Regional Council — Kitchener

1. Limit outward growth unless full lifecycle infrastructure
2. Prioritize infill and intensification where infrastructure
3. Require detailed cost and risk analysis before approving
4. 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 a growth plan that protects our environment, respects tax dollars, and builds housing regular people can actually afford. I support “missing middle” housing (like townhomes and triplexes) inside existing neighborhoods, while locking down a strict regional boundary to permanently stop urban sprawl. Here are four priorities for a growth plan that uplifts our communities: 1) Protect Our Green Spaces: Avoid paving over our vital agricultural lands and nature for low-density subdivisions. 2) Growth Pays for Growth: Developers, not taxpayers, should be responsible for the cost of the water lines, sewers, and parks needed for new builds. 3) Real Affordability: Defining a clear, local income-based benchmark (replacing the flawed federal standard) for development that is truly affordable for our local middle class and marginalized neighbours. 4) Design Guided by Residents: Consultation that isn’t about whether to build, but rather how to build beautifully. Residents should be part of creating strict design guidelines that include; height limits, architectural matching, and privacy screening to ensure new homes complement a neighborhood's character, rather than erasing it. We should protect our environment, shield taxpayers, and ensure our families aren’t priced out of the community they call home.

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 proposed local greenfield subdivision expansion and instead support delaying any settlement boundary expansions.Our current infrastructure priority must focus on a state-of-good-repair within our existing borders rather than taking on the massive, unsustainable lifecycle costs of building outward. Expanding our boundaries violates our commitment to protecting vital agricultural lands and green spaces from urban sprawl. Also, we cannot ask existing taxpayers to subsidize the multi-million-dollar extensions of water lines, sewers, and roads required for a new low-density 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

We need to stop corporate landlords and developers from treating our neighborhoods like a stock market while families struggle to find a place to live. Leaving buildable land empty just to watch its value go up is unacceptable, and I support strict rules to force these investors to start building. The Region of Waterloo directly manages our water treatment and major sewer infrastructure, so water allocation policies and strictly enforced connection timelines can be used to help stop land banking. Here’s how: 1. A "Use It or Lose It" Water Clock: In our region, a developer cannot build without a guaranteed share of municipal water capacity. Under our regional Water Supply Capacity Allocation Policy, we can put developers on a strict clock. If a developer secures water capacity for a property but fails to pull a building permit or start construction within a clear timeline (like 2 to 3 years), they lose their water allocation automatically. 2. Reassigning the "Water Bucket" to Ready Builders: We can take that clawed-back water capacity and put it back into the municipal "bucket". It will immediately be reassigned to local builders who are actually ready to put shovels in the ground to build income-matched, affordable missing-middle housing. 3. Milestone-Based Servicing Agreements: We can stop giving out blanket infrastructure promises for massive, multi-phase pieces of land. Through Forward-Looking Servicing Agreements, the Region can unlock water hookups in small, strictly monitored phases. A developer will not get water capacity for "Phase 2" of their investment until "Phase 1" (which must include the affordable housing our community needs) is built and occupied.

Other priority not listed abovecandidate's own words

Coordinate growth decisions with the level of government that has planning authority and ensure infrastructure capacity is realistically aligned before commitments are made. Regional Council should use the tools within its authority to understand the long-term infrastructure, water, transportation and service costs associated with growth. However, there are limitations to what the Region can control, particularly where provincial legislation and planning decisions determine the direction and scale of growth. Where the Region has authority, I would support evidence-based infrastructure and lifecycle cost analysis, clear phasing tied to available capacity, and prioritizing existing infrastructure where practical. Where decisions are made at another level of government, the Region should clearly identify the financial and infrastructure implications and advocate for the resources and coordination needed to support that growth. Growth should not be treated as simply a land-use decision. It needs to be matched with the infrastructure, water capacity and financial resources required to support complete and sustainable communities.

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.

1. Require detailed cost and risk analysis before approving
2. Limit outward growth unless full lifecycle infrastructure
3. Use development phasing tied to infrastructure capacity
4. Prioritize infill and intensification where infrastructure
5. Proceed with outward growth to address housing supply

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

No surprises here, it's "care for people and the land we share" all the way through.

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'm struggling to recall in the moment, but I believe Steve Pomeroy may have written about some possible options for governments in this regard? I would have to go back through some of those articles to find something more specific, though.

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

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

governments should not interfere with private land owners

1. Use development phasing tied to infrastructure capacity
2. Limit outward growth unless full lifecycle infrastructure
3. Prioritize infill and intensification where infrastructure
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

The Region of Waterloo no longer has planning authority to influence much of these conversations. I continue to support the expansion of our rapid transit network to enable more households to be one-car or no-car households over time.

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 the continuation of the Region's water allocation policy as one way to support coordinated growth and development that matches our ability to provide water (and wastewater) infrastructure. I fully support a continued push on intensification that reduces long-term costs and avoids expensive outward expansion.

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

In 2022, a key question on the Regional ballot was maintaining the Countryside Line in the Regional Official Plan. Since then, the Regional Official Plan has become the OP of the area municipalities. As a Region, we need to be proactive in how we plan and fund infrastructure to avoid future situations where infrastructure capacity is a limit to our ability to build new housing and support new jobs. As an urban planner, I have brought my perspective to Regional Council in helping navigate these challenges.

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

Engaging with landowners to identify if interim uses can occur. The Region has a limited authority in this realm.

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'm running for Regional Council because of an issue I'm having with a local business that also happens to have a contract with the Region of Waterloo. That business has asked me to take my patronage of their service elsewhere while refusing to provide an explanation as to why. My position is that Waterloo Taxi Ltd., if they wish to keep their MobilityPlus contract, has to provide me, and Waterloo Taxi's shareholders, an explanation as to why I was told to take my business elsewhere.

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

I'm running for Regional Council because of an issue I'm having with a local business that also happens to have a contract with the Region of Waterloo. That business has asked me to take my patronage of their service elsewhere while refusing to provide an explanation as to why. My position is that Waterloo Taxi Ltd., if they wish to keep their MobilityPlus contract, has to provide me, and Waterloo Taxi's shareholders, an explanation as to why I was told to take my business elsewhere.

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

I'm running for Regional Council because of an issue I'm having with a local business that also happens to have a contract with the Region of Waterloo. That business has asked me to take my patronage of their service elsewhere while refusing to provide an explanation as to why. My position is that Waterloo Taxi Ltd., if they wish to keep their MobilityPlus contract, has to provide me, and Waterloo Taxi's shareholders, an explanation as to why I was told to take my business elsewhere.

Other priority not listed abovecandidate's own words

I'm running for Regional Council because of an issue I'm having with a local business that also happens to have a contract with the Region of Waterloo. That business has asked me to take my patronage of their service elsewhere while refusing to provide an explanation as to why. My position is that Waterloo Taxi Ltd., if they wish to keep their MobilityPlus contract, has to provide me, and Waterloo Taxi's shareholders, an explanation as to why I was told to take my business elsewhere.

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'm running for Regional Council because of an issue I'm having with a local business that also happens to have a contract with the Region of Waterloo. That business has asked me to take my patronage of their service elsewhere while refusing to provide an explanation as to why. My position is that Waterloo Taxi Ltd., if they wish to keep their MobilityPlus contract, has to provide me, and Waterloo Taxi's shareholders, an explanation as to why I was told to take my business elsewhere.