Cambridge — Mayor

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.