Manikantan Nair
City/Township Council · Kitchener
Back to candidatesGrowth & Planning
- Require detailed cost and risk analysis before approving
- Prioritize infill and intensification where infrastructure
- Use development phasing tied to infrastructure capacity
- Limit outward growth unless full lifecycle infrastructure
- Proceed with outward growth to address housing supply
- Expand as-of-right zoning to reduce case-by-case political decisions on housing forms
- Focus incremental density near transit, schools, and commercial areas
- Allow small-scale housing forms city-wide as-of-right (e.g. up to four units per lot)
- Eliminate parking minimum requirements
- Proceed with adopted plans even when facing local opposition
- Use public engagement to inform design, not to veto density
- Phase or adjust density in response to neighbourhood concerns about design or servicing capacity
- Approve density where infrastructure capacity already exists
- Pair density approvals with targeted infrastructure upgrades
- Use development charges or conditions to fund needed upgrades
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 as-of-right permissions for missing-middle housing in established neighborhoods, particularly where existing water, wastewater, roads and transit infrastructure can support additional residents. This would reduce delays and uncertainty in the approval process while creating more housing choices without relying solely on large apartment developments. Where infrastructure capacity is a constraint, I would support targeted upgrades and phasing rather than simply rejecting needed housing.
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 expanding the settlement boundary for a new greenfield development unless a transparent lifecycle-cost analysis demonstrates that the required roads, water, wastewater, stormwater, transit and other infrastructure can be sustainably funded, including long-term maintenance and replacement. Where expansion is justified, I would support phased development tied to infrastructure capacity and appropriate cost recovery, while prioritizing existing communities where infrastructure is already in place.
Would you like to provide any additional context for your views on growth?candidate's own words
Growth is necessary, but how we grow matters. I support a balanced approach that increases housing choices, makes better use of existing infrastructure, protects productive agricultural land, and ensures new growth contributes fairly to the infrastructure and services it requires.
Other priority not listed abovecandidate's own words
Growth decisions should consider the full lifecycle cost to taxpayers, not just the upfront cost of building infrastructure. New development should contribute fairly to the infrastructure it requires, including long-term maintenance and replacement, while protecting existing taxpayers from unsustainable future liabilities.
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 and the Region should have better tools to discourage long-term land banking, particularly where land has already received approvals or has access to significant public infrastructure. I would support a vacant land registry and transparent reporting, along with reasonable holding charges or servicing agreements that establish clear construction timelines for approved developments. These tools should distinguish between genuine development constraints and speculative holding, with appropriate exemptions where servicing, environmental, market or other legitimate factors prevent construction. The goal should be to encourage housing and productive use of land, not to unfairly penalize property owners.