Where I stand on property taxes and the City budget
Here is every answer I've given on the record about property taxes and the City budget, word for word, from candidate questionnaires and my replies to residents.
Don't see your question? Search below, or ask me directly and I'll answer it on the record.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
Each term, London city council approves a 4-year multi-year budget. This past council approved a record setting 23.5% increase. This means that if a resident was paying $4000 in taxes in 2023, they will be paying just under $5000 today. Do you think that this was an appropriate level of tax increase and what level of levy increase do you think is appropriate over the course of this next 4-year term of council?
No. A multi-year tax levy increase of this scale is not something residents should be expected to accept. By the City's own numbers, this multi-year budget works out to a cumulative increase of around 25 percent on your tax bill, 8.7 percent in 2024 alone. And to add insult to injury, council voted itself a raise of almost 40 percent for the next term at the same time.
To make up for this egregious abuse of taxpayers, I won't support any levy hike that will increase an individual's tax bill over the next 4 years. On top of that, I've drafted a proposed Pay Accountable to City Taxpayers bylaw that would tie council's pay to the City's portion of Londoners' tax bill; for every percentage point it rises above inflation, council pay goes down by the same percentage. If leadership expects Londoners to sacrifice more, they can lead by example. I've invited every candidate city-wide to read and either support, oppose, or propose amendments to PACT, and it's all open source and tracked on ward9.online and GitHub.
Aside from that, growth from new homes should pay for growth. It shouldn't be an excuse to raise the rate on the people already here.
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
Londoners have been hit with repeated property tax increases that far outpace inflation — a compounded tax levy increase of roughly 26% over four years — driven by overspending and frivolous spending on non-essential items. Council has shown it will not discipline itself without a hard rule.
Will you support a binding policy that any property tax increase above the rate of inflation requires a public referendum, and what specific spending lines would you cut first to stay under that ceiling?
I would, but my own standard already goes further: I won't support any property tax increase during my term, for any reason, not just increases above inflation.
I've also drafted the Pay Accountable to City Taxpayers bylaw, which permanently cuts council pay for any levy increase at all through this whole coming term, then only for increases above inflation after that.
On specific spending cuts, the Climate Change Reserve Fund already has about $967,000 sitting unallocated, so I'd reject any push to restore its contributions to the old $1 million a year until that backlog clears. The Community Arts Investment Program, about $800,000 a year, ranks below essential services like roads, water, and safety, and it's the kind of discretionary spending that goes first if push comes to shove.
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
Would you prioritize any municipal needs over reducing or limiting increases in municipal property taxes?
Yes, for genuine needs. No, for luxuries.
If a real need comes up, I'd rather find it inside the existing budget by cutting lower-priority spending than reach for a tax increase. I won't vote for a property tax increase, for any reason.
London's problem is how the money already collected gets spent, not how much more we could collect.
London Chamber of Commerce questionnaire
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.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should try to keep property taxes low, even if it means fewer services for residents.
Somewhat agree. Low taxes and good services don't have to sit on opposite ends of a seesaw. London's own budget shows an 8.7% property tax levy increase in a single year, while residents haven't seen services keep pace. The money isn't the problem. City Hall's use of our tax dollars is. I want accountability and efficiency looked at first, cutting frivolities and ensuring our dollars are paying for things Londoners actually need, before anyone is told the only choice is higher taxes or fewer services. Keep taxes low by spending smarter, not by cutting what residents rely on.
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
Is keeping property taxes low a priority for you?
Yes. London has a spending problem, not a revenue problem, and every tax dollar taken is a dollar out of a family's or small business's pocket.
I won't vote for any property tax increase, for any reason during my term.
Growth should pay for growth: new development should cover the roads, water, and sewer capacity it demands, so existing taxpayers aren't subsidizing someone else's expansion.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should spend more on social housing, even if it means tax increases or cuts to other services.
Strongly disagree. Social housing matters, and the city already puts meaningful money toward it. But this question ties new spending directly to higher taxes or cuts to other core services, and that's not a trade worth making automatically. Before committing to more, the existing budget needs to be spent effectively; results matter more than the size of the number. Raising taxes or gutting other services to hit an arbitrary spending target isn't good governance. Make the current dollars work harder first.
London Emergency Services Campus candidate questionnaire
What financing approach would you support across the police and fire project accounts, including debt, reserves, development charges, and other contributions? Would you require a consolidated financing plan before further approvals? Please identify any limits or conditions you would seek to protect municipal finances, distinguishing adopted financing from forecasts and actual receipts.
Business Case P-57 financed all $204.7 million of its additional capital with debt repaid from property taxes, and it booked $0 from reserves, development charges or other governments. That package also covers police headquarters work, and it carries $77.3 million in debt payments from 2028 to 2033, about $12.9 million a year.
The business case put its 2026 tax impact at 0.78 percent, or $30.98 on an average residential property. I won’t vote for a budget that raises property taxes during my term, so I’d require a consolidated financing plan across the police and fire project accounts before any further approvals, showing each source and separating adopted financing from forecasts and actual receipts. My conditions would be no new borrowing beyond what council has already authorized, and any provincial or federal money applied to the debt first.
Source: Business Case P-57, capital budget table and tax levy impact table
ACORN London Municipal Election Candidate Survey on Tenant Protections
If elected, what would be your single highest priority in your first year as Mayor / Ward Councillor?
Holding the line on property taxes. I'll vote no on any rate increase, and I'll bring the PACT bylaw forward so council's own pay drops whenever taxes outrun inflation. With their own pay on the line, a tax increase becomes a little less appealing.
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
Budgets used to be examined line by line, every year. The current model approves a multi-year budget that is difficult to amend, and the promised savings have not materialized — instead, Londoners have seen some of the largest tax increases in the city's history.
Will you vote to reinstate a full annual line-by-line review of the entire budget, rather than the current practice of approving a multi-year plan with only minor amendments?
Yes. A full line-by-line annual review is sorely needed.
While a multi-year budget has a real planning benefit for major capital projects and long-term commitments, approving one and then waving through minor amendments for years skips real oversight, and Londoners have still seen a cumulative tax increase of more than 25% over this multi-year budget.
I'd keep multi-year planning for the parts that actually need multi-year timelines, and require every line of the operating budget to go through genuine annual review and public disclosure again. If a line item can't be defended out loud every year, it shouldn't coast through on the multi-year plan's convenience.
London Emergency Services Campus candidate questionnaire
If Ontario contributes funding, what should it change: municipal borrowing, reserve use, other municipal contributions, project scope, timing, or property-tax requirements? What public accounting would you require to show how the contribution was applied and whether any claimed municipal savings occurred?
Provincial money should pay down borrowing first. P-57 finances its additional capital with debt carried on the property tax bill, so every provincial dollar that replaces a dollar of debt also removes years of interest on it.
