How to read this page. Each row below is one policy area, with Keith Yacucha's mark for it on the right; the key underneath says what each mark means. Open a row for the questions behind that mark, what they answered, and why each answer scored as it did. The control above the list opens all of them at once. At the foot of the page you can print this scorecard or share it as an image.
General
What Keith Yacucha said
- Not graded GEN-01
If you could change one policy, bylaw, feature, or municipal asset (i.e, facility or infrastructure) in your municipality, what would it be and why?
Parks and recreation.
Due to a long history of contracting out services and relying on public private partnerships, the City of Langford has an extremely small parks and recreation department.
This has resulted in plenty of Pay to Play scenarios. Lacking a city owned and operated recreational facility greatly hampers our ability to offer affordable recreational programming right in our city.
Fortunately as a owner of Westshore Parks and Recreation (WSPR), we have built a plan to expand this society to provide greater public access, but to date, these facilities are largely located outside of Langford, and any expansion will not be built or active for years. - Not graded GEN-02
Your municipality has received $10 million in new annual funding and must spend all of it. How would you allocate it across the following areas? Your answers must total $10 million.
Keith Yacucha's allocation of ten million dollars Housing $3,000,000 Transit $500,000 Walking Infrastructure $0 Rolling & Cycling Infrastructure $100,000 Roadway Infrastructure $0 Policing $100,000 Fire & Emergency Services $0 Parks & Recreation $3,000,000 Arts & Culture $3,000,000 Climate Action & Environment $0 Unhoused Resident Services $0 Community-Based Clinics $300,000 - Not graded GEN-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to communicate about your region, generally, feel free to share your thoughts here.
With respect to the previous question (How would you allocate $10 million), while $10 million is a significant amount of money, it also isn't if the intent is to make a meaningful movement of the needle.
Thus, while there is a part of me that would want to allocate the $10 million between the listed services in such a way that represents my ranked value for the importance of each service, I have instead allocated the resources towards the area's I think it would make the largest immediate impact - That is focusing on benefit per dollar.
As a result, a low, or $0 ranking in any one category should not be taken as I do not believe in such an area, but rather, I believe that greater impact per dollar could be had else where, or regulatory changes (within our authority under the community charter) are better served to achieve those goals.
One of the additional big assumptions is that this is a one time grant - thus anything funded by this either (a) needs to be completed in that amount or (b) if needs to continue to be funded would need increased future funding from other sources (IE Taxation)
For Example:
Housing: $3,000,000 Contributing towards affordable housing grants for partnerships with organizations like Habitat for humanity to get new affordable home built, this is vitally important given the need for affordable housing and Senior levels of government cutting their own grants. This ensures these dollars go further than what the municipality could do on its own. Included in this would be a trial position for a housing and development coordinator - positions to (a) assist those in need of finding housing, to find housing and (b) to assist developers of all size (from non-profit to mom & pop) to navigate the city hall process to be able to build as needed. This would be a operational cost, thus the position is piloted from these funds, then would need to be funded through other sources if proven successful.
Transit: $500,000 While I would love to see vast improvement to the transit system, or even the introduction of light rail or train, that is not possible with this budget. $500,000 (based on my back of the envelope math) should be sufficient to provide free bus passes to all youth under 19 and seniors in Langford. This would be an ongoing operational cost, thus would be funded this first year through this grant as a pilot, then would need to be funded through other sources if successful.
Walking Infrastructure: Controversially I will be assigning $0 to this despite it being vitally important. The rationale being is that sidewalk infrastructure is exceptionally expensive, and other funding and grant sources already exist to fund this. So while I would love to expand this infrastructure further, there are other listed area's which are not eligible for external grants which would provide larger benefit per dollar.
Rolling & Cycling Infrastructure: $50,000. Again, like with Walking infrastructure this appears to go against my values of providing increased safe choice and access to transportation. Again the reason behind this is because many existing grants exist to fund and build out such networks, further more, for the ($) value provided, relatively little infrastructure could be built. Thus my allocation here would be $100,000 towards a micro-mobility (E-scooter, E-bike) rebate to help assist the cost of obtaining a E-bike or E-scooter to increase access to the existing and expanding networks.
Roadway Infrastructure: Again stays at zero, despite being one of the largest issues we face on the Westshore - the rationale is given the exorbitant cost of roadway upgrades (think ball park $250,000 for a traffic light for example) these funds could have significantly more impact allocated else where. further between provincial, ICBC, and development funds there are many more sources available to fund these improvements than almost any other on the list.
Policing (Public Safety): At a cost of approximately $250,000/yr for us to add an additional officer to the city, this is one of the municipalities largest operational costs. My allocation of $100,000 would be towards continued funding of a public safety plan that supports our RCMP to do what they were hired to do (deal with criminal activity) while empowering other services and bylaw to deal with non-criminal issues which attribute to a sense of diminished public safety. We have already started this process, this would need to be an ongoing cost (thus operations and needing other funding sources in future) but would be piloted for success first with these funds.
Fire & Emergency Services: This is surprisingly a $0, despite having been a focus of the past term. The rationale being is that much of the increase still needed for this department would be operational in nature, thus a recurring annual cost that a one time lump sum would not solve. At this time I am un aware of any pressing capital needs for the department which are not yet committed to being funded. I could potentially ear-mark a portion of this to provide funding for continued Firesmart staffing (as this has been hugely successful) but we are currently receiving (stable to date) funding for this program. Thus would rather see these funds go to other places rather than duplicating funding that already exists.
Parks & Recreation: This has been an area identified as being in tremendous need. the full $10m grant could go to this and still not provide a new recreational centre. Thus in conjunction with the funding sources we already have in place I would like to see $3m go towards acquisition of additional park space in our equity deserving area's as identified in the parks and trails masterplan.
Arts & Culture: I will link together both Arts & Culture as well as economic development here as the recipient of $3m of this grant. While it has long been identified that a performing arts centre is long over due in the Westshore, parts of this grant could assist in bringing this to reality (although significantly more funding would still need to be provided as well). Further, given the huge success of the FIFA watch party, not to mention all the other summer festivities we have hosted that not only worked to increase a sense of community, but also kept people here and drