David Guerin

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

I would support a clear shelter-availability standard: before an encampment is cleared, people should be offered a realistic indoor alternative, with appropriate outreach and supports. At the same time, I would support shifting more long-term funding toward supportive and deeply affordable housing so that shelters do not become permanent destinations. Emergency shelter is necessary, but it should function as a bridge to stable housing, not as the end point. That approach respects the need to keep public spaces safe and accessible while also recognizing that enforcement without somewhere for people to go simply moves the problem from one location to another.

Would you like to provide any additional context for your views on housing?candidate's own words

I see housing as a continuum. Cambridge needs more market housing, more rental housing, more attainable ownership options, more deeply affordable housing and more supportive housing. Focusing on only one part of that spectrum will not solve the problem. I support making it easier to add appropriate housing through infill, redevelopment and intensification, particularly where infrastructure and services already exist. At the same time, growth needs to be planned alongside transportation, water, wastewater, parks and other community services so that we are not creating problems for future residents and taxpayers. For people experiencing chronic homelessness, increasing the overall housing supply is important but not sufficient. Some people will also need mental health, addiction, income and other supports to remain successfully housed. My goal would be a housing strategy that increases supply, removes unnecessary barriers, makes responsible use of existing infrastructure and recognizes that different people need different housing solutions.

• 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. Invest in rapid transit to anchor growth
3. Prioritize maximizing operational efficiency
4. Prioritize lower-cost or incremental transit improvements
5. Prioritize expanding coverage area

Yes, but roads should take priority; sidewalks cleared after

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

Would you like to provide any additional context for your views on transportation?candidate's own words

I see transportation as a network, not a competition between cars, transit, cycling and walking. Cambridge will continue to be a community where many people rely on cars, so we need safe, well-maintained roads and sensible traffic management. At the same time, we should be making transit more reliable, improving pedestrian safety and creating better cycling connections where they make practical sense. I also believe transportation investment should be closely tied to growth. Major transit and road projects should support where housing, jobs and services are being added, and we should take advantage of routine road reconstruction to make cost-effective improvements rather than treating every mode as a separate project. My goal is a system that gives people more practical choices, supports economic growth and uses public dollars responsibly.

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

Transit investments should be closely connected to where housing, jobs and services are growing. Major transit projects are too expensive to treat as stand-alone transportation decisions. They should help shape development, support higher-density growth where appropriate and make it easier for people to reach work, school, services and amenities without always relying on a car. If we are investing significant public dollars in transit, land-use planning should reinforce that investment so that ridership, development and long-term community benefit grow together.

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

I would prioritize the Hespeler Road corridor, particularly as redevelopment and the future Stage 2 ION line move forward. Hespeler Road has the potential to become much more than a road people simply drive through. As housing and employment grow along the corridor, we should be improving safe pedestrian connections, access to transit stops, cycling connections and intersections at the same time. The important thing is to coordinate those improvements with redevelopment and major infrastructure work rather than treating walking, cycling, transit and road capacity as separate projects. Done well, Hespeler Road can accommodate significant growth while giving residents more practical choices for how they move around Cambridge.

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 would prioritize transitioning municipal vehicles to lower-emission options as they reach the end of their normal replacement cycle, where the lifecycle cost makes financial sense. That means avoiding premature replacement of serviceable vehicles simply to meet a target, but also looking beyond the purchase price when new vehicles are required. Fuel, maintenance, expected lifespan and available infrastructure should all be part of the calculation. This is an area where municipalities can directly reduce emissions while also potentially lowering long-term operating costs. I think the strongest climate policies are often the ones that achieve an environmental benefit while also making good financial sense for taxpayers.

Would you like to provide any additional context for your views on sustainability?candidate's own words

I believe sustainability should be built into good municipal decision-making rather than treated as a separate objective. That means considering lifecycle costs, climate resilience, water protection, energy use and infrastructure capacity when making major decisions. It also means recognizing where municipalities have the greatest ability to make a difference. Through land-use planning, transportation, municipal facilities, fleet decisions, stormwater management and the design of new growth. I support practical measures that reduce emissions and improve resilience when they are effective, financially responsible and within municipal control. I believe the strongest climate commitments are those that lead to measurable action and results For me, the goal is to make Cambridge more resilient, efficient and sustainable without losing sight of affordability or the day-to-day services residents depend on.

1. Develop a local food strategy, including research on how land-use change affects the food system
2. Promote and support low-barrier spaces for local producers to distribute and sell food
3. Partner with other levels of government to develop local food hubs that reduce costs and barriers for small businesses
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 creating or expanding low-barrier opportunities for local farmers and food producers to sell directly to residents, including partnerships around farmers’ markets, community food hubs and shared processing or distribution space. The municipal role should be to remove unnecessary barriers, help connect producers with suitable space and infrastructure, and work with other levels of government, non-profits and educational institutions where larger investments are required. That strengthens the local food economy, gives small producers better access to customers and can improve food access without requiring the municipality to become a food retailer itself.