I wouldn’t let a contribution expand the scope or pull later phases forward, and any change in scope should come back to council as its own decision with its own price. To show how a contribution was applied, I’d want staff to report it in the capital budget, naming the project account it went to, the debt it replaced and the change to the forecast tax levy.
A year later, council should get a check against actual results showing whether borrowing and the tax impact fell by the amount promised. If the savings don’t show up on your tax bill, you deserve to know why.
Source: Business Case P-57, capital budget table (debenture financing)
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should spend more money to provide shelter spaces for people experiencing homelessness.
Somewhat disagree. London already puts real money into this: the city alone contributes roughly $16 million a year toward homelessness response, part of a broader $46 million effort across all funding partners. That's a serious commitment, not an underfunded afterthought. The next dollar should go toward making that money work harder through effective, results-driven programs, not toward a bigger budget line. And whatever we do, it can't come with a tax increase.
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
Should the City advocate for additional powers from the Province, such as the authority to impose a vacant commercial property tax?
Yes, I'd support the City advocating for more power from the Province generally, including the authority to levy a vacant commercial property tax if council chose to. That's a question about which level of government should have the tool available, not whether I'd personally use it.
If it came to an actual vote on imposing that tax, I'd vote against it. I'm loath to create new taxes, period, and a vacant property tax is still a new tax. My approach to vacant buildings is the one I laid out above: cut the friction. Fast-tracked permits and pre-approved designs for adaptive reuse make it cheap and quick to fix up a vacant building, so owners have a real reason to act. That gets the result a tax is aiming for, without adding another bill for a property owner who's already struggling to fill the space.
Either way, I'd rather London hold the authority to make that call for itself than need permission from Toronto to even consider it.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
What is one thing the City currently spends money on that you believe should receive less funding, and where would you redirect that money?
I wouldn't name a program for a cut without first seeing its service results, legal obligations, and alternatives.
I would reduce funding for activities that can't show a clear public benefit or measurable outcome, beginning with discretionary initiatives rather than core safety, roads, water, transit, libraries, or emergency services.
Any redirected money should be aimed first at renewal of existing infrastructure, and relief from the tax levy for taxpayers. The principle is simple: fund necessities, measure discretionary spending, and stop paying for work that can't show what residents received. The difficult part is forcing the necessary transparency at City Hall to make the correct decisions, but I believe it can be done, with the right leadership.
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
While disabled persons must be provided for by taxpayers out of necessity, there is a real risk that increasing local taxation to access provincial and federal housing funding will turn London into a "magnet" for government housing — attracting demand from across the region, while the very taxation used to fund it forces people out of their homes and into the system they are paying for.
How will you help prevent a scenario where rising local taxation to fund social housing expansion turns London into a regional magnet for government housing — and drives working taxpayers out of their homes and into social housing?
I will help prevent rising local taxation through my commitment to oppose any property tax increase, for any reason, including to expand social housing funding, which blocks the exact mechanism this question is worried about.
Beyond that, the City already spends roughly $16 million a year on homelessness, part of about $46 million across all partners, and I want proof that those dollars are producing measured results before any of it grows, regardless of what the province or federal government offers to match.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
Residents expect reliable municipal services while facing increasing household costs. How would you balance maintaining services and infrastructure with keeping property-tax increases affordable? Are there areas where London should spend more, or spend less?
Start with the service level residents actually need, then fund it honestly over the asset's full life. Roads, bridges, water, sewers, fire, police, waste collection, and transit reliability deserve priority. New amenities and expansion should wait when the City cannot maintain what it already has without repeated tax pressure. Affordability isn't achieved by deferring maintenance until the bill is larger. It's achieved by prioritizing early, publishing the trade-offs, and refusing commitments without a durable funding plan.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should spend more to improve its public transit service, even if doing so leads to higher fares.
Somewhat agree. Fares are different from taxes. Riders choose to pay for a service they use, and that's a fair way to fund it. If keeping transit viable means adjusting fares, so be it. That's not the same as saying City Hall needs a bigger transit budget. Before committing to more spending, London needs to show current transit dollars are being used well. Fund transit through the people who ride it, not through higher taxes on everyone else, and only grow the budget when the case for it is actually made.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should rely more on fees for specific services rather than raising taxes to pay for them.
Somewhat agree. Essential services like roads, water, and safety belong on the tax base; that's what taxes are for. Fees make sense for optional extras like recreation programs, not core services everyone relies on. And even where a fee-for-service model would work, if a private business already does it well, City Hall shouldn't be running it at all. One line I won't cross: I will not support raising tax rates, full stop.
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
Organizations like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario lobby for agendas — climate mandates, density targets, and social policy — that local voters never asked for, while councils pay membership fees for the privilege of being lobbied.
How familiar are you with the programs pushed by the FCM and AMO, and how will you evaluate their cost/benefit — not just in city taxes, but in the provincial and federal tax dollars they also consume?
I know the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario as municipal associations. I haven't worked through every program either one promotes, and I'll be honest about that.
But I will judge the cost and benefit of what they ask of London.
FCM channels large federal climate and housing dollars through funds like the Green Municipal Fund, with project rules and often requiring London taxpayer funds.
AMO lobbies the province on housing supply, growth infrastructure, and homelessness spending, while warning that health and social costs get shifted onto property taxes.
If an agenda brings climate targets, density templates, or social-policy packages decided somewhere else, I will meet it with a heaping dose of skepticism and ask what it costs in city taxes and in provincial and federal dollars, what outcome it claims, and whether Londoners benefit from it.
Association pressure does not shape my decisions.
London Chamber of Commerce questionnaire
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.
London Decides 2026 questionnaire
Pick the issue you most want to be known for. Where do you feel torn on it, and what is the strongest argument against your own position?
Fiscal responsibility. No wasteful spending, full transparency on every dollar, and no tax hikes. What tears at me is saying no. A resident brings me something worth doing, and the math says the city can't afford it without raising taxes, and I still have to say no.
Here's the case against me. Refusing new revenue can mean deferring maintenance, and deferred infrastructure gets more expensive the longer a city waits. The same taxpayers pay for it eventually, just later, and for a bigger repair bill.
Prioritization is the fix. The full costing that I will be pushing for shows council the real cost of everything, so failing roads and pipes get funded first, and elective extras get delayed or cut.
TREA (Thames Region Ecological Association) environmental questionnaire
Circular Economy and Waste Reduction
London already has real programs working here: weekly Green Bin collection, four year-round EnviroDepots, and Blue Box recycling's shift to full producer responsibility, completed province-wide at the end of 2025. That shift puts the cost on the companies that make the packaging instead of on municipal budgets, although taxpayers are likely footing the bill one way or the other (either directly through municipal taxes or indirectly via passed-through costs on goods).
London's landfill, W12A, was expected to hit capacity in 2024. The City won approval to expand it, buying time to 2049, but every tonne of waste that gets reused or repaired instead of landfilled stretches that runway further. Diverting waste is fiscal prudence: landfill capacity is a finite, expensive asset, and W12A's expansion won't be the last one taxpayers pay for if the City doesn't also reduce what goes in.
