Why Political Rivals Become Partners at City Hall

Municipal dependence helps explain some unlikely political partnerships. Cooperation can deliver results, but residents should understand the bargain behind them.

By Saeed Vahid

Olivia Chow stands shoulder to shoulder with Doug Ford, whose praise for Toronto’s mayor is so warm that it sparks talk of an endorsement—until he denies it. Andrea Horwath, who challenged Ford across the floor at Queen’s Park, now works with his government as Hamilton’s mayor. Steven Del Duca, who led Ontario’s Liberals into an election against Ford, now champions provincial housing initiatives as Vaughan’s mayor. South of the border, President Donald Trump stands beside New York’s democratic socialist mayor, Zohran Mamdani, discussing cooperation on housing. Their political differences remain. So what brings them together once they reach City Hall?

There is something encouraging about that. Residents need homes, reliable infrastructure and functioning public services. They have good reason to expect their elected leaders to work together, including when they disagree. A partisan dispute does not repair a sewer or pay for a transit project.

But these partnerships also reveal something less comfortable about Canadian municipal government: mayors are responsible for problems they cannot always solve with the money and authority available to them.

Before we celebrate the cooperation, we need to understand the dependence behind it.

Local responsibility within provincial limits

Municipalities are often described as “creatures of the province.” The expression sounds dismissive, but it describes a real constitutional relationship. Section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 assigns municipal institutions to provincial jurisdiction. Ontario establishes the legal frameworks within which its municipalities operate, and can change those frameworks.

That relationship is different from the one between the federal and provincial governments. A mayor has a democratic mandate from local voters, but that mandate does not give the municipality independent constitutional standing equivalent to a province.

“Mayors are responsible for problems they cannot always solve with the money and authority available to them.”

The financial limitations matter just as much. Cities collect property taxes, charge fees and use other revenue tools permitted by provincial law. They do not have general freedom to introduce their own income or sales taxes. Even Toronto, with broader taxation powers than many Ontario municipalities, faces explicit restrictions on those sources.

Meanwhile, local governments must fund services and care for infrastructure whose costs extend well beyond a four-year council term. Richmond Hill itself identifies an infrastructure funding gap: the difference between the money needed to keep assets in good repair and the funding available.

This leaves local leaders seeking provincial and federal support for important projects. Applying for funding, negotiating its conditions and maintaining access to decision-makers become part of the job.

The province can exercise authority through legislation. Both provincial and federal governments can exercise influence through the conditions attached to their funding. Those are different mechanisms, but both can narrow a city’s practical choices.

Development charges make the bargain visible

Development charges provide a concrete example. They help municipalities recover eligible capital costs associated with growth, such as infrastructure needed to serve new development. They are not an unrestricted pot of money for everyday spending.

Reducing those charges can lower an upfront cost of building housing. That is a legitimate policy objective. But the infrastructure still has to be paid for, and the municipality must assess what replaces the forgone revenue.

The current Canada–Ontario Development Charge Reduction Program makes that exchange explicit. It offers infrastructure funding, with priority for municipalities reducing residential development charges by 30 to 50 per cent or more and maintaining those reductions for at least three years.

Vaughan has been allocated up to $697.2 million alongside a commitment to reduce residential development charges by 50 per cent for three years. Hamilton has been allocated $572 million alongside its commitment to eliminate residential development charges over the same period. These are substantial funding commitments, rather than simply assurances that future growth will pay the bills.

They are also examples of local financial decisions being linked to another government’s policy priorities.

“A mayor may secure valuable support while accepting a condition the community would not otherwise choose.”

Our concern should be whether each agreement leaves the municipality adequately funded, and whether the eligible projects and funding schedule match its needs. How much revenue is forgone? Which costs will the agreement cover? What remains for local taxpayers and ratepayers? What happens when the agreement ends?

A city may reasonably conclude that the deal is worthwhile. But it should be able to explain that conclusion with more than a funding announcement.

More housing does not settle the financial question

New homes can expand the property-tax base. That does not, by itself, establish that growth improves municipal finances.

Additional homes also bring service demands and infrastructure obligations. The financial outcome depends on the type and location of development, the capacity already available, and the cost of operating, maintaining and eventually replacing the infrastructure that serves it.

Adding homes where existing infrastructure has capacity can produce a different financial result from extending roads and pipes into a new area. Those differences deserve attention when governments promote growth as the answer to municipal financial pressures.

From a Strong Towns perspective, the question extends beyond whether a project can be built today. Can the community afford to care for it over its full life?

A grant can help pay for construction while leaving future upkeep to the municipality. Likewise, cutting a development charge does not establish how much of the saving reaches a homebuyer, or how much additional construction follows. Those outcomes require evidence.

It is possible to support more housing and question the financial assumptions used to justify a particular funding arrangement. Indeed, understanding those assumptions helps cities support growth they can sustain.

Why rivals become partners

Against that background, the unexpected political partnerships become easier to understand.

Ford and Chow’s negotiations produced Toronto’s New Deal, including an agreement for the province to take responsibility for the Gardiner Expressway and Don Valley Parkway. Ford’s government has also worked with Del Duca and Horwath on the development-charge funding arrangements.

Their responsibilities now intersect. A premier pursuing housing targets needs municipalities to act. A mayor seeking infrastructure funding needs the province to engage. Cooperation can serve both governments and produce real benefits for residents.

A similar impulse can be seen in New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s September meeting with Donald Trump at Gracie Mansion, where housing and affordability were among the subjects discussed. The American legal and financial context differs from Canada’s, but the practical question is familiar: can leaders work together on a city’s needs while retaining their disagreements?

Residents should welcome useful cooperation. They should also be able to see its terms.

A mayor may secure valuable support while accepting a condition the community would not otherwise choose. Public friendliness does not tell us whether that happened. The agreement, its costs and its consequences do.

Cooperation needs local accountability

The relationship with another government is only part of governing a city. A mayor also works with council, whose members may disagree about priorities, costs and acceptable compromises.

Council scrutiny helps test the bargain. Councillors need enough information to examine funding conditions, financial projections and long-term obligations. Residents need an understandable explanation of what the city gains and what it commits to in return.

There must also be room for a mayor to challenge a provincial decision without treating every disagreement as a breakdown in the relationship. Productive cooperation should leave space for local leaders to defend their community’s interests publicly.

As Richmond Hill heads into its municipal election, this is part of the governing reality worth discussing. Local leadership involves negotiating within constraints, building support at home and explaining difficult choices honestly.

We should expect our elected politicians to work together. We should also ask whether the financial and legal arrangements give local communities enough freedom to shape the results.

When political rivals announce a deal together, the question is what it means for the people who will live with it—and pay for it—long after the announcement.