This article is part of a series by Christopher Balkaran on ways to approach and engage with the municipal election campaign.
“Revendiquer avec classe!”
Make your demands with class. That was a French shopkeeper’s appeal to protesters. This phrase raises a useful question: how do we turn frustration into change?
And, there is something compelling in that appeal. Raising a concern takes conviction, but to sustain it requires more. We have to explain what is happening, who is affected, and what we want to happen next.
We also have to keep going when the first response is silence.
This persistence can take many forms: letters to Councillors, a presentation to a committee, or even organized protest. Knowing how to use the structures of engagement – and also, how to note the challenges in doing so – is participating in democracy – avec classe.
Across Ontario, residents have now chosen the municipal leaders who will make decisions about housing, transit, parks, public safety, and the affordability of daily life. Voting, however, does not end civic engagement; rather, it marks a new chapter in the type of engagement for citizens: holding those elected to account for the mandate they will govern with.
So, how exactly can one resident raise a concern in a way that elected officials and public servants can understand, assess, and act upon?
With municipal issues, residents are often closest to the consequences of these decisions. Citizens feel potholes, missed garbage collection, snow removal, and the general cleanliness and beautification of the city itself. The question becomes how to turn that experience into influence.
Write to your councillor, but make the letter count
It’s easy to think a single email may seem insignificant, but a well-constructed letter that draws on the mandate and objectives of a political platform, and demonstrates how consequences are being created that were unintended, has a better chance of getting an elected official’s attention.
In the coming weeks and months, official plans, policies and strategies will be unveiled and posted online. Look at the words being used and the perspective the municipality is taking to describe goals. This becomes foundational to a well-constructed letter: once the email communicates in a language the officials can understand, it will resonate more.
Next, compare these to the issue to be raised. Perhaps you may not like the direction and the approach. Grounding this in an actual example you can point to will be so important.
Consider the contrast between these two approaches:
Councillor,
Yesterday, while crossing Road A at Road B, I had to step back onto the curb because a turning driver did not stop. I use this intersection to get to the bus and I’m worried I’ll be hit. Why is nothing being done about this dangerous crossing?
Signed,
Or consider this approach:
Councillor,
Congratulations on your (re)election. I understand safety is central to your government’s mandate. With that in mind, yesterday, while crossing Road A at Road B, I had to step back onto the curb because a turning driver did not stop. I use this intersection to reach the bus and I will now leave earlier so I can walk to another crossing.
Could your office ask Transportation Services to investigate conditions at this intersection, including whether changes to turning movements, visibility, or crossing time would improve pedestrian safety? I can provide the time and location of the incident and describe what I observed.
Please let me know whether this location has already been reviewed, what the next step would be and when I should follow up. Thank you and congratulations again – I look forward to working with you and your office.
Signed,
The second letter keeps the personal consequence and adds a clear request. It identifies the location, describes what happened, and asks for an investigation that could lead to a decision.
Proposing a next step can be a simple ask of City staff to examine a problem, explain an earlier decision, or assess possible changes. If a Councillor campaigned on safer streets, referring to that commitment can also connect the request to a promise residents expect them to pursue.
This is the nitty-gritty of democracy: asking questions, organizing with neighbours, and following an issue from a campaign promise to a council decision and then checking what actually changes on your street. When the concern is a dangerous intersection, it is quite literally where the rubber meets the road.
A letter may receive no useful answer, and this is where following through matters. Ask whether there is an existing study or proposal, who is responsible for the next decision, and when residents can contribute.
Speak with neighbours and local organizations to learn whether others encounter the same problem. Gather specific observations and distinguish what you witnessed from what you suspect. A shared concern may also warrant approaching local media with documented experiences.
When a relevant item reaches a City committee, residents can submit written comments or register to speak. Toronto’s participation guide explains how to contribute to an agenda item. After the meeting, read the decision: did members request more information, approve a change, provide funding, or defer action? Each outcome gives residents a different next step.
The CaféTO Example
Toronto’s recent CaféTO debate offers an excellent case study of this dynamic in action. When the temporary pandemic-era outdoor dining program was transitioning into a permanent fixture on city streets, restaurants and business improvement areas were concerned with the proposed fee structures and implementation requirements, which risked undermining the very program that had revitalized their neighbourhoods as part of the post-pandemic recovery.
Stakeholders, in addition to writing letters to Councillors, gathered data, presented evidence, appeared directly before the Executive Committee, and proposed tangible regulatory adjustments. Because they engaged within the system’s mechanisms, City Council subsequently adopted the permanent CaféTO program with several crucial amendments.
Think about it this way: if a colleague brought you a complaint without explaining what should happen next, you’d struggle to help them. But if they pointed out the problem, acknowledged the constraints, and proposed a workable solution, you would be more inclined to try working with them and praise their efforts.
Help the office understand the trade-off, the people affected, and the action you believe should follow.
This is not to say that if you write an articulate letter, your ideas and feedback will be taken into account and changed right away. Depending on the issue and the volume of emails being received, it’s very possible for your engagement to get lost. However, give yourself the best shot to have your concerns received with warmth and concern. And if you do not receive a response, consider the letter a starting point for a deeper conversation: follow up, ask detailed questions, and continue looking for ways to bring attention to the issue.
Perhaps that’s what the French shopkeeper meant by advocating “avec classe”: having the discipline to turn our frustrations into strategic, organized action.
And maybe, that’s the best form of democracy we can undertake.
Christopher Balkaran is a Toronto-based policy professional and host of the Open Minds Podcast, where he explores public policy, civic life, and the questions shaping Canadian society.