London doesn't need any new bureaucracy. Any expansion in this area should come from volunteers, like with the London Repair Café, now hosted at library branches. And the city could lead by example by buying refurbished and repairable goods, and salvaging materials instead of demolishing in its own projects.
London and District Labour Council questionnaire
What do you consider to be the most important priorities for the City of London?
Two things come before everything else for me: Does council actually listen to the residents it represents, and is the City delivering real value for the tax dollars it already collects.
On the first, too many decisions get made by following a staff recommendation over resident opposition, then defended afterward as inevitable. I want a council that weighs a resident's objection when it reviews a file.
On the second, property taxes have gone up well above inflation three years running. I will not stand for them to increase any more under my watch. I want every dollar the City takes from a hard working Londoner justified against a measurable result: transit that runs where the riders actually are, roads that keep moving, core services delivered efficiently and on budget. Everything else I'm running on, from how the City handles growth to how it spends, comes back to those two questions.
Constituent concerns (ward9.online/concerns/)
Matt, I have a question. If I vote for you, what will you do to keep the home...?
As is my style, I'm not going to sugarcoat it: Any council candidate who claims to have a plan to end homelessness isn’t being honest with you. A councillor making that claim is like a lone farmer trying to sell a solution to end world hunger: he may have the right ideas, but he doesn't have the capacity or the power to deliver it.
But what I can tell you is how my personal position and principles will inform every decision on the topic. My answer to your question is enforcement, plus help for the people who want it, without raising your taxes.
First and foremost, breaking the law shouldn’t get a pass. Open drug use, theft and trespassing are already illegal, and I expect those laws enforced. Parks and sidewalks belong to all of us, so encampments get cleared, with an offer of safe, clean (zero tolerance for illegal activity) shelter for anyone willing to take it. Someone who refuses help, with the attached conditions, doesn’t get to keep a public park or sidewalk.
As for the expense, London already spends about $16 million a year on homelessness, which is part of roughly $46 million across all partners. I’ve committed to voting against any property tax increase, for any reason. I want the money we already spend tied to results you can check every quarter, like how many people move from shelters into housing and stay there. And programs that aren’t delivering should be reimagined or decommissioned.
Treatment is mostly the province’s job. I’d use whatever influence my position has to push for recovery and treatment that gets people clean. Hospitals, CMHA and the province deliver the clinical care.
A vote for me is a vote for strict enforcement, with the opportunity for those who are willing to get back on their feet, without inflating your tax bill. (Answered publicly at ward9.online/concerns/#concern-24.)
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should apply an additional tax to vacant homes.
Somewhat disagree. Our infrastructure, like roads and schools, is already buckling under the population pressure we have. A vacant home tax might push a few more units into occupancy, but it adds zero infrastructure capacity, not a single road, pipe, or classroom seat. It just squeezes more people onto systems already at their limit, grows the bureaucracy, and puts extra strain on citizens. I'm loath to create new taxes, period. Dead-set against it, regardless of any potential justification. Fix capacity first, then talk about how homes get used.
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
A councillor's sworn duty is to represent citizens and manage their money responsibly. That requires real financial literacy — reading budgets, understanding debt, and prioritizing spending. Too many elected officials arrive with no financial training and treat the job as a platform for grand, top-down social projects that belong in provincial or federal politics.
What is your actual experience reading budgets and financial statements, and will you commit to ongoing financial training as a condition of holding office?
I took a first year Business course at Western University, and I've also kept my books and filed my own taxes since I started Matt Millar Technology Solutions, so I'm used to reading real numbers and acting on them myself.
I've been familiarizing myself with the City's budget documents and procedures too, including the multi-year budget update and the reasoning and calculations behind council's own pay resolution, because you can't hold anyone accountable to numbers you haven't read and understood yourself. If I ever need financial training beyond that, I'm open to it.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should spend more on public libraries.
Strongly disagree. London already increased library funding by over 5 percent this year, and libraries remain a valued public service. But an open-ended commitment to spend more, without a plan or a cap, isn't the answer. If there's a real gap, like building maintenance falling behind, the fix is targeting that specific need inside the existing budget, not writing a blank cheque that pushes taxes higher. Spend smart on what libraries actually need, not just spend more because more sounds good (to some people).
Platform (ward9.online homepage)
Taxpayer focused. Compensate accordingly.
In November 2025, council voted 9 to 6 to set their next-term pay at $94,222, almost 40% above what they were paid when they cast that vote. The City's share of your tax bill went up about 20% over the same three years. The fix: a direct-democracy bylaw that cuts councillor pay when the municipal tax on your home rises faster than inflation. Drafted in public. Read it, suggest changes, watch the audit trail.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should do more to combat climate change.
Strongly disagree. A recent audit found London is off track for its 2030 climate target despite what has already been spent, and says catching up will take still more funding. No more throwing good money after bad. I want real results and accountability for tax dollars. A CBC survey of Londoners this election found homelessness, drugs, roads, and taxes topping resident concerns, while climate did not crack the top ten. Let's focus city hall on what residents are actually asking for.
ACORN London Municipal Election Candidate Survey on Tenant Protections
What are the top 2–3 priorities in your campaign platform? How do these address the needs of low- and moderate-income Londoners?
First, taxes. I won't support a property tax rate increase during my term after the 20% increase over the past 3 years, and my proposed PACT bylaw cuts council's own pay whenever taxes go up beyond inflation. Any increase comes out of a paycheque, and renters pay it too, because a landlord's expenses show up in the rent.
Second, roads that actually move. Every hour a worker sits in gridlock, or detours around what seems like never-ending construction, is an hour taken from home or the job.
Third, safety at home. When a car or a bike gets hit overnight, somebody has to find the deductible, or the money for a new bike, before the next shift. And nobody should feel like a victim in their own neighbourhood.
Hikma Public Affairs Council candidate statement
Hikma Public Affairs Council candidate statement
I'm Matt Millar, a third-generation farmer and an IT specialist, and I've lived in Ward 9 my whole life.
I'm running for council in Ward 9 because City Hall keeps raising property taxes faster than most families' paycheques grow, and I won't vote for another increase during my term, for any reason. And I drafted the proposed Pay Accountable to City Taxpayers (PACT) bylaw to tie City Council pay to our property taxes.
I want to make it faster and cheaper to build housing here, so families aren't priced out of their own neighbourhoods.
I believe every law-abiding Londoner deserves to be safe and protected, especially in the place they call home.
My website ward9.online is where you can learn more about me or ask me questions on the record, and I'm always glad to hear from residents directly.
Pillar Nonprofit Network 2026 Candidate Survey
Is there anything else you would like the nonprofit sector to know about your priorities? (Optional)
My priority is, first and foremost, the taxpayer. I will do my utmost to advance whatever is in the best interest of tax-paying Londoners, while keeping the size and scope of the government as focused and narrow as possible.
