Tony Chaves

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 using publicly owned land to develop deeply affordable and supportive housing, with strong partnerships with non-profit housing providers. At the same time, I would support a clear standard that people living in encampments are connected with outreach, shelter, and housing supports before enforcement takes place. The goal should be to move people from temporary encampments into safe, stable, permanent housing—not simply move the problem somewhere else. We need a long-term solution that protects residents, respects public spaces, and gives people the support they need to rebuild their lives.

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

Cambridge is growing, and we need to make sure housing growth works for the people who already live here as well as those who want to call Cambridge home. We need more affordable and attainable housing, but we also need the roads, transit, schools, wastewater, parks, and other infrastructure to keep pace with that growth. Housing policy should also recognize seniors, families, first-time homebuyers, and people who need supportive housing. Growth is necessary, but it has to be responsible, properly planned, and affordable for the people who live here.

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

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

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

Transportation decisions need to look at the whole picture. Cambridge is growing, and our roads, public transit, sidewalks, cycling infrastructure, and pedestrian safety all need to keep pace. I support practical improvements that make it easier and safer for people to get where they need to go, while recognizing that many residents still depend on their vehicles. We need reliable transit, safer crossings, better-connected sidewalks and cycling routes, and proper road infrastructure. Most importantly, transportation planning needs to be coordinated with housing and growth, with residents having a meaningful voice in decisions that affect their neighbourhoods. We need to invest responsibly and make sure Cambridge taxpayers see real value from those investments.

If you selected "Yes, for specific groups" above, which groups?candidate's own words

Seniors (ex. extend Older Adult Day Pass pilot), People with disabilities, Low-income residents

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

Equitable and Accessible Service Transit investments should never compromise equitable access. Residents should be able to rely on safe, accessible, and dependable transit regardless of their age, ability, neighbourhood, or circumstances. Investment decisions should consider who depends on transit most, while ensuring that new services are practical, sustainable, and provide measurable value to residents and taxpayers.

Other priority not listed abovecandidate's own words

Accountability and Transparency at City Hall Residents deserve to know how decisions are made, where their tax dollars are going, and who is responsible for delivering results. I would make transparency, accountability, and meaningful communication with residents a priority, while working to ensure City services and infrastructure keep pace with Cambridge’s growth.

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

I would prioritize Hespeler Road, particularly around major transit stops, commercial areas, and intersections. It is a busy corridor used by drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders. I would look at improving pedestrian crossings, signal timing, sidewalk connections, cycling infrastructure, and transit access so everyone can move through the corridor more safely and efficiently.

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

One concrete policy I would prioritize is gradually transitioning the municipal fleet to lower-emission and electric vehicles as existing vehicles reach the end of their useful life. Rather than replacing vehicles all at once, the City should evaluate each replacement based on purchase price, expected fuel and maintenance savings, vehicle requirements, and available charging infrastructure. This allows us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while being fiscally responsible and avoiding unnecessary upfront costs. The goal should be to make smart, gradual investments that lower emissions and operating costs over the long term while protecting taxpayers.

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

Sustainability should be part of how we plan Cambridge’s future, but it also has to be practical and financially responsible. As our city grows, we should build infrastructure that is designed to last, protect our natural environment, manage stormwater responsibly, and reduce unnecessary energy use and emissions. We should also look for opportunities where sustainable choices can reduce long-term operating and maintenance costs. I believe the City should focus on measurable results, responsible investment, and working with the Region, businesses, and residents to find solutions that make Cambridge more sustainable without placing unnecessary financial burdens on taxpayers.

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

One concrete policy I would support is creating more low-barrier spaces where local farmers, food producers, and small businesses can sell their products directly to residents. The City and Region should work with local producers, community organizations, and other levels of government to identify suitable public spaces for farmers’ markets and other local food markets, while keeping participation affordable and accessible for smaller producers. Supporting local food production and sales can help strengthen local businesses, give residents more access to locally produced food, and keep more of the economic benefit within our community. Any program should be developed with clear costs and measurable results so we are being responsible with taxpayer dollars.

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

A strong local food system supports both residents and our local economy. As Cambridge and the Region continue to grow, we should look for practical ways to support local farmers, food producers, small businesses, and community organizations. Municipalities can help by making it easier for local producers to access markets, supporting community gardens and local food initiatives, and working with partners to reduce barriers for smaller businesses. At the same time, we need to balance growth with protecting agricultural land and making responsible land-use decisions. Supporting local food should be about practical partnerships and measurable results while being mindful of costs to taxpayers.

1. Require detailed cost and risk analysis before approving
2. Use development phasing tied to infrastructure capacity
3. Prioritize infill and intensification where infrastructure
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 in established neighbourhoods, including options such as duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, particularly where existing infrastructure and services can support additional residents. However, increased density should not happen without considering the capacity of roads, transit, wastewater, stormwater, parks, and other essential infrastructure. Where upgrades are needed, development should be coordinated with targeted infrastructure improvements and appropriate funding mechanisms. The goal is to accommodate housing growth while making sure neighbourhoods have the infrastructure needed to support that growth and residents have a meaningful opportunity to provide input on design and local impacts.

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 conditioning major new greenfield development on phased servicing and a clear plan for the infrastructure required to support it. Before approving significant outward growth, the City and Region should assess the full lifecycle costs of roads, wastewater, stormwater, transit, parks, and other infrastructure. Development should then be phased so that infrastructure capacity is available as new communities are built, with appropriate costs recovered through existing funding mechanisms where applicable. I would also prioritize maintaining and upgrading existing infrastructure before taking on major new infrastructure commitments. Growth should continue where it can be properly planned and supported, but residents should not be left carrying unexpected long-term costs because infrastructure was built after the development.

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

The municipality and Region should have better tools to understand and address long-term vacant development land. I would support a vacant land registry for properties that have received significant development approvals or have available servicing but remain undeveloped for extended periods. Where appropriate, the City could use holding charges, servicing agreements with reasonable construction timelines, or phased approval conditions to encourage responsible development. At the same time, there should be reasonable exemptions for legitimate circumstances such as market conditions, financing challenges, environmental issues, or infrastructure constraints. The goal should not be to punish property owners, but to discourage speculation and ensure that approved development contributes to the community within a reasonable timeframe.

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 capital project that has a low long-term return or is not an immediate priority, rather than automatically increasing taxes to fund it. Before making that decision, I would require a clear review of the project’s costs, benefits, urgency, and long-term operating impact. Essential infrastructure, public safety, maintenance, and services residents depend on should come first. If a tax increase is ultimately necessary to maintain an essential service or address a critical infrastructure need, I would support being transparent with residents about exactly what the increase is funding and why it is necessary. Every tax dollar should provide clear value to the people of Cambridge.

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

Residents deserve to understand how their tax dollars are being spent. Municipal budgets should be easier to understand, with clear information about major projects, operating costs, long-term commitments, and the impact on taxpayers. I would support a budget process that focuses on accountability and measurable results. Before asking residents for more money, we should look for efficiencies, review spending, and make sure existing resources are being used effectively. My approach is simple: be transparent about the numbers, explain the decisions, and make sure residents know what they are getting for their tax dollars.

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

Residents should be able to clearly understand how their tax dollars are being spent, what projects are being funded, and why certain financial decisions are being made. I would support making municipal and regional budgets easier for residents to access and understand, including clearer explanations of major spending decisions, project costs, and long-term financial commitments. Transparency should not require residents to be financial experts or search through hundreds of pages of documents to understand where their money is going.