You may or may not know this about me, but before I ran for office I worked in community engagement. I had the honour of working for two non-profit organizations that believed that people care deeply about where they live but may be missing the information and connections they need to get things done for their neighbourhood. I have been consistently inspired by neighbourhood leadership and ingenuity and felt that if I worked as an elected official, I could create more opportunities for community leadership and passion to shine through.
That’s why I was so motivated to get involved in policy work like Emergency Preparedness, the Community Partnership Insurance Program, the Public Notification System for development applications, and the Right-of-Way gardening permissions. I think the City could do so much more (and for less!) by creating the conditions for neighbours to help neighbours and advance residents’ priorities.
When I learned two years ago that the City’s public engagement strategy, developed in 2013, was up for a refresh, I started nosing around and asked for regular updates on the City’s progress. I’ve become increasingly concerned with the tone and tenor of public engagement initiatives at the City. Whether in the rural, urban or suburban wards, I’ve noted confusion: the public isn’t always familiar with the differences between an “open house”, an “information session”, or a full consultation. The City (and councillors) don’t always do a great job of making sure people know what to expect.
If residents don’t know on what parts of the decision-making the City is consulting or the scope of feedback to which the City will listen, that can often lead to feelings of disappointment and frustration. City staff may feel overwhelmed by resident reaction and be underprepared.
If we don’t work to make this better, I worry that there will be a mutual disillusionment and pulling away from the City’s engagement with the public. Policies and programs will be less relevant, maybe even less frequently used by residents. It’s a vicious cycle that could erode the trust in our City as an institution. We’ve seen in other cities that when the relationship between city government and its residents is damaged, ill-intentioned actors can come in and use social media or other public platforms to divide communities. That’s not the democratic system I’m fighting for.
So on Wednesday, I’m moving a motion that would require the City to make public its documentation on the Public Engagement Strategy refresh. They have developed a guidebook for staff already, and I think residents should see the direction that the City is taking with public engagement and what tools residents can expect in different kinds of engagements. After all, the public is the primary stakeholder! If we can offer the public a better understanding of what kind of conversation they are entering into with the City, my hope is that temperatures can come down, and better outcomes can be achieved – maybe even trust restored.
If my motion passes, staff would be directed in eight months’ time to share with Council what lessons have been learned both from staff and the public using the engagement framework. It would further require staff to highlight what changes have been made in response to the feedback they’ve heard.
Pushing the City to some public accountability for the work they have already undertaken to refresh this strategy could go a long way to create transparency. The City would benefit from translating their internal documents for public use. Residents would know what kind of consultation the City is holding, what decisions have already been made going in, and which are up for grabs, and why the consultation has taken the form that it has.
Sometimes we need to say out loud that certain decisions are not up for public consultation, and that some engagements are purely for information. Emergency housing solutions are not for public debate. Health service locations are not up for public debate. There are certain citywide benefits, both based on the City’s strategic priorities as well as directions from other levels of governments, that aren’t helpful to debate at a hyperlocal level. This is an uncomfortable thing to say. But in my experience, greater transparency both on what will be up for consultation and what won’t goes a long way to increase trust and mutual understanding.
There’s a difference between information-sharing and consultation. Residents deserve to know what’s being asked of them when they attend an open house, complete an online form, or email a planner. Residents further deserve to know how they can most usefully and meaningfully contribute to City decision-making, and to know transparently why the scope of consultation on any given issue is as expansive or limited as it is. Residents are generous and hard-working when they provide the City their feedback. Wasting those efforts because the City has been opaque in its consultation choices does not serve the public interest well. My motion is an important step to avoid that.
As the City moves toward adopting a new Zoning By-law in early 2026, alongside two ongoing secondary plans in College Ward for 2026-27, and several infill and larger developments always ongoing, I often hear from residents with concerns about density, parks, parking, school capacity, shadows, transportation, property standards, and property values. Many residents also share they are excited by the new opportunities and growth these changes could bring.
At a recent community event, it was suggested that my background in affordable housing presented a “conflict of interest” with my role as your City Councillor. Since a conflict of interest is defined by the Municipal Act as a financial interest in a particular matter – that is, that I will personally benefit from decision-making on housing issues – this doesn’t quite add up.
City councillors this week debated a plan to give developers a break from having to pay for community improvements alongside the housing they build.