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
London's budgets have been infiltrated by ideological frameworks with no measurable outcomes — ESG methods that major banks have now largely abandoned, and DEI hiring policies that can pass over the best-qualified candidate because of the wrong skin colour. A city must hire the best people at the best price, not satisfy a fad.
Will you commit to hiring and contracting based on qualifications and merit, and will you publicly oppose any hiring policy that weighs an applicant's race, sex, or ideology over their competence?
Yes. The City should hire and contract with the best person or firm for the job, at the best price and service for taxpayers. I oppose weighing race, sex, or any other identity category over qualifications and results, for anyone, in any direction. Sorting people by group instead of judging them on their own merits is the problem, whichever group ends up favoured. ESG frameworks in procurement and investment get judged by that standard too: if a methodology doesn't produce a measurably better outcome for London taxpayers than the plain merit-based alternative, it doesn't belong in a City contract or budget line. Hire and contract on competence and results, and publish the criteria so residents can see the City is actually following its own rule.
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
The City of London, London Fire Department, and London Police Service are working together to build a new Emergency Services Campus. The campus will support the operational and training needs of first responders, improve regional emergency preparedness and create new spaces for public safety education. A portion of this quarter billion-dollar budget ($200-$270M) will be directed to scenario simulation and indoor and outdoor firing ranges, measures that support more militarized and aggressive policing infrastructure.
Will you commit to demanding transparency about the portion of this Emergency Services Campus budget devoted to policing, as opposed to fire, dispatch, EMS, HAZMAT response?
Will you commit to reducing the budget for the Emergency Services Campus by the amount that would be used for policing?
I'll commit to demanding real transparency on how the Emergency Services Campus budget breaks down between policing, fire, dispatch, EMS, and HAZMAT. Taxpayers funding a $200 to $270 million project are entitled to see exactly where that money goes, line by line, not a single combined number.
I won't commit to cutting the policing portion in advance, and that's regardless of whether it's even legally possible to carve one department's share out of a joint capital project after the fact. Firing ranges and scenario simulation are training infrastructure. That's how officers get and keep the skills to do the job safely, for themselves and for the public they respond to. Wanting transparency on where the money goes and pre-committing to slash a training budget are two different things.
ACORN London Municipal Election Candidate Survey on Tenant Protections
What experience or background do you bring that distinguishes you from the other candidates running in your race?
I've drafted the proposed Pay Accountable to City Taxpayers bylaw, which cuts city council's pay whenever taxes rise faster than inflation, and I published it open-source for anyone to read and suggest amendments to.
I work in diverse fields, from growing and selling berries and fresh produce, to developing apps and helping people with their computers.
And every promise, and every published statement I've made during this campaign, is public and searchable on my website, so you can hold me to my word.
London Free Press candidate survey
What is your vision for London?
My ideal London spends every dollar in the budget like it belongs to a taxpayer, because it does. It's a city where crossing town doesn't mean fighting red lights and rerouting around construction on every alternate route. Families don't have to worry about strangers prowling their neighbourhoods for vehicles and yards to loot. City Hall does its core job well, and then it gets out of the way and lets residents prosper, along with the entire city.
London and District Labour Council questionnaire
Do you agree with a raise to the minimum wage and ten paid sick days for all workers? Should the City be a living wage employer?
My opinion on minimum wage is moot since it's set by the provincial government. Where I do have a vote is over what the City itself pays.
Council's own November 2025 vote disgusts me. Councillors voted 9 to 6 to peg their pay to the 70th percentile of London full-time income, which sets next-term pay at over $94,000. That is almost 40% above the $67,420 they were being paid when they cast that vote, and signals that they believe they deserve to earn more than 70% of full-time working Londoners. I definitely would have opposed that, and I've drafted the PACT bylaw that cuts councillor pay whenever council raises the tax levy.
On the employment side, I want City compensation, for staff and for the contractors the City hires, measured against private-sector equivalents, taking both pay and benefits into consideration. Public sector workers should be well compensated, but it should not be more lucrative than a private-sector equivalent. On sick leave specifically, City of London unionized staff already accrue 1 sick day per month up to a cap of 85 days under CUPE Local 101's current agreement. Ontario law only guarantees private-sector workers 3 unpaid days a year, nothing paid, and, nationally, only 64% of employees have access to any paid sick leave at all. That gap is worth being honest about.
London Emergency Services Campus candidate questionnaire
What is your understanding of the amount and purposes of any provincial funding request, and what source supports that understanding? Please distinguish a request from an approved contribution or money received. What should the City publish about the request and its conditions? If provincial funding is smaller than anticipated or unavailable, how should that affect the project and municipal financing?
As far as I can find, no specific provincial request is on the public record. Business Case P-57 books $0 in grants, and the City told you only that it continues to advocate to the provincial and federal governments.
At the July 2025 site approval, the mayor spoke of the “potential to partner regionally, provincially and federally,” which states an intention without an amount. I’ve found nothing showing an approved contribution or money received. The strongest case for provincial money is the space planned for the Provincial HAZMAT response unit, since that serves the province’s own program.
The City should publish the amount it has asked for and when, along with any conditions attached. If provincial money comes in smaller than hoped or never arrives, the later phases should wait, and I won’t support filling that gap with more borrowing or a tax increase.
Sources: Business Case P-57, operating table (Grants: $0) · City of London newsroom, July 22, 2025 (mayor’s quote) · Provincial HAZMAT space
Constituent concerns (ward9.online/concerns/)
What would you do about persistent boulevard/weed neglect and unresolved property theft in Ward 9?
You're certainly not the only one to bring these issues up, and I share your concern. The camera case is especially egregious, knowing where the stolen item was but completely dropping it anyway.
A councillor can't explicitly direct the police, but we do have a say in the budget, and council effectively controls four of the seven Police Service Board seats. Board duties under the Community Safety and Policing Act include hiring and firing the chief, running the chief's annual performance review, and approving the operating and capital budget. The board also sets the service's objectives and priorities as part of its strategic plan, and the chief has to run the department within those priorities. I would advocate for strict enforcement. We can't control the courts at the provincial level, but we need to make London as inhospitable for criminals as possible.
The weeds and the boulevards are a different problem with the same shape. The City already budgets for that work, and it isn't getting done. You've called every year and gotten the same promise. That's exactly the kind of documented example I'm building into a public record of City spending priorities, so council has to answer case by case for services taxpayers already pay for and aren't getting. (Answered publicly at ward9.online/concerns/#concern-6.)
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
Arts and culture contribute to London's economy, downtown vitality, tourism, and civic identity. What specific policies or investments would you support to strengthen the cultural sector as a driver of economic development, talent attraction, and placemaking?
Culture can mean jobs, busy downtown nights, and a reason people stay in London. If it's a net benefit, and we can afford it, it would be worth considering. But I'd treat culture the same way I treat every other line in the budget: show me the objective, the cost, and the result.
