Barb Elliott

Please describe one concrete policy, program, or decision you would support to address both encampments and permanent housing.candidate's own words

I support clear regional leadership for housing and homelessness, clear municipal responsibility for public-space management, and regular public reporting on shelter access, housing placements, outreach, and results. The Region and municipalities must work from one coordinated plan and jointly press the Province and federal government for stable, outcome-based funding.

• Adjust signal timing, curb use, or intersection design
• Prioritize active transportation improvements during routine resurfacing
• Focus improvements around schools, transit corridors, and commercial areas

1. Use transit to shape land use
2. Prioritize lower-cost or incremental transit improvements
3. Prioritize expanding coverage area
4. Prioritize maximizing operational efficiency
5. Invest in rapid transit to anchor growth

Yes, sidewalks should be cleared alongside roads as part of regular winter maintenance

Improve existing subsidies and discounts, but maintain fares for most riders

Please describe one criterion or principle that should not be compromised when making transit investment decisions.candidate's own words

Transit must be planned with land use—not added as an afterthought. Growth should occur where people can reasonably access jobs, schools, services, and amenities by transit, walking, cycling, or driving, with investments that are reliable, accessible, affordable to operate, and fair to taxpayers.

Please name one specific street, corridor, or project where you would prioritize these changes.candidate's own words

Clyde Road

Describe one concrete policy, incentive, or decision you would prioritize to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Where possible, explain how it balances environmental goals with fiscal responsibility.candidate's own words

I support replacing municipal light-duty vehicles with hybrid or electric options only at the end of their normal service life, using lifecycle cost and operational reliability—not ideology—to guide each purchase. This reduces fuel use and emissions while protecting taxpayers from unnecessary upfront replacement costs and ensuring rural services remain dependable.

1. Develop a local food strategy, including research on how land-use change affects the food system
2. Partner with other levels of government to develop local food hubs that reduce costs and barriers for small businesses
3. Promote and support low-barrier spaces for local producers to distribute and sell food
4. Encourage and support local landowners to rent to newcomer farmers
5. Leave local food livelihoods to the private market

Please describe one concrete policy, program, or decision you would support to strengthen the local food system.candidate's own words

I would support a local-food market policy that makes it easier for farmers and small producers to sell at farmers’ markets, farm gates, seasonal pop-ups, and community events. The Township should review permits, fees, signage, and access to suitable public space to remove unnecessary barriers while maintaining health and safety standards. It is a practical, low-cost way to support local agriculture, small business, and food access.

1. Prioritize infill and intensification where infrastructure
2. Require detailed cost and risk analysis before approving
3. Use development phasing tied to infrastructure capacity
4. Limit outward growth unless full lifecycle infrastructure
5. Proceed with outward growth to address housing supply

Describe one concrete zoning, planning, or development decision you would support (or oppose) that reflects how you would balance these priorities.candidate's own words

I would support gentle density and more housing choice in appropriate, fully serviced settlement areas, while opposing premature settlement-boundary expansions onto productive farmland or sensitive water areas. Any expansion must demonstrate a clear need, adequate infrastructure capacity, sound financial planning, and a commitment that developers—not existing taxpayers—will pay their fair share of growth-related costs.

Please describe one concrete example of a growth or infrastructure decision you would support or oppose using this approach.candidate's own words

I would oppose premature approval of a large greenfield subdivision or settlement-boundary expansion until there is a transparent lifecycle-cost analysis, confirmed servicing capacity, and a phased funding plan. Developers must pay their fair share of growth-related infrastructure costs, and Council should first demonstrate that reasonable housing options within existing serviced settlement areas have been considered.

What can the municipality/region do, if anything, about land which sits vacant for years because it is being used as an investment (land banking)?candidate's own words

I support a transparent registry for approved but undeveloped land, together with phased approvals and servicing agreements that include reasonable construction milestones. The Township should identify real barriers to building, but should not allow approved land to sit indefinitely while taxpayers fund infrastructure or pressure grows to expand onto farmland.

It should be more transparent and accessible

If you chose "It should be more transparent and accessible", please describe how.candidate's own words

Municipal budgets should be presented in plain language and in formats residents can easily understand. People should be able to see what is changing, why it is changing, how it affects the tax bill, what services are being maintained or reduced, and how major capital projects will be funded over time.