When public money builds something, the general public should be able to benefit from it.
When public money builds something, the general public should be able to benefit from it.
Many people I’ve spoken with are not angry that the City spends money. They are frustrated by its priorities—and by projects paid for with public money that still feel out of reach for many residents.
For example, the turf facility may be a worthwhile project. It can support recreation and sports, attract visitors, and generate economic activity. But if taxpayers help build and maintain it, and many residents cannot afford to use it, we should be honest about who benefits and who is being left behind.
Not every public facility can be free. Fees may be needed to cover some operating costs. But affordability, accessibility, transportation, and public access should be considered when a project is designed—not after the building opens.
Before supporting major spending, I will ask:
What problem are we solving?
Who will benefit?
What are potential access barriers?
Could another option benefit more people?
What are we choosing not to fund?
What will it cost to operate, maintain, repair, and eventually replace?
Provincial or federal funding can be valuable, but a grant deadline should not set our priorities. Before chasing available money, Council should ask whether the project would still be important without the grant, what local contribution is required, what other work may be delayed, and what costs the City will inherit afterward.
“Spend now or lose the funding” is not, by itself, a good enough reason to commit taxpayers to decades of expenses.
Every new project should be added to the City’s Asset Management Plan when it is approved. Its expected construction, operating, maintenance, replacement, and disposal costs—and its public benefits—should be reviewed and updated throughout its life.
I cannot promise the outcome of every Council vote. I can promise to ask who benefits, who pays, who is left behind, and whether the commitment will make life better for the people who live here.
Read full update
When public money builds something, the general public should be able to benefit from it.
Many people I’ve spoken with are not angry that the City spends money. They are frustrated by its priorities—and by projects paid for with public money that still feel out of reach for many residents.
For example, the turf facility may be a worthwhile project. It can support recreation and sports, attract visitors, and generate economic activity. But if taxpayers help build and maintain it, and many residents cannot afford to use it, we should be honest about who benefits and who is being left behind.
Not every public facility can be free. Fees may be needed to cover some operating costs. But affordability, accessibility, transportation, and public access should be considered when a project is designed—not after the building opens.
Before supporting major spending, I will ask:
What problem are we solving?
Who will benefit?
What are potential access barriers?
Could another option benefit more people?
What are we choosing not to fund?
What will it cost to operate, maintain, repair, and eventually replace?
Provincial or federal funding can be valuable, but a grant deadline should not set our priorities. Before chasing available money, Council should ask whether the project would still be important without the grant, what local contribution is required, what other work may be delayed, and what costs the City will inherit afterward.
“Spend now or lose the funding” is not, by itself, a good enough reason to commit taxpayers to decades of expenses.
Every new project should be added to the City’s Asset Management Plan when it is approved. Its expected construction, operating, maintenance, replacement, and disposal costs—and its public benefits—should be reviewed and updated throughout its life.
I cannot promise the outcome of every Council vote. I can promise to ask who benefits, who pays, who is left behind, and whether the commitment will make life better for the people who live here.
Over the past few weeks, I’ve asked several Certified Young People—thank you, Stephen Colbert—what might get them interested in voting.
Over the past few weeks, I’ve asked several Certified Young People—thank you, Stephen Colbert—what might get them interested in voting.
Every single one gave me the same answer: fix city transit.
Hardly a scientific survey, but it made me pay attention.
I don’t regularly take the bus, so I tried planning some everyday trips without my car. My trip to City Hall takes about 16 minutes driving a car. The transit options I found took between an hour and 13 minutes and an hour and a half, assuming I made every connection and the buses actually arrived.
That’s a substantial difference. And when a bus doesn’t arrive as expected, the consequences can be more than an inconvenience: a missed appointment, a late arrival at work, or a long wait outside in winter.
In March, Transit administration expected to have 79 available operators, but needed 84 for the regular summer schedule. It proposed temporarily running some buses less often to help deliver 99% of the published schedule. Without that change, administration warned that delivery could fall to 92%.
Council rejected the proposal 7–4, leaving riders with the increasingly poor status quo while proposing no alternatives at all.
There were fair concerns: longer waits would hurt riders, and reducing service would not fix the staffing problem. Several councillors asked administration and the union to find another way.
But frustration is not an operating plan.
I would have supported a temporary move toward a schedule Transit could reliably deliver, with clear reporting and a plan to restore frequency. Before extending it, I would want to hear whether riders were actually better served.
We also need to understand what is affecting operators’ working conditions, attendance, and retention. Riders and drivers both deserve a workable plan.
I won’t pretend to know more about Transit than the people who use and operate it. I will listen, ask direct questions, make decisions based on the evidence, and be willing to change course if the results fall short.
Transit needs more than promises to do better. It needs a schedule people can depend on.
Read full update
Over the past few weeks, I’ve asked several Certified Young People—thank you, Stephen Colbert—what might get them interested in voting.
Every single one gave me the same answer: fix city transit.
Hardly a scientific survey, but it made me pay attention.
I don’t regularly take the bus, so I tried planning some everyday trips without my car. My trip to City Hall takes about 16 minutes driving a car. The transit options I found took between an hour and 13 minutes and an hour and a half, assuming I made every connection and the buses actually arrived.
That’s a substantial difference. And when a bus doesn’t arrive as expected, the consequences can be more than an inconvenience: a missed appointment, a late arrival at work, or a long wait outside in winter.
In March, Transit administration expected to have 79 available operators, but needed 84 for the regular summer schedule. It proposed temporarily running some buses less often to help deliver 99% of the published schedule. Without that change, administration warned that delivery could fall to 92%.
Council rejected the proposal 7–4, leaving riders with the increasingly poor status quo while proposing no alternatives at all.
There were fair concerns: longer waits would hurt riders, and reducing service would not fix the staffing problem. Several councillors asked administration and the union to find another way.
But frustration is not an operating plan.
I would have supported a temporary move toward a schedule Transit could reliably deliver, with clear reporting and a plan to restore frequency. Before extending it, I would want to hear whether riders were actually better served.
We also need to understand what is affecting operators’ working conditions, attendance, and retention. Riders and drivers both deserve a workable plan.
I won’t pretend to know more about Transit than the people who use and operate it. I will listen, ask direct questions, make decisions based on the evidence, and be willing to change course if the results fall short.
Transit needs more than promises to do better. It needs a schedule people can depend on.
I believe engagement and discussion on complex issues is vital, and I also believe that we need to shine a light on the truly positive aspec
I believe engagement and discussion on complex issues is vital, and I also believe that we need to shine a light on the truly positive aspects of our city.
For example: the decision to develop and maintain the off leash area at Centennial Park is brilliant.
The trails are kept clear, benches have been installed for those wanting to rest and watch their pup play with friends, canine and human alike. Plus the ready access to clean water (and, to be fair, a fairly sloppy bog where my dog loves to wallow - see the final photo for evidence).
Read full update
I believe engagement and discussion on complex issues is vital, and I also believe that we need to shine a light on the truly positive aspects of our city.
For example: the decision to develop and maintain the off leash area at Centennial Park is brilliant.
The trails are kept clear, benches have been installed for those wanting to rest and watch their pup play with friends, canine and human alike. Plus the ready access to clean water (and, to be fair, a fairly sloppy bog where my dog loves to wallow - see the final photo for evidence).