The London Chamber of Commerce sent every candidate the same questionnaire: twelve open-ended questions on the local economy and talent, the new Downtown Plan, the health and homelessness crisis, housing supply and affordability, cultural infrastructure, transportation, business regulation, the ReconciliAction Plan, growth infrastructure funding and property taxes, the Climate Emergency Action Plan, strong-mayor powers, and the role of arts and creative industries.
Each question is quoted in full below, exactly as it was asked, followed by my full answer. Each one has its own link, so if there’s one you want to share, it’s easy to do.
All twelve questions, and my answers
What do you see as the principal opportunities and obstacles facing London’s economy over the next Council term? What should the City do to support business growth, job creation, entrepreneurship and investment, and how should it work with employers, Western University, Fanshawe College and others to attract and retain the talent London needs?
London’s biggest obstacle to growth is City Hall’s own cost and approval friction, not a lack of opportunity. I’d cut both: competitive tendering on City contracts, faster and cheaper permitting for every applicant (not a selective fast-track for one favoured category), and a hard look at any fee or process that doesn’t clear a real public-interest test.
On talent, the City already funds London Economic Development Corporation’s work connecting Western and Fanshawe students directly to local employers, including the Innovation Park land given to both institutions for applied research; I’d measure that partnership by placements and retained graduates, and expand what’s already working rather than launch something new.
Business growth follows tax and regulatory restraint. It doesn’t need a new municipal incentive fund.
London now has a new Downtown Plan. Which elements would you prioritize and what results should Londoners expect to see during the next Council term? Please address the downtown business environment, public spaces, housing and office conversions, cultural and civic destinations, safety, transportation and implementation accountability.
Council endorsed a 58-action, 10-year plan called Downtown Reimagined in June 2026, built around four priorities: a river district, better public spaces, building on the UNESCO City of Music designation, and a proposed downtown coordinating authority, sometimes called a Downtown Revitalization Authority.
I’d prioritize two things this term: the public-space upgrades, since that work can start without a new funding structure, and downtown safety, since feeling uneasy or unsafe, along with traffic and parking, is the most common reason I hear for avoiding downtown. Public drug use is already illegal. Residents expect police to actually enforce that, rather than let years of informal tolerance stand in for policy. Enforcement standards don’t change block by block, but the evidence right now points to downtown needing strict enforcement, officers responding to public drug use the way they would any other offence, and every public space staying open and usable for everyone.
The proposed authority is where caution is warranted: Council endorsed only the concept; mandate, budget, and funding model are still undefined, and I won’t support creating or funding it until the scope and a hard budget cap are made public. Housing and office conversions downtown make sense; that’s exactly where the London Plan already allows the height and density this city needs, so long as projects stay inside those designated limits rather than becoming the excuse for one-off exceptions elsewhere in the city.
Changes to downtown parking, curb space, and transit access get judged like any project anywhere: proven effect on how people actually get around, not just what a plan assumes.
London faces an urgent health and homelessness crisis. Residents, employees and businesses also have concerns about violence, property crime, public disorder and confidence in public spaces. These conditions require related but distinct responses. What actions would you support in each area, and what responsibilities should fall to the City, police, the health system, other orders of government and community partners?
Public disorder and property crime call for enforcement. Public drug use is already illegal; residents expect police to actually enforce that, rather than let years of informal tolerance stand in for policy. Every park and public space should stay open and usable for every Londoner, so encampments get cleared rather than tolerated indefinitely.
London already spends roughly $16 million a year on homelessness and shelter, with tens of millions more from partners. Before adding to that, I want proof the current dollars are producing results, not just a bigger number to point to.
On addiction and health policy, the City has a role too: it holds three of eleven seats on Middlesex-London Health Unit’s Board of Health, and its zoning decided where London’s supervised consumption site could locate. I’d use that role to push dollars toward recovery and treatment that actually gets people off drugs, rather than facilities built around managing continued use. What the City doesn’t do, and shouldn’t try to duplicate, is deliver clinical treatment itself; that’s hospitals, CMHA, and the province.
What changes would you support to increase housing supply and affordability and create neighbourhoods with access to employment, services, transportation and public amenities?
The fastest way to add supply without a subsidy is to cut what City Hall charges and how long it takes.
