Kitchener — Ward 5

1. Prioritize infill and intensification where infrastructure
2. Limit outward growth unless full lifecycle infrastructure
3. Use development phasing tied to infrastructure capacity
4. Require detailed cost and risk analysis before approving
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 as-of-right zoning for missing-middle housing—like duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes—across established neighbourhoods. It is all about balance. Instead of jamming massive towers onto single streets or expanding outward onto farmland, we allow gentle, step-by-step growth across the entire city. It puts our existing pipes, roads, and neighbourhood parks to good use, cuts through months of municipal red tape, and gives growing families flexible, practical housing choices while keeping the feel of our neighbourhoods intact.

Please describe one concrete example of a growth or infrastructure decision you would support or oppose using this approach.candidate's own words

Prioritizing state of good repair for our existing pipes, roads, and community facilities before taking on new expansion projects. It comes down to protecting taxpayers. If we keep building outward without accounting for long term maintenance, we end up saddling future budgets with huge repair deficits. By focusing capital on upgrading the infrastructure we already own and making infill density work, we keep the city fiscally sound while using the capacity we have already paid for.

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

I support taking direct municipal action against land banking to get shovels in the ground. By tying water and sewer allocations directly to strict build out timelines, we can ensure landowners lose their servicing rights if they fail to build. Establishing a vacant land registry with targeted tax rates makes holding prime urban property purely for speculation financially unappealing. Combine that with phased planning approvals and holding charges, and if a site sits idle, the owner pays for nearby city infrastructure maintenance instead of leaving taxpayers with the tab.

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

Development should be phased where necessary, with infrastructure capacity and neighbourhood design considered alongside the need for more 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 support building more housing, but growth should not mean residents are left waiting for infrastructure to catch up. Where capacity is limited, I would support adjusting the timing or scale of development rather than simply saying no to growth. This is a practical way to balance the need for housing with responsible planning and taxpayer value.

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

I would prioritize **getting existing serviced land into productive use before extending costly infrastructure farther outward**\. That approach can support housing supply, make better use of infrastructure taxpayers have already paid for, and help manage the cost of future growth\.