Where I Stand

I am a strong supporter of women’s rights and of the right of residents to participate in public decisions. After a public controversy involving women advocates, denied delegations and Council’s response, I did more than join the public discussion. I paid the required fee and asked the Integrity Commissioner, as an independent oversight authority, to review the conduct and answer the questions being raised.

Requesting a review is not the same as declaring anyone guilty. It means using the proper process to establish what occurred, what rules applied and whether anything should be corrected. When an issue affects public confidence and other people are unwilling or unable to pursue an answer, I am prepared to do the work necessary to obtain one.

Rights have meaning only when someone is prepared to use the processes that protect them.

↑ Back to topic index

On at least three occasions, I have encountered locked doors while attempting to attend a public Council or committee meeting. If I cannot enter, other residents arriving at the same time cannot enter either. This is not merely an inconvenience; it affects the public’s ability to observe local government and participate in civic life.

I raised the issue with the City and with the Ontario Ombudsman, the authority responsible for reviewing municipal closed-meeting concerns. Repeated access failures should be treated as a systemic problem requiring a reliable solution, not as isolated accidents that residents are expected to tolerate.

A meeting cannot be meaningfully public if residents cannot get through the door.

↑ Back to topic index

It is easy to say that a municipal decision appears wrong. It requires a different level of preparation to identify the governing process, assemble the record and bring the matter before an authority capable of reviewing it.

I have used Integrity Commissioner, Ombudsman and court processes when I believed municipal decisions could affect residents’ rights or access to accountability. That includes judicial-review proceedings challenging Integrity Commissioner-related decisions and the City’s attempt to recover complaint costs. Those court matters remain to be decided; filing a proceeding is not the same as winning it.

The important point is that I understand how to move from concern to documented review. Oversight officials are human and their conclusions are not automatically beyond examination. Where the law provides a review process and the issue is important enough, I am prepared to use it responsibly.

Accountability requires more than identifying a problem. It requires knowing where a decision can properly be tested.

↑ Back to topic index

Open meetings are a basic part of local democracy. Residents should have fair and reasonable access to public meetings, public materials and the processes where decisions are discussed.

When I believe public access has failed, I do not think the concern should simply be left as a complaint in conversation. It should be documented, explained and raised with the proper authority.

The following document is one example of how I placed a public-meeting access concern before the appropriate review process.

↑ Back to topic index

I believe residents should be able to ask questions, write to Council, make submissions, request information, use lawful accountability processes and disagree with public officials without being discouraged from participating.

Public confidence is damaged when residents feel that raising a concern may lead to unfair treatment, unnecessary barriers or pressure to stay silent. Local democracy depends on more than formal voting days. It also depends on whether residents feel free to participate between elections.

The document linked below reflects my concern about public participation, accountability and the risk that residents may become reluctant to speak up when processes feel intimidating or unfair.

A healthy local democracy should encourage residents to participate, not train them to remain silent.

↑ Back to topic index

When Ontario was reconsidering automated speed cameras, I supported ending a system that I believed was becoming too focused on revenue. I was particularly concerned about municipalities expanding community safety zones and doubling fines without demonstrating that each decision was primarily about safety.

I wrote to Council, made a delegation and contacted provincial and other public authorities urging that further local implementation be stopped. The provincial program was later ended. I do not claim that my efforts alone caused that outcome. My record shows that when I believe a policy is unfair, I research it, state my position and communicate with the people who can change it.

Enforcement should be designed to improve safety—not to depend upon residents continuing to be fined.

↑ Back to topic index

I have a hearing disability. When I attended meetings of the former Downtown BIA, the room acoustics made it difficult for me to understand what people were saying. I requested permission to record the meetings as a practical accommodation so that I could follow the discussion accurately.

When that accommodation was resisted, I pursued the matter through the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. Although the BIA was later disbanded and the City assumed responsibility for its affairs, the human-rights proceeding continued to mediation. Through that process, the City provided written confirmation that recording would be permitted as an accommodation at meetings of the local board.

The request began with a barrier that affected me personally, but the principle was broader. People with hearing impairments should not be excluded from meaningful participation merely because a meeting room has poor acoustics or an organization is uncomfortable with a reasonable accommodation. I was prepared to continue through the proper process until that principle produced a practical result.

Accessibility should remove the barrier—not require the person affected to quietly accept it.