It's important to keep grant programs arm's-length and transparent, so residents can see who gets funded and why, and we can support affordable venues and creative space through planning rules the City already controls.
Placemaking works when it's tied to a downtown or neighbourhood plan with a cost attached. It fails when it runs on the assumption that culture pays for itself. A cultural sector that attracts talent and visitors is worth supporting when we can see tangible results for the taxpayer dollars spent on it.
TREA (Thames Region Ecological Association) environmental questionnaire
Environmental Responsibility
London declared a climate emergency on April 23, 2019. Council's own resolution names the purpose: "naming, framing, and deepening our commitment to protecting our economy, our eco systems, and our community from climate change." That's a framing exercise, and I don't support scare tactics like calling something a climate emergency to win support for a position. Real environmental protection matters, but it has to come at a cost taxpayers can afford.
The City's own July 2025 CEAP progress report shows the gap between promise and delivery. Corporate emissions rose 4 percent year over year. Council approved $1 million a year for the Climate Change Reserve Fund and then cut that to $192,000. The City allocated $1.19 million for projects and spent $225,000 of it, while project requests totaled $1.2 to $1.9 million. The plan lacks the funding to match its own commitments. If elected, I would oppose spending justified by the "emergency" label alone. Genuine environmental spending should clear the same bar as every other line item in the budget: what result did it produce for the cost?
Climate Action London questionnaire
It is a priority to improve London Transit service by having 15 minute service frequency during peak weekday hours (maximum headway) on all main arterial routes while maintaining 10 minute service frequency on Rapid Transit routes. 15 minute service frequency is comparable to service in cities like Halifax and Kitchener-Waterloo. Additionally, London Transit should work to eliminate neighbourhood gaps where residents are not within 400m walking distance of a regularly service bus stop.
Neither agree nor disagree. Frequent buses are worth having where people actually ride them. A 15-minute peak standard on every arterial, plus a stop within 400 metres of every home, is a citywide expansion that has to be paid for every year in buses, operators, and subsidy.
London Transit is already adding service hours under its 2024-2027 business plan, and Rapid Transit is being built for buses every five or ten minutes. For 2026, LTC trimmed $700,000 from its City funding request because fuel and insurance costs came in lower than budgeted, without touching a single approved service hour. That is the standard I want applied to any new spending too: match the dollars to the real cost, not to a blanket target.
I will support frequency where the riders are there and the tax bill can carry it, corridor by corridor. I will vote no on a blanket citywide standard that skips that test.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
What should London be doing now to prepare for the city it will be 20 years from now?
London shouldn't just use its own long-range plan as a slogan, but as discipline.
Growth should be directed where infrastructure can support it, with roads, transit, water, sewers, schools, and emergency capacity considered before approvals are finalized. We should renew the infrastructure we already own, close critical transportation gaps, and require clear costing for new commitments.
One of those gaps has been open for decades. London still doesn't have a real ring road, and every year we don't build one, we push more raging drivers through neighbourhoods where children play. Council finally voted in April 2025 to open talks on it, but in that same meeting admitted a ring road runs completely counter to their mobility plan, which is built around forcing 32.5 percent of all trips onto bikes, sidewalks, and buses. And this is the problem we face: City Hall constantly trying to make Londoners fit their plans, instead of making their plans fit Londoners. This needs to change.
Along the same thread, we need to ensure London doesn't become a city that taxes itself out of being livable. Every new commitment, be it a ring road or a mess of bike and bus lanes, has to come with a real number attached, because the same growth that builds a bigger city can just as easily build a permanently bigger tax bill if nobody's counting the pennies.
The London Plan's inward-and-upward direction can help control the cost of growth, but only if council follows it consistently, costs its commitments honestly, and reports the results publicly.
London Emergency Services Campus candidate questionnaire
What is your understanding of the relationship between the adopted project budgets and the published phase figures? Would you support further financial commitments before a public reconciliation is available? What specific information or Council action would you seek, and when? Please distinguish your interpretation from facts established by records.
The three budget lines you name add up to $186.781 million through 2033 in the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget, and Business Case P-57 splits the training campus into three stages of $137.0 million, $8.0 million and $41.7 million, which comes to about $186.7 million. Those are the records. My interpretation is that the City’s $186.8 million is the business-case campus, and the $133 million and $50 million phase figures group the work differently.
The City’s Phase 1 list includes a 911 dispatch centre, an emergency operations centre and a new fire station, and P-57’s Stage 1 description mentions none of them. I won’t support any construction contract or new borrowing until a public reconciliation of the two sets of figures exists. If elected, I would seek a motion directing staff to publish it before the 2027 Class D estimates come to council.
Sources: 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget, capital detail: PP4481 p. 218 ($79,663K), FS1095 p. 231 ($69,102K), PP4482 p. 232 ($38,016K) · Business Case P-57, Stages 1 to 3 · Phase lists
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should allocate more of its budget to improving roads, even if it means less funding for other core services.
Somewhat agree. When people picture what government is actually for, roads are usually the first thing that comes to mind. Safe, well-maintained, easily navigable and efficient streets are one of the clearest ways Londoners judge whether their city hall is doing its job. If prioritizing that means fewer dollars for vanity projects and pet initiatives, that is a trade worth making. Roads move people to work, school, and each other. That is core infrastructure, not a nice-to-have, and it deserves to be treated that way in the budget.
London and District Labour Council questionnaire
Provide your views on the status of public services and unionized workers for our city. What are your plans for a just economy that supports working people?
Transit operators, water and wastewater crews, and everyone else who keeps this city running in a unionized role do real, skilled work residents depend on every day. I don't doubt that for a second.
Government, at any level, isn't built to engineer a "just" economy. Every serious attempt at it ends up picking winners and creating losers. What actually supports working people is a City that does its own job well: deliver core services efficiently, and keep property taxes and the cost of doing business in London as low as possible. That does more for a working family's paycheque than any citywide economic-justice program could.
I'll judge every City service and every City contract on whether it's delivered efficiently and priced competitively, because that's what keeps taxes from climbing faster than paycheques do. That's the standard I'd apply to how the City treats the people who work for it too: compensation and benefits benchmarked to equivalent private-sector roles, reviewed in the open every term.
Climate Action London questionnaire
It is important to restore funding to the Climate Change Reserve Fund to $1m per year, as it was when it was initially created and only use the funds for genuine expenses related to mitigation and adaptation projects designed to increase London's resilience to the increasing impacts of the Climate Emergency.
Strongly disagree. London declared a climate emergency on April 23, 2019. Council's own resolution names the purpose as "naming, framing and deepening our commitment." I do not support using an emergency label to win budget lines.
Six years on, the City's own numbers do not support the label. The City's July 17, 2025 CEAP progress report shows corporate greenhouse gas emissions rose 4 percent year over year, even as Council approved $1 million a year for the Climate Change Reserve Fund for 2023-2027 and then cut planned annual contributions to $192,000. By the end of 2024 the fund held $1.192 million, and only about $225,000 of it had actually reached a project. The other $967,000 sat unallocated, with a backlog of new requests worth $1.21 million to $1.91 million waiting behind it. Money not moving and emissions still rising is not what a real emergency response looks like.
