Happy City: The city has formed a committee and is currently asking the public for its ideas to help prevent crime and violence. What are some key measures would you like to see implemented, especially in Ward 4, and who do you see as the key people, community groups, and organizations to work with on this issue?

Tom Davis:

To enhance safety in Ward 4, I support a comprehensive approach, including more lighting in public spaces, community policing initiatives, Neighborhood Watch Programs, and youth engagement programs. Collaborating with community groups, law enforcement, and local organizations is essential for developing effective safety strategies. Addressing root causes like poverty and service accessibility is also crucial for long-term solutions.

Happy City: The Council recently raised its mil rate, which has spurred some public opposition. However, this increase will not be enough to cover the increased costs the City faces from inflation, and major infrastructure expenditures that we know are required in the near future. In addition, many residents want the City to provide more and better services. 

The City has to balance its budget, and there is clearly a tradeoff between the priorities of maintaining affordable tax rates and maintaining and improving public services. What values will guide how you balance taxation and spending? If you would not raise taxes, what existing services would you be willing to reduce or eliminate to support your priorities?

Myles Russell:

There is a single guiding principle which is paramount to a cities function: that is  to increase revenue without increasing expenditures. The only way to do that  without raising taxes is to increase land value. The best method of raising land value is  increasing density. I have spoken with developers who own large swaths of the city  and they wish to remove parking to put up housing and the city prevents them. The city  too often puts the burden of municipal infrastructure on to developers when the existing  infrastructure works. 

I’ve read lots of work from Strong Towns, and Urban3. I’ve used that framework to start the assessment of land value per service metre, as per area is only relevant when  looking at land value and acquisition. 

I’ve spoken to hundreds of residents and have been asked many times what density  means to me. I make it clear that I do not want to put ten story apartment buildings next to a single detached home. We could increase density simply by allowing the  development of town houses and multiplex units in with single detached homes. if we  can increase density by a factor of 1.5 to 2 with simple development regulation changes, then we should. 

The city’s housing needs assessment is clear that we are missing small footprint  dwelling units from bachelor to two-bedroom, and that these units inherently are higher  density when built in row house and multiplex structures. These types of structures  would increase the city’s revenue at no cost to itself if it simply made the regulations  less restrictive. However, development regulations currently prohibit this. To increase  revenue, we MUST develop infill and denser. Sprawl does not help lower taxes. 

I find it’s very difficult to talk about any single topic as they’re all interrelated. My apologies.

Happy City: The Council recently raised its mil rate, which has spurred some public opposition. However, this increase will not be enough to cover the increased costs the City faces from inflation, and major infrastructure expenditures that we know are required in the near future. In addition, many residents want the City to provide more and better services.

The City has to balance its budget, and there is clearly a tradeoff between the priorities of maintaining affordable tax rates and maintaining and improving public services. What values will guide how you balance taxation and spending? If you would not raise taxes, what existing services would you be willing to reduce or eliminate to support your priorities?

Nicholas Hillier:

Residents of Ward 4 have been faced with tax increases for too many years. With an increase in the mil rate this year, residents are being asked to pay more at a time  when the cost of living is unreasonably high. The worst part about being asked to pay more is that we have already been told not to expect an increase in the quality of  services such as snow clearing and road maintenance. It would be easier to swallow a tax increase if the quality of our services was increasing rather than staying the same.

In recognizing that the city MUST balance our budget year in and year out, we need to consider balancing the books through a lens of improving day to day lives of the  people of Ward 4 and beyond, not just balancing the books for the sake of balancing them. Taking a person-first approach to taxation and spending is what I plan on  bringing to the table. 

I’m not promising that we won’t see cuts in some places, but my priority is finding efficiencies in what we are spending now. What is giving us a reasonable return on  our investment? Which investments in services are yielding the best results? What services are running well? What services are running deficits? 

We need to improve snow-clearing services. It is unacceptable to me that a significant number of Ward 4 residents are expected to shovel 6+ feet beyond their property  line, quite literally shovelling the street after each dump of snow. One thing I would like to reconsider is the Bike Master Plan. The paving of the Rennie’s River & the  Virginia River is something I think would not be a wise use of tax dollars, let alone a wise decision for the area. Residents have been crying out that they do NOT want this to happen. We need to listen to them rather than push through a project that had minimal public consultation and will cost us a significant amount of money with next to no improvement to day-to-day living in Ward 4.  

Evaluating our priorities through the lens of “what will improve the lives of our residents” is the key to balancing the books while ensuring that the public does not  face more tax increases.