↑ Back to topic index

Municipal reports, planning matters, legal wording and public-process issues can be difficult for residents to follow. I believe important matters should be explained in ways that more people can understand.

That is why some of my recent submissions include visual explanations, plain-language summaries and comic-style illustrations. These are not meant to replace official reports. They are meant to help residents understand the process, the issue and why it matters.

Public participation should not be limited to people who already understand municipal language, planning terminology or formal legal procedure.

If residents are expected to participate, the process should be understandable enough for them to follow.

↑ Back to topic index

I believe mature trees and natural green spaces deserve protection when removal is not genuinely necessary. This is also how I manage my own downtown property. I have allowed substantial areas to grow naturally, preserving trees, vines and habitat rather than clearing the land simply because it would be easier.

When constructing a fence, I made openings around existing branches instead of cutting them away. It is a small personal example, but it reflects the principle I would bring to municipal decisions: development and maintenance should begin by asking what can reasonably be preserved.

Environmental responsibility is most credible when it can be seen in the choices we make ourselves.

↑ Back to topic index

I would like Niagara Falls to make renewable energy a normal consideration when it constructs or renovates municipal buildings. Solar power is most practical when roof area, orientation, electrical requirements and long-term operation are considered from the beginning—not added as an afterthought.

I applied that approach to my own five-storey building. It was planned to accommodate rooftop solar generation, and over the course of a year the electricity produced roughly offsets the electricity used in my home. It demonstrates what becomes possible when long-term operating costs are considered during design.

Municipal renewable energy should be evaluated as infrastructure: with realistic costs, expected production, maintenance requirements and the potential to reduce future pressure on taxpayers.

Plan for tomorrow’s operating costs while the project is still on the drawing board.

↑ Back to topic index

Niagara Falls needs successful tourism, but successful tourism does not require placing every new attraction beside the natural wonder people have travelled to see.

I oppose constructing a massive observation wheel in Queen Victoria Park. The park should remain a peaceful setting in which the Falls, river and surrounding landscape remain the principal attractions—not the background for another large commercial structure.

Niagara Falls already has established entertainment districts, including Clifton Hill, where manufactured attractions are expected and appropriate. Preserving a distinction between those districts and Niagara Parks gives visitors both experiences without allowing one to overwhelm the other.

Niagara Parks is a provincial agency, so City Council cannot decide the matter alone. Local elected representatives can and should make the community’s position clearly understood whenever provincial decisions affect the appearance, accessibility or long-term character of Niagara Falls.

Development should complement our natural wonder—not compete with it.

↑ Back to topic index

I believe stable housing gives people a base from which they can work, raise a family and improve their circumstances. That belief comes from how I was raised: provide people with what they genuinely need to establish themselves, then give them the opportunity to move forward through their own efforts.

Within the resources available to my family and me, we have made shared accommodation available and maintained stable rental housing without treating every possible rent increase as an obligation. We have also worked through a community placement program to provide housing to a family that needed it.

These choices cannot solve the entire housing shortage, but they demonstrate what I believe responsible participation looks like within one’s own sphere of influence.

A stable home is not the end of someone’s progress. It is often where progress becomes possible.

↑ Back to topic index

Several years ago, I became increasingly concerned about vacant and deteriorating buildings in downtown Niagara Falls. Some appeared inadequately secured, creating opportunities for unauthorized entry, property damage, fire and risks to the surrounding neighbourhood.

I documented what I was seeing and contacted City Hall and Property Standards. After I began raising these concerns, a number of buildings were secured and their exterior appearance improved. I do not claim that my correspondence was solely responsible for that work.

Unfortunately, some deteriorating downtown properties later experienced serious fires. I am not assigning responsibility for those incidents or claiming that any particular fire could have been prevented.

This experience reflects how I approach public service: I notice conditions, look for patterns, document concerns and bring them to the authorities responsible for addressing them. As a councillor, I would use that same attentiveness to ask questions earlier and follow up on unresolved problems while respecting the proper role of enforcement staff.

Good local government should recognize a developing problem before it becomes an emergency.

↑ Back to topic index

I am self-employed and continue to earn my living through practical, physical work. When income is directly connected to the time, effort and responsibility required to complete a job, money never feels abstract. Every tax dollar collected by the City represents work performed by a resident or local business, and it should be treated with the same care.