Until someone can articulate the exact criteria that justify declaring a state of emergency, and exactly how the money would be spent to produce a meaningful mitigating effect on the cause of that emergency, I am against spending taxpayer dollars that do nothing more than signal an intention to act. I would oppose putting that million back on the basis of the emergency label alone.
Pillar Nonprofit Network 2026 Candidate Survey
Do you support multi-year funding and longer-term partnerships for community organizations?
No.
I don't believe it's healthy for any organization to be reliant on taxpayer dollars, and I'm hesitant to commit taxpayer dollars to something without being able to show a strong return on investment in some form or another. Committing to something years in advance isn't prudent.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
You're asking Londoners to vote you into a significant leadership role that will shape our community. What have you done to earn that job?
Being a city councillor isn't something you earn by jumping through the right hoops and checking the right boxes. It's up to voters to decide who has the wisdom needed to guide the city along the correct path, the skills and determination to execute, and the principles necessary to stay on course. We candidates are all here to help guide that decision.
I've lived my entire life on the farm, so I'm no stranger to dealing with variables completely out of my control, knowing that nobody will be coming to bail me out. When a farmer does something wrong, we feel the consequences immediately, and we're the ones that will be cleaning up the mess. We're also used to working on a shoestring budget, and stretching every dollar.
That is the mindset I'll bring to council, along with my background in tech. I've used my website, ward9.online, as a pilot project for novel ideas to keep Londoners connected with the political process, including a concern tracker to let me know about important issues and get my response, a promise tracker to hold me accountable, and an open-source proposed bylaw tying council pay to property tax rates that anyone can provide input to help shape. I've also provided researched, sourced arguments, based on the London Plan, against developments in the Lambeth area when residents were organizing in opposition. Unfortunately, they fell on deaf ears.
But you can be sure that a vote for me is a vote for someone ready to dig in and read the reports, ask the hard questions, account for every dollar, and stand with voters over the recommendations of City Staff, or special interests.
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
City procurement must be open and fair. Taxpayers have the right to see every bid, every winning price, and every conflict of interest — before the contract is signed, not after. Too often, contracts favour the recipients while placing an undue burden on taxpayers.
Will you support a full review of procurement policies to ensure contracts are fair and do not unduly burden taxpayers while favouring recipients — and will you commit to publishing all bids, evaluations, and awards proactively, with mandatory conflict disclosure, without requiring an FOI request?
I'll push for both. A single councillor can't rewrite procurement policy alone, but I'll vote for a full review and keep pushing until competitive bidding is the default and the paperwork is public before the money moves.
Right now, staff can approve contracts up to six million dollars without a council vote, and council never even sees a report on anything under $133,800. Below that line, taxpayers only learn what happened if someone files a Freedom of Information request, and even then pages can come back redacted. Bids, evaluations, awards, and conflict disclosures should be published proactively, not dug out after the fact.
Any vendor deal that needs basic facts like cost, scope, or conflicts kept quiet is a deal I'd vote against.
ACORN London Municipal Election Candidate Survey on Tenant Protections
Why are you running for Mayor / Ward Councillor in this election? What motivated you to put your name forward at this time?
Year after year, decision after decision, we're left helpless watching our own councillor side with city staff over objections from the community on a variety of issues, but mainly rezoning and development.
Our friendly neighbourhoods are becoming cold and sterile. Cars, yards, and homes get hit overnight, or even in broad daylight. Taxes keep climbing. We're stuck in gridlock and perpetual construction. It's time for a change, and I'm ready to bring a fresh perspective to City Hall.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should do more to prevent landlords from evicting tenants in order to raise rents.
Somewhat disagree. Landlords facing rising costs, insurance, taxes, maintenance, etc., need a legitimate way to bring rent to a workable level. Block that path entirely, and eviction becomes their only option left, which helps no one. The bigger risk to tenants isn't landlords adjusting rent. It's landlords who can no longer afford to keep units on the market at all, or units that deteriorate because there's no money left to maintain them. The law needs to work for both sides. Tenants need stability, landlords need viability, and the bills still have to get paid either way.
ACORN London Municipal Election Candidate Survey on Tenant Protections
Is there anything else you would like to share regarding housing affordability, tenant protections, rental housing quality, homelessness prevention, or other housing-related priorities?
Most of my answers come back to one idea. Renters do best when there’s a For Rent sign on more than one street to choose from and the rent isn’t climbing to cover City Hall’s spending. I’ll hold the line on property taxes and cut the red tape that keeps new rental housing from getting built and rented out.
My goal is for the market to provide every kind of home, from a bedroom rental to a high-rise apartment, to dynamically meet the demand of those seeking them.
London Emergency Services Campus candidate questionnaire
Would you seek a dated public account of expenditures to date, outstanding contractual commitments, uncommitted budgets, and potential termination liabilities? How would those figures inform a decision to proceed, modify, defer, or cancel work? Please distinguish money already spent from future avoidable costs, and costs arising from a change of course.
Yes. I’d ask staff for a dated public account of four separate numbers: what has been spent, what is under contract, what is budgeted but uncommitted, and what it would cost to terminate each contract.
Concrete that’s already poured is spent whichever way council votes, so it shouldn’t drive the decision. Concrete that hasn’t been ordered is still a choice.
The figures that matter are the future costs council can still avoid and the price of changing course, which includes termination costs and the extra travel and lost training days P-57 says would come with training elsewhere.
I’d judge each component on what’s left to spend against what it delivers, and I’d defer or cancel any piece where that comparison doesn’t hold up.
Source: Business Case P-57 (costs of training in other cities)
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
Measurable accountability is the difference between a well-run city and a money pit. A lack of clear metrics leads to frivolous spending, possible corruption, decaying core services, and a public that stops trusting — and stops voting for — its elected officials.
Will you require every department to publish clear, measurable performance metrics tied to spending, and what consequence will you impose when a department fails to meet them?
Again, not something I can unilaterally require, but I'd like every department to publish clear metrics tied to what it actually spends. Right now, the pattern runs the other way.
London's Climate Change Reserve Fund held $1.192 million by the end of 2024, with only about $225,000 actually reaching a project and roughly $967,000 sitting unallocated against a real project backlog, and there's still no clear public reporting tying that fund's spending to a measured result.
On consequences: a department that misses its published metrics should have that specific line frozen or cut at the next budget and not quietly carried forward. I won't pretend that a councillor can fire a City manager directly, but I can vote the budget line, and I will vote it down when the numbers don't back up the spending.
London Free Press candidate survey
What are your top three priorities, if elected?
1. Making sure every single tax dollar extracted from hard-working Londoners is treated with the respect it deserves.
2. Getting traffic flowing efficiently through the city and planning for construction intelligently.
3. Rein in the ever-expanding government tentacles and redirect that energy into the core functions that Londoners really care about.