Price is set by both supply and demand. City Hall barely touches demand: population growth, interest rates, and investment flows are out of the realm of council, but the City has a big effect on how much gets built and how fast. That’s where affordability actually gets decided. A City-mandated rent cap does the opposite of what it promises: it shrinks the rental supply landlords are willing to add, making the shortage worse. But every dollar and month City Hall cuts from the cost of building is a dollar that doesn’t get passed through to the renter or buyer.
Growth belongs where the London Plan already designates density: downtown, transit villages, and corridors, rather than retrofitted into established single-family neighbourhoods through the one-off exceptions Council keeps granting against its own secondary plans.
Complete neighbourhoods need the roads, water, wastewater, and transit capacity in place before approval, paid for by the growth creating the need rather than by existing taxpayers.
London’s cultural facilities, venues and public spaces are essential to the life of the city, and several face age, capacity or funding pressures. What cultural infrastructure should be prioritised during the next Council term, and how should the City decide where to invest?
London’s public facilities exist to serve everyone. The City should provide and maintain general-use public spaces and facilities, as economically as possible, for all Londoners. It’s up to Londoners themselves to decide how they’re used. City Hall’s job is upkeep and access, rather than dictating programming or favouring one culture, group, or interest over another.
Where several facilities already show age, capacity, or funding pressure, the priority is maintaining what the city already owns before committing to anything new. Investment decisions should follow documented need and usage inside the existing budget.
Council should decide these priorities using the City’s own asset-condition data and actual usage numbers rather than the volume of advocacy behind any one project.
London’s economic success depends on reliable local, regional, national and international connections. How would you improve local transit and service to major employment areas and shift workers, intercity bus and air links, and passenger rail? What should businesses and employees be able to expect in terms of frequency, reliability and access?
I opposed BRT in 2018 and would have built this differently, but it’s underway now, and my focus from here is finishing it without further cost or schedule blowouts, and making sure it doesn’t come at the expense of arterial capacity for the drivers who still make up most commutes. BRT already covers the corridor a light-rail or in-city passenger line would serve, so I don’t support building one. For shift workers and employment areas, service should follow where the jobs and shifts actually are, route by route against ridership.
Intercity connections are already working reasonably well: YXU’s Air Canada and WestJet routes, and VIA’s Toronto-London corridor running about five trips a day each way. The City’s role there is advocacy for keeping and growing that service, rather than new municipal spending.
What changes would you make to municipal approvals, regulation, procurement and customer service to make it easier to invest, build and operate a business in London?
City Hall keeps adding rules and fees and almost never takes any away, and I can’t repeal that pile alone. What I can do is run every regulation that comes to council through one framework: does it prevent specific harm, are the costs worth it, would it survive a four-year defence, and does the regulatory environment net grow or shrink?
I support a one-in-two-out rule so old rules retire as new ones are added, safety and accessibility codes excluded, and compiling and publishing an inventory of every business regulation, its cost, and what it actually enforces.
On approvals and customer service, businesses deserve to know how long a decision will take and who’s accountable for it. I’d push for published turnaround standards and a single point of contact per application. That’s the transparency I already want applied to every regulation. Procurement should be competitive by default; that saves taxpayers money and gives London businesses a fair shot at contracts they may not even know are available.
London City Council approved the 2025-2035 ReconciliAction Plan in May 2025, committing the City to 155 actions over ten years. What should the next Council do to translate these commitments into a clear, properly resourced implementation plan developed with Indigenous partners? How would you advance reconciliation through economic development, procurement, planning, cultural investment and municipal services?
Every City program gets judged by a single test in my book: does it serve every Londoner equally, does the benefit justify the cost, and does it actually work. That’s the test I’d apply to the ReconciliAction Plan’s 155 actions.
Procurement should be competitive by default, which is the standard I hold every City contract to: open bidding, best value, openly available to all who are qualified.
On planning and municipal services, every Londoner deserves an equally efficient process and equally good service. Cultural investment should follow the rule I’d apply to any public facility or program: the City funds general-use spaces and programs as economically as possible for all Londoners, and Londoners decide how they’re used, rather than City Hall picking who gets priority.
The real gap is accountability. The Plan’s own next-steps section admits an implementation strategy with actual metrics and timelines is still being developed, reviewed only once every two years. A ten-year, 155-action commitment without real metrics is just a longer speech. That’s the piece I’d push the next Council to finish first.
