When Government's plans to reform the Corporations were first announced, the stated intention was to effect electoral reform and to make Government more efficient and streamlined. "It is simply impractical and unwieldy in 2009 in such a small jurisdiction to have competing arms of government," Walter Roban, who was then the Minister responsible for the municipalities, said last June. "Electoral reform has not been effected in a manner that gives comfort to those of us who value the franchise."

An exhaustive study had been carried out, he added, and the best course forward was for the Corporations to be abolished and for their functions to be moved to the appropriate department, he said last June. One year has passed, and Government's reforms of the municipalities are set to be debated in the House of Assembly tomorrow.

The Corporations will not now be abolished, but Hamilton's ability to levy taxes has been restricted and it will now pay land tax to the Government. In the meantime, it will be expected to provide the same services it does now. At the same time, the old property vote on which the Corporation was previously elected will be abolished and will be replaced with a universal adult franchise based on registered parliamentary voters who live within the boundaries of Hamilton and St. George's.

With regard to taxation, this might well be seen as a compromise, but the end result is more a slow decline in Hamilton's autonomy as opposed to instant death. It is inevitable that over time, it will be forced to turn to Government for aid (as St. George's already has), if it is to continue to offer the services that it does now.

That is the only rationale for the removal of the Corporation's right to collect wharfage and the land tax provision, because, aside from Government's own need to balance its budget, nothing else makes sense. Government is not taking over any of the services now offered by Hamilton and it is not offering any new services either in return for its $7.7 million windfall. It is simply reducing Hamilton's financial independence, and therefore, its autonomy. And the implicit threat in this is that bad behaviour on the part of the Corporation will result in the removal of more of its financial wherewithal.

Of course, in the 21st Century, it is difficult to argue against a vote based purely on residence and voting eligibility. A property vote seems archaic and oligarchic. Of course, it can and no doubt will be argued that the legislation will mean that the vast majority of the people who pay most of the taxes in Hamilton – the landowners and business owners – will now have no representation or say in how they should be taxed or on how their tax money will be spent.

And it could also be argued that those same people, stripped of a say in the Corporation, will have less stake in the future success of Hamilton. Over time, there may be less reason to invest in Hamilton and the movement outside of the city limits (already effected by the wealthiest commercial users of the city, the reinsurers) is likely to accelerate. Regardless of the validity of those arguments, the greater concern to the beneficiaries of the new franchise and those they elect will be that this Bill, if passed, will show who really controls Hamilton.

Future Corporations will get the worst of all worlds – accountability for services over which they do not have accountability because their revenue-raising ability has been stripped from them. In time, the Corporations, if they survive will be empty vessels, wheeled out for ceremonial occasions and no more. But in terms of effectiveness, they will be about as much use as parish councils, for whom and to whom the Government once promised to hold elections and to give more responsibility; a promise that has never been fulfilled. Instead of forcing this bill down people's throats, Parliament should delay its enactment and have a real debate, both with the Corporations and with the broader community on the meaning and importance of local government. That would be real democracy.