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
London has signed onto international frameworks — the Global Covenant of Mayors, UN-aligned "human rights" initiatives, and global NGO agendas — that impose obligations, reporting burdens, and data-sharing commitments on the city without any mandate from local voters. These commitments are made by staff and a handful of councillors, then treated as binding on everyone.
How will you ensure that offshore-funded groups do not exert undue influence over London's budget, the privacy of residents' data, or commitments that conflict with Canadian law — and that they cannot bypass local control through well-organized campaigns such as the highly controversial "Climate Emergency"? And will you support withdrawing from organizations that push agendas contrary to Londoners' expressed wishes?
Londoners decide for London. I will reject outright any attempt by offshore-funded groups, international frameworks, or global NGO campaigns to steer our budget, grab residents' data, or lock the City into commitments that conflict with Canadian law. Labels like a "climate emergency" do not get a free pass on spending or policy. Every dollar and every data share still needs a local case, a cost, and a benefit to Ward 9 residents and all Londoners.
I will also support withdrawing from organizations that push agendas contrary to what Londoners have asked for. If a membership mainly exports decision-making and reporting burdens while importing priorities set somewhere else, it does not belong. Local control is not optional.
London Professional Fire Fighters Association Election Survey
Anything else you'd like LPFFA/families to know?
I'll approach every budget and staffing decision for the fire department by looking at the actual data and the actual need. I don't think public safety is a place for shortcuts, and I don't think your professional judgment about what the job requires should be overridden by people who've never done it. If I'm elected, you'll find me straightforward to work with, even when we don't agree on every detail.
Pillar Nonprofit Network 2026 Candidate Survey
What role do you see the nonprofit sector playing in London's economic vitality and community wellbeing over the next four years, and what would success look like over your term?
Success looks like addressing the concerns of my constituents, keeping their tax bills from rising, and providing the services that the city is obligated to provide for them. If nonprofits can play a role, that's great, but it's not something I can control.
Neighbourhoods London "Building London Survey"
Describe your strategy for improving housing affordability for the middle class.
The same approach. Faster permits and pre-approved designs lower what it costs to build, and that matters most in the middle of the market, where there are no subsidies to lean on. I'd rather lower the City's costs on builders than add programs that cost taxpayers money.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should build more rail underpasses to reduce traffic congestion, even if construction disrupts roads and businesses.
Somewhat disagree. I'd put an underpass at every rail crossing in London, if I could, and end train delays for good. But they carry real costs. One of the biggest complaints I hear about London construction generally is poor planning jamming up main routes and alternate routes at the same time, with idle time stretching projects out even longer. The Adelaide St. underpass alone ran about $29 million over budget and years behind schedule, and nearby businesses pay the price when customers can't reach them. Underpasses deserve serious consideration, but only with accountability for cost, timeline, and businesses.
London Chamber of Commerce questionnaire
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.
Constituent concerns (ward9.online/concerns/)
City is too leftist and woke, that's why in decline. You seem sensible enough...?
We're in agreement that we need our local government to focus on the core, common sense issues and cut the nonsense.
That's my goal: show me the hard data, get input from the community, and make the right choice based on all the facts. If it's not worth the cost, taxpayers shouldn't be footing the bill for it. (Answered publicly at ward9.online/concerns/#concern-19.)
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
"Safer supply" policies have seen taxpayer-funded drugs distributed for unobserved consumption, alongside open drug use, encampments, and a visible decline in public safety. Recovery and treatment must come first, and council must add pressure on the provincial and federal governments.
Do you support an end to "safer supply" being distributed for unobserved consumption by addicts, as well as open drug use — and will you support recovery programs and enforcement against open drug use and encampments that threaten public safety?
My principle is simple: nothing illegal should be permitted in any taxpayer-funded facility, or anywhere in London.
Shelters: this council considered, and in August 2026 pulled back from, a proposal that would have stopped shelters from denying entry over drug possession. I'd have opposed that proposal from the start. Drug use is already banned, at least on paper, in every shelter; I want that made a clear, permanent, city-wide rule, not left to each operator's discretion.
Safer supply is a provincial program, not something council sets, but diversion is real: London pharmacies have been documented dispensing take-home doses that get resold on the street. That's trafficking, already illegal, and I support council's own push for the province to review it.
Open drug use is already illegal, too. I expect it enforced everywhere, rather than tolerated or ignored. Encampments should be cleared; public spaces should stay open for every Londoner.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
Private contractors are more efficient than municipal workers at delivering most municipal services.
Somewhat agree. What actually saves taxpayers money is competition, by exposing services to real competitive bids, whether the winner is a private contractor or the city's own crew. A C.D. Howe Institute analysis found fully-contracted municipal waste services cost about a third less per household than city-run ones; separate research found privatized garbage collection running roughly 20% cheaper. London should put more services out to competitive tender and let residents see the real price tag either way.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
Affordable space for creating, rehearsing, performing and exhibiting remains a significant issue for artists and cultural organizations. What role, if any, should the City play in making affordable cultural spaces available?
Public space should be available to Londoners for the uses they need, at a price the City can sustain without overburdening taxpayers.
That can mean identifying underused City space, clear lease terms, and planning rules that make adaptive reuse easier. It doesn't mean the City becomes the landlord for every group that wants a room, or locking in subsidies with no review date.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
Past members of London City Council have described the position of councillor as extremely demanding and requiring significant personal sacrifice. The most recent Resourcing Review Task Force found councillors work an average of more than 50 hours per week, including constituent correspondence, extensive meeting preparation, council and committee work, and frequent evening and weekend community events. With this in mind, why do you want to serve as a city councillor?
A 50 hour week would be a nice relaxing pace compared to a hectic harvest season. But it's not so much that I want to inject myself straight into the vipers' nest, where the status quo is designed to stifle people like me, who aren't out to make friends, and aren't there to go along to get along. I feel duty-bound to give Ward 9 a representative who will speak loudly on their behalf, look out for their best interests, and give them a clear window into what's really happening behind the scenes. No more folding to city staff. No more approving of projects because that's what City Hall wants. No more voting for a pay raise and raising taxes at the same time. If the community has an objection, it's my job to make it known.
London Chamber of Commerce questionnaire
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.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
Bad faith renovictions by landlords have resulted in tenants being evicted from their rental homes. In 2025 council approved a Rental Unit Repair Bylaw. Is it enough? What else can London do to address this issue?
London already has a tool for renovictions. The Rental Unit Repair Licence has been in force since March 1, 2025. A landlord serving an N13 for renovations needs a building permit first, and has to apply for that licence within seven days.
But here's what people miss on evictions generally. The bigger risk to tenants isn't a landlord adjusting rent to cover rising costs, insurance, taxes, maintenance. It's a landlord who can't afford to keep the unit on the market at all, or a unit that falls apart because there's no money left to maintain it. Block every legitimate path to a workable rent, and there will be no more units left for renters to live in. That helps no one.