London’s growth depends on roads, transit, water and wastewater systems, emergency services and community facilities. How would you determine which investments proceed first, pay for growth fairly and maintain competitive property taxes?
Growth should pay for growth: a subdivision developer covers the roads, water, and servicing capacity a project requires before it’s approved, rather than residents living with the shortfall afterward. Existing taxpayers shouldn’t backstop growth they didn’t ask for.
On sequencing, I’d prioritize water, wastewater, and emergency services capacity already falling behind population growth over new discretionary projects.
Property taxes stay competitive by controlling spending, and I have a specific mechanism for it: my PACT (Pay Accountable to City Taxpayers) bylaw ties councillor and mayoral pay directly to the tax levy, so every point council raises taxes becomes a permanent cut to their own pay. Council just voted itself a next-term raise almost 40% above what they were paid the day they voted for it, while property taxes rose more than 25% over the same multi-year budget. PACT raises the stakes for a council that would burden taxpayers with even higher rates.
London City Council approved the Climate Emergency Action Plan in 2022. The Plan calls for a 55 per cent reduction in community-wide greenhouse-gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2030. Which elements of the Plan would you prioritise, accelerate or change during the next Council term? How would you ensure that climate action strengthens resilience, affordability and economic competitiveness for residents and businesses?
I’d start by dropping the emergency framing itself. Naming a crisis doesn’t change the physics, and it lets spending skip the cost-benefit test every other budget item has to pass. London’s own numbers make that case: the City reports 94% of the plan’s 200 climate actions on track or complete, while community-wide emissions are 22% below 2005 levels, against a target of 55% by 2030. A deadline is driving the activity, but the results aren’t following.
What I’d prioritize and change is this: judge every dollar by what it actually reduces and at what cost, rather than bleed the city dry in the name of an emergency. The Climate Change Reserve Fund’s contributions were already cut from $1 million to $192,000 a year, and most of what it’s collected still sits unallocated. Money should be allocated where it can return the greatest benefit to Londoners, and I’d hold any other City program to that exact bar. The City’s own modelling promises billions in returns from a 25-year investment plan that doesn’t break even until the mid-2030s, but that’s a projection, and I’d treat it as one until it shows up in real numbers.
Real resilience and affordability come from a strong, well-run local economy: infrastructure kept in good repair, water and stormwater systems sized properly, and emergency response funded before it’s needed. Competitiveness means running a city employers can build in, with climate spending measured by results rather than symbolism.
Ontario’s strong-mayor legislation gives the Mayor of London enhanced authority in areas including the municipal budget, senior administration and matters connected to provincial priorities. If you are a candidate for Mayor: How would you use these powers, when would you choose not to use them, and what standards of transparency and accountability would you apply? If you are a candidate for Council: How should Council respond when strong-mayor powers are exercised, and how would you use your role as a councillor to provide effective scrutiny and accountability?
A mayoral override belongs to genuine emergencies.
When a mayor actually uses an override, council’s job is to make it cost something politically. The Act already requires the mayor’s written reasons be made public; council should hold a real, open debate on that record before it’s forgotten, and use the two-thirds override itself where the case for it holds up.
My own standard as a councillor doesn’t change based on what the mayor could do. Every vote I cast needs to stand on its own merits, and if council’s actual policy judgment ever got overridden, I’d say so publicly the moment it happened. Then it will fall to the voters to determine the consequences.
What role should arts, culture and the creative industries play in London’s economic and community development? How should the City support cultural organisations, artists, venues, festivals and creative businesses while ensuring that municipal investment produces lasting public value?
While arts, culture, and creative industries can add economic and civic value to London, that value ranks below essential services when taxpayer dollars are on the line. Roads, water, police, and fire come first.
The City can promote London’s arts scene without funding it directly. Marketing and cutting the red tape around venues and events cost taxpayers far less than grants, and private and philanthropic support grows the sector better than a Council vote does. If it’s not actually garnering voluntary support from private individuals, does it really warrant forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab?
London already runs the London Arts Council’s Community Arts Investment Program, about $800,000 a year, plus heritage and tourism-tax-funded culture spending. I’m not planning to cut what exists, but if London’s budget ever forces real tradeoffs, arts funding is exactly the kind of spending that gets reduced before essential services do.
That is every question, in the order they were asked. If you can help me sharpen my positions, please get in touch!