By Emily Stonehouse

It’s a dreaded term for many. Councillors and township staff shudder at the thought.

The almighty ‘A’ word.

The one that shall not be named.

But for the sake of this editorial, let’s dive in.

‘Amalgamation’.

Yes, we’ve all said it out loud before. Maybe not in places of power or in public spotlights, but quietly, at dinner parties. Maybe after some liquid courage.

“Don’t you think it would be easier if they just…worked together?”

“Don’t say it!” someone would quip across the room; feta cheese appetizer poised in their fingers. “Never utter that ‘A’ word!”

If there’s one word that’s had circles talked around it for years on end, it’s ‘amalgamation’. Some people are sick of hearing about it. Others refuse to open their eyes to it, unwilling to fight that uphill battle.

It’s complicated. Messy. Stirs up emotions. Causes riffs. Turns friends into enemies, lovers into strangers.

But as I read this week about the premise of transportation across the county, the ‘A’ word cropped into my mind. Each individual mayor had concerns about the cost of the project. And naturally so. These mayors are elected to put their communities on the forefront. Top of mind, at all times.

And I agree. One municipality should not be paying into a project that will largely only benefit the neighboring municipalities. As a taxpayer, I do care where my dollars go.

But, as perhaps an unpopular opinion, what if we all care for the greater good? Public transportation seems to be the hitch in no end of failed plans. It’s the missing puzzle piece for accessible housing, for efficient staffing, for filling in a wealth of flailing gaps our community continues to fall into.

Perhaps the immediate solution is not a blanketed amalgamation of communities. Because trust me, I recognize the complications of overlapping responsibilities.

If I can once again use the phrase that makes me cringe every time I hear it: this is the way it’s always been done.