the romance verbs/nouns for adventure and empire and go straight for the Huns’ views of municipal management; lebensraum und anschluss we’ve read about. How about a vulgar variation: taxensraum?

What are we saying here: de-amalgamate, dis-annex, re-Orleanize?  George should understand (the second time around.)

T.J. Snodgrass