David Guerin

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.