I am also a building code designer, and I have made firsthand knowledge a personal priority. Rather than relying entirely on others, I try to understand how something is planned, built, operated and maintained before making decisions about it.

The five-storey building I designed and constructed in downtown Niagara Falls is visible evidence of the scale of work I am prepared to undertake.

Completing a project of that size requires planning, persistence, problem-solving, long-term commitment and the ability to turn an intention into a finished result. I want to apply those same working habits to the City’s challenges.

Every tax dollar represents somebody’s work. Council should never forget that.

↑ Back to topic index

Niagara Falls receives approximately $18–20 million annually in casino-host funding. It is a major municipal revenue source, and residents should be able to connect it with recognizable public results.

The City now publishes an OLG funding page showing broad allocations such as property-tax relief, capital projects, economic development, social services and policing. That reporting is useful and should continue.

The next step should be a straightforward annual statement showing the opening balance, amount received, reserve transfers, specifically funded projects, tax relief, measurable results and closing balance.

I have raised questions and prepared detailed suggestions about municipal budget reporting. I do not need personal credit when reporting improves. What matters is that useful questions from residents are considered and the information becomes easier for everyone to follow.

If residents cannot trace a major source of public revenue to a recognizable public result, the reporting is not finished.

↑ Back to topic index

Tourism benefits Niagara Falls, but it also creates additional demands for policing, maintenance, transportation, public spaces and other services—particularly within the tourism district.

I asked Council to examine whether clearly identifiable, above-normal tourism-area costs could be funded more directly by the area receiving the special benefit instead of automatically being distributed among residential taxpayers throughout the city.

Ontario’s Municipal Act provides a mechanism for examining area-specific special services and recovering some or all of their additional costs from the benefited area.

This should not begin with a predetermined decision to impose another tax. It should begin with an open cost analysis: identify any additional service, define the benefited area, disclose what tourism already contributes, consult those affected and then decide whether the present allocation is fair.

Council did not pursue my suggestion, but I believe it deserved an evidence-based answer rather than dismissal.

Extra services should come with transparent costs—and a fair explanation of who pays.

↑ Back to topic index

I support entrepreneurship, responsible economic development and opportunities that help new businesses succeed. I also recognize that the University of Niagara Falls Canada may contribute to the renewal of our downtown. Those goals do not, however, remove the need for clear public accountability when substantial public funding is involved.

City budget records classify the Niagara Falls Innovation Hub as a fee-for-service organization. The City approved $700,000 for the Hub in 2025 from the OLG reserve, and the Hub’s 2026 request remained $700,000, again recommended to be funded from that reserve. Using casino-host revenue instead of the property tax levy does not make the expenditure any less public. It is still money belonging to the community and it should produce results residents can identify and evaluate.

The relationship is broader than a single annual grant. The City’s strategic-plan reporting states that a $1.4-million investment by the University of Niagara Falls Canada into the Innovation Hub was established over four years. The university also publicly describes the Hub as a partner whose workspaces, facilities, programs, internships, applied-research opportunities and events are available to its students.

A partnership is not improper merely because the City, the Hub and the university may all benefit from it. The concern is that residents should not have to piece together separate budget reports and promotional pages to understand the complete relationship. Council should be able to explain, in one place, what each party contributes, what each party receives and what measurable public benefit is being purchased.

The City’s own budget process says fee-for-service organizations must provide a budget request, year-to-date results, recent financial statements, a description of the services provided to the City and relevant performance information. If those records are sufficient for Council to approve funding, a meaningful public version should also be available for residents to examine.

As a councillor, I would seek annual public reporting that identifies the Hub’s ownership and governance, all government and partner funding, the service and partnership agreements, major categories of spending, aggregate staffing and compensation costs, facility use and clear performance results. Those results should include matters such as businesses served, local jobs created, businesses still operating, outside investment attracted and how publicly funded facilities and programs are being used.

This is not an allegation that the Hub, the university or City staff have acted improperly. It is a campaign position: public investment should be accompanied by public information detailed enough to test whether the promised value is actually being delivered.

Innovation deserves support when it produces results. Public funding deserves records that allow residents to see those results for themselves.

↑ Back to topic index

The following documents are provided so residents can review selected written submissions, visual explanations, public-access concerns and advocacy materials directly.

I do not expect every resident to read every document. They are included for people who want to examine the work behind the positions and decide for themselves whether the concerns were reasonable, useful and properly presented.

↑ Back to topic index