Joe Gowing

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 support maintaining Kitchener’s as-of-right permission for up to four units on suitable residential lots and focusing additional density around transit, schools and commercial areas. Small-scale housing should not require a political hearing for every project when it meets established standards. Larger developments must be tied to confirmed water, wastewater, transportation and emergency-service capacity. Where new capacity is under construction, holding provisions or phased approvals can allow planning to continue without permitting development to move ahead faster than essential infrastructure can safely support it. This reflects the approach I have taken on Regional Council: finding ways for housing to proceed while insisting on transparent servicing information, groundwater protection and responsible infrastructure planning.

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 not support a settlement-boundary expansion or major greenfield development without a complete assessment of the long-term costs of water, wastewater, roads, transit, emergency services and infrastructure maintenance. I have already requested a detailed review of investments, infrastructure condition and available capacity in the Middleton Service Area. I also brought forward groundwater-protection measures in response to the Mannheim capacity constraint. These decisions demonstrate why growth approvals must be based on verified capacity and lifecycle costs rather than short-term development revenue alone. Where outward growth is necessary, it should proceed in phases tied to infrastructure delivery, environmental safeguards and a clear plan for recovering growth-related costs. Existing taxpayers should not be left with an infrastructure bill that was not fully understood when the development was approved.

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

Since January 2025, the Region no longer has direct land-use planning approval authority. However, it remains central to growth decisions through water and wastewater infrastructure, transit, Regional roads and affordable housing. I have used that role to push for better information about servicing capacity, stronger groundwater protections and long-term infrastructure planning. I also initiated work to examine a municipal housing corporation and partnerships that could put publicly owned land and assets to work creating affordable housing. Growth and infrastructure cannot be planned separately. We need more housing, but approving development without water capacity or a plan to maintain the resulting infrastructure simply transfers today’s pressure into tomorrow’s financial and environmental problem.

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

Municipalities should first create a transparent inventory of vacant, serviced development land and identify why approved projects have not proceeded. Some delays are legitimate, including financing, remediation or infrastructure constraints, so the policy must distinguish those circumstances from speculative land holding. I would support time-limited planning approvals where provincial legislation permits, servicing agreements with clear construction milestones and the reallocation of scarce water or wastewater capacity when a developer does not meet those milestones. Servicing capacity should not be reserved indefinitely for a project that is not moving forward while other housing remains stalled. Any new holding charge should undergo legal and financial analysis and include reasonable exemptions. The objective should be to encourage construction, not penalize owners whose projects are delayed by government approvals or infrastructure that has not yet been delivered.