Don Valley West

Walk around Rosedale. You will see multi-family dwellings. You will see apartments sprinkled throughout. Same with my ward. Look at the size of some single family homes, towering over their neighbours. We need housing at all price points, all tenures, and gentle intensity is a good way to do it.

Yes, but WITH clear rules. Toronto should allow substantially more housing as-of-right in every ward, provided new buildings follow predictable height, design, and servicing standards. That approach expands housing options while respecting neighbourhood form.

Be like Denmark.

Yes ONLY when the indoor option TRULY meets the person’s needs and the City has exhausted outreach and support. Otherwise, the City should keep working to find better housing or shelter rather than simply displacing people.

I support solutions that move most people faster. if there is a scheme that does this and includes congestion pricing, I will listen.

Yes - with a fine balance. If the money is clearly ring-fenced for transportation improvements and the policy includes fairness protections. Toronto should only pursue road pricing as part of a broader mobility plan, and any scheme would also need provincial authority.

Uploading the Gardiner/404 was a good move. I support other levels of government paying some operating costs, not just project related cost sharing.

Yes. Toronto should raise local revenue for core infrastructure repairs instead of letting the backlog grow. The City can and should still seek provincial and federal support, but it should not make essential maintenance dependent on outside funding.

With the caveat that most reporters do not understand construction budgets. Glen Murray once said "If the government is doing 100 projects and one goes bad, that is the only one on the front page of the Globe and Mail". I have sympathy for that view, while wanting more transparency.

Yes. Toronto should publish clear project-level budgets, schedules, and performance updates for all major capital projects. That transparency helps Council and the public track progress, spot delays early, and hold the City accountable for delivering major investments efficiently.

None of the above. According to research, 2 people driving around in a car is the least effective way to stop crime. The fastest growing crimes are internet fraud and hate crimes, which require different skill sets. We need to modernize our police force.

Toronto should give the greatest additional investment to public-space management. Well-lit, clean, well-used streets and parks reduce disorder and improve the feeling of safety, and they work best when paired with crisis services for people in distress and enforcement for serious offences.

The police need KPIs like the rest of us.

The Toronto Police Service budget should remain approximately constant after inflation. That would preserve essential policing while allowing the City to shift some workload to civilian services, prevention, and mental-health response where those tools are better suited.

If any surveillance is permitted, establish the purpose of the surveillance and monitor for effectiveness.

Toronto should permit these tools only under strict rules. The City should require clear limits on who can access the data, how long it is kept, what it can be used for, and whether it can be shared outside approved law-enforcement purposes.

With recent investments, Line 5 and the Ontario line, we are not significantly expanding service areas. We need to do that.

Toronto should give the greatest share of new transit funding to maintenance and state-of-good-repair work. The first job is to keep the existing system reliable, safe, and available, while still funding service improvements and targeted expansion where demand is strongest.

Its a system! we must balance all three. Our "debates" on this, and the three answers you provide are rather simple.

When street space is tight, Toronto should generally prioritize passenger capacity while still protecting essential access for deliveries, trades, emergency vehicles, and accessibility needs. That approach moves the most people efficiently and keeps the city functioning.

Permission actually reduced approval times in planning, where the problem lies. In the past 20 years, building permit processing times, which are about safety, have improved dramatically. There are a lot of "commentators" who done know the difference and are causing harm.

Toronto should put the greatest emphasis on reducing approval times and city-imposed costs, because that is the fastest way to unlock more housing this term.

I favour government support for non-profit ownership, including co-ops and cohousing. We also need support for condo governance and templates for condos with few units. People need control over tenure, and we need lots of options. Housing is the base of our economy.

Toronto’s primary role should be partner and financier. The City should use its land, funding, and incentives to unlock many more affordable and supportive housing projects, while also simplifying approvals and reducing barriers so non-profit and private providers can build faster.

We need multiple housing types at every price point.

Toronto should concentrate the greatest increase in density along major streets and near rapid transit. That approach puts more homes where transit, shops, and infrastructure can support growth, while still allowing gentle density in more neighbourhoods.

This is an unfortunate question. We should do all of the above, which will raise taxes.

To reduce the cost of building housing in Toronto, the City should focus on faster approvals. Expanding as-of-right zoning and automating routine permits lowers carrying costs, reduces uncertainty, and helps projects get built sooner.

Strengthen project management and make new expectation explicit.

Toronto should strengthen project governance at the front end. That means clearer stage-gate approvals, more disciplined risk management, better contract oversight, and stronger performance tracking for consultants and contractors before projects get too far off track.

Direct delivery provides organizational memory, and strengthens oversite of those project which are procured externally due to a peak demand. It allows the city to be nimble and increase control. This requires a cultural change.

Toronto should use external delivery more often where it offers better value and performance. Competitive procurement can help the City get specialized expertise, flexibility, and cost discipline, as long as contracts are tightly managed and results are measured.

Actually, they should cover expenses, whatever the increase/decrease.

Residential property-tax revenues should generally grow approximately with inflation and population. That gives Toronto enough room to maintain frontline services and capital commitments without asking residents to absorb large jumps year after year.

If we value new citizens, we can't fleece them.

Toronto should rely most heavily on broad recurring revenue. That means a stable property-tax base first, and only if legally authorized, new broad municipal taxes that can provide predictable year-over-year funding for core services.

Many non-residents use Toronto services and the province should contribute to maintenance.

Toronto should first raise dedicated revenue for infrastructure repair. A recurring source tied to state-of-good-repair work is the clearest way to stop the backlog from growing while still preserving core services and facilities.

Toronto’s primary approach to the province should be partnership. The City should work with Queen’s Park on shared priorities to bring real money, approvals, or policy wins, while keeping the option to advocate for better long-term authority and revenues.

Strong mayor powers should be used mainly for administration. They are best used to improve how City Hall is run, while being applied carefully and only where they clearly advance housing and infrastructure priorities.

Toronto should focus first on core services in Don Valley West. Residents need reliable transit, maintained roads and sidewalks, well-kept parks, and responsive local infrastructure before the City pushes growth or treats disorder as the top issue.

We need to make the city climate ready.

Use a specific, measurable ward commitment as the main scorecard for the term. That makes accountability clearer and lets voters see whether you delivered on the promise they elected you to keep.

We need a faster, balanced transportation system, which includes cycling, which tops out as 30% in cycling cities, and must be used in winter to qualify as transportation. This may mean "review and expand".