Would you like to provide any additional context for your views on food systems?candidate's own words

I think food policy is strongest when it connects affordability, local economic development and land-use planning. Municipalities and the Region cannot solve food insecurity on their own, because household income and many social supports are largely provincial and federal responsibilities. But local governments can still make a meaningful difference by supporting community organizations, reducing barriers for local producers, protecting viable agricultural land and making appropriate public spaces available for community growing or food distribution. I also think we should be careful not to create expensive municipal programs where strong community or private-sector partners already exist. The most effective role for local government is often to enable, coordinate and remove barriers so that local farmers, non-profits and food businesses can do more of what they already do well.

Other priority not listed abovecandidate's own words

Protect viable agricultural land and the infrastructure that supports local food production, while ensuring land-use decisions balance food security with legitimate housing and economic development needs.

1. Require detailed cost and risk analysis before approving
2. Prioritize infill and intensification where infrastructure
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 allowing more small-scale missing-middle housing, such as duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes, as-of-right in established neighbourhoods where existing infrastructure can support it. That kind of incremental density can add housing without requiring major greenfield expansion, make better use of roads, water and other services that are already in place, and give people more housing choices within existing communities. I would still expect good design, appropriate transitions and attention to servicing, traffic and parking impacts. Public engagement should help improve how these projects fit into neighbourhoods, but I do not think opposition alone should be enough to prevent modest forms of housing that meet clear planning standards.

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 support a greenfield subdivision only where the long-term servicing and infrastructure costs are clearly understood and there is a credible plan to pay for them without creating an unreasonable burden for future taxpayers. That means looking beyond the initial development charges and asking what new roads, water, wastewater, stormwater, transit and other services will cost to operate, maintain and eventually replace. If those costs are not sustainable, I would favour phasing the development, requiring appropriate cost recovery, or directing more growth toward areas where infrastructure already exists. Growth is necessary, but I do not think municipalities should approve expansion based only on the short-term benefit of adding housing or assessment. The long-term financial impact has to work as well.

Would you like to provide any additional context for your views on growth?candidate's own words

I am strongly supportive of growth, but I do not think all growth is equal. Cambridge needs more housing, more jobs and more investment, and we should remove unnecessary barriers that make good development harder or slower. At the same time, growth has to be matched with transportation, water, wastewater, parks, schools and other infrastructure so that existing residents are not left absorbing the consequences of poorly planned expansion. I favour making better use of infrastructure we already have through infill, redevelopment and appropriate intensification, while still allowing outward growth where the long-term financial and servicing case is sound. For me, the key test is whether growth strengthens Cambridge over time. By expanding housing choice and the tax base while keeping infrastructure and service costs sustainable.

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

Where land has been designated and serviced for development, I think municipalities should have tools to discourage it from sitting vacant indefinitely purely as an investment. I would support measures such as a vacant-land registry, clearer construction timelines tied to servicing or development agreements where legally available, and stronger use of phased approvals so that municipal infrastructure is not built years ahead of actual development. I would also support examining whether there are lawful financial tools that better reflect the cost of holding serviced land out of productive use. The goal should not be to punish legitimate delays caused by financing, approvals or market conditions. It should be to make sure scarce serviced land is actually contributing to housing, jobs and the tax base rather than remaining dormant for years after the public has invested in the infrastructure needed to support it.

It should be more transparent and accessible

Please describe one concrete example of a trade-off you would support (or oppose) when costs rise faster than revenues.candidate's own words

If costs were rising faster than revenues, I would support deferring or cancelling a lower-priority capital project before allowing core infrastructure maintenance to fall behind. For example, if Council had to choose between proceeding with a desirable but non-essential new facility or keeping roads, sidewalks, parks, water systems and other existing assets in a state of good repair, I would prioritize maintaining what we already own. That does not mean never investing in new projects. It means being disciplined about timing and recognizing that deferred maintenance often becomes more expensive later. I would rather make a transparent decision to postpone a lower-priority project than create a larger long-term liability for taxpayers.

Would you like to provide any additional context for your views on budgets?candidate's own words

I believe municipal budgeting should start with clear priorities. Residents expect reliable core services, well-maintained infrastructure and responsible management of public dollars. That means being disciplined about new spending, looking carefully at lifecycle costs before taking on new assets, and avoiding the temptation to defer maintenance simply to hold down the current year’s tax increase. I also believe affordability cannot be addressed only through spending restraint. Growing the assessment base through well-planned residential and commercial development is an important part of keeping municipal finances sustainable over the long term. My approach would be to protect core services, look continuously for better ways to deliver them, pursue outside funding where appropriate, and make sure major spending decisions are based on long-term value rather than short-term political appeal.

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

Budget information should be easier for residents to understand without requiring them to work through hundreds of pages of financial documents. I would support clearer plain-language summaries showing what is changing from the previous year, the main reasons for tax increases, which services are growing or being reduced, and the long-term operating and maintenance costs of major capital projects. I would also like to see budget options presented more clearly, including the trade-offs involved. If Council is considering a new service, a capital project or a service reduction, residents should be able to understand both the cost and the consequence of that decision. Good transparency is not simply making information public. It is presenting it in a way that allows residents to meaningfully understand and evaluate the choices Council is making.