Same logic applies to safety enforcement; nobody should be trapped in a home that's genuinely unsafe. But push too hard over minor, fixable issues, and landlords pull units off the market instead of fixing them. That only shrinks the supply, and there is no avoiding the laws of supply and demand.
The law has to work for both sides. Tenants need stability. Landlords need viability. Enforce the licence, and apply safety standards with reasonable judgment.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
Property developers should pay a greater share of the cost of road, water, and energy infrastructure needed to support new housing construction.
Somewhat agree. There's a real difference between an individual building a single home on their own lot and a large developer laying out an entire new subdivision. An individual shouldn't be treated like a corporate developer building hundreds of units. But a developer creating brand new demand for roads, water, and energy capacity should cover a fair share of what that growth requires. Existing taxpayers who already paid for their own infrastructure shouldn't be stuck subsidizing someone else's profit-driven expansion. Growth should pay for growth, at the scale that's actually creating it.
London Emergency Services Campus candidate questionnaire
You may add up to 150 words identifying a material omission, correcting the premise, or explaining a position not adequately covered by these questions. Evidence supporting particular facilities, or showing that changing course would cost more, is welcome.
Two items are missing from the public record. The first is the consultant’s feasibility study behind the site and the budget, since CTV reported in July 2025 that council approved the Manning Drive site without seeing it. I’d like to see that released.
The second is revenue. P-57 says the consultant projected a net gain of $243,000 by year 12 from renting training space, assuming 75 percent use of the key spaces, and that London Fire could become a regional training centre for surrounding departments. Neighbouring services that train here should pay their share, and council should see that rental plan before it approves Phase 2.
Sources: CTV News London, July 2025 · Business Case P-57 (revenue projection; regional training centre)
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
On May 13, 2025, The City of London approved the ReconciliAction Plan intended to guide the City's actions over the next decade towards truth, justice, and reconciliation by supporting the implementation of the Calls to Action. What specific action(s) will you prioritize to move forward? How will you do this?
London should comply with the obligations it has already committed to, and I won't push for more on top of that.
Council approved a ten-year, 155-action plan in May 2025, and the metrics and timeline for those commitments are still being developed.
Finish that accountability work so the public can see what's complete or delayed, and what the true cost is.
Anything still open to change gets examined against an equal-treatment and taxpayer burden standard, with results reported in public.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
Implementing the Downtown Plan will require Council to make choices about future municipal investment. When downtown investment competes with other priorities across London, do you believe downtown should continue to be a City-wide investment priority? Why or why not? If YES: What would you be prepared to prioritize or fund? If NO: What should take priority instead? If IT DEPENDS: What would your decision depend on?
I won't prioritize downtown to the detriment of the rest of the city, but we shouldn't neglect it either.
Council endorsed a roadmap: a new downtown office, upgrades to Victoria Park, Ivey Park, and Covent Garden Market, a river district at the Forks of the Thames, and more branding around the City of Music title. But endorsing that roadmap isn't the same as funding it. The City's own account says the roughly $48 million it would take gets decided later, through the next strategic plan and the next multi-year budget.
A park upgrade, a new office, or self-promotion shouldn't take priority over essential infrastructure or emergency services.
Downtown definitely needs attention, but my priority will always be Ward 9, and essential services and infrastructure come first.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
At a time when municipalities face significant pressures around housing, homelessness, infrastructure and affordability, why should, or shouldn't, the City continue investing public money in arts and culture?
I'd support investing public money in arts and culture when it earns its place. Housing, homelessness, infrastructure, and affordability come first.
A city needs more than emergency response, but every cultural dollar still has to face an honest public test.
Cultural spending can support local jobs and downtown activity when the benefit is measurable, but no line item gets automatic protection just because it makes a good sound-bite.
I'd require a public-purpose test and a measurable return for every cultural dollar. When those are transparent, a focused cultural investment can still clear the bar without jumping the line ahead of housing, and without burdening the taxpayer.
ACORN London Municipal Election Candidate Survey on Tenant Protections
Tenants in London often face challenges getting repairs for issues like mould, pests, or lack of heat because enforcement only kicks in after formal complaints. Would you support moving to a proactive system where the City regularly inspects rental properties, especially multi-unit buildings, to catch problems early?
Undecided
I’m leaning against it. Sending inspectors through every rental building on a schedule means a bigger bureaucracy and new fees. Someone has to pay for that, and it's likely to land on taxpayers and tenants.
A complaint-driven system can work if the enforcement behind it is efficient and effective. When a tenant reports mould or a dead furnace, the inspection should happen quickly, and there must be strong consequences for non-compliance. Where a building keeps generating complaints, that’s where I’d send inspectors through top to bottom.
London Free Press candidate survey
The base salary for councillors elected in October will be boosted to more than $94,000, with a recommendation that council should be treated as a full-time job as a result. Will council be your sole occupation?
No. I'm not giving up the family farm to become a full-time politician, and I'm opposed to pinning council salary to more than what 70% of full-time working Londoners earn. That's why I drafted the Pay Accountable to City Taxpayers (PACT) bylaw. Making council a career discourages the kind of people this job actually needs: those who understand what it's like to run a business, meet a payroll, or work a trade, because they're still doing it. Staff already do the day-to-day work of the City. Council's job is to set direction and represent the will of their constituents.
London Chamber of Commerce questionnaire
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.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
London is a UNESCO City of Music. Do you think the city has taken full advantage of that designation? If not, what would you like to see London do with it over the next four years?
A UNESCO title on letterhead doesn't build a music scene. The people who write, play, book, and fill the rooms do that.
London can facilitate and assist where it's sustainable and not a burden on taxpayers: clearer rules, faster permits for venues and events, and a light touch that gets out of the way. If a partnership has an honest cost up front and doesn't grow bureaucracy, I'll look at it. If it's mainly a way to wave the designation around, I won't.
Over the next four years I want that title tied to what artists and venues get done, with results residents can see.
London Chamber of Commerce questionnaire
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.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
Council is regularly required to balance competing priorities and limited municipal resources. What principles would guide your decisions about what the City of London should fund, what it should reduce, and what it should stop doing? What does fiscal prudence mean to you?
First, protect life, safety, and the services people cannot reasonably provide for themselves.
Second, maintain assets the City already owns before adding new commitments.
Third, require a clear public benefit, full lifecycle cost, and measurable result.
Fourth, identify who has jurisdiction and use outside funding only when it doesn't create an unfunded municipal obligation.
If a program can't meet those tests, council should reduce it, redesign it, or stop it altogether.
Fiscal prudence, to me, is being a good steward of the fruits of Londoners' labour. Never ask taxpayers for more before proving you've made the most of what they already gave you. And never ask residents to sacrifice unless you're willing to sacrifice more yourself, and that's exactly what my PACT bylaw makes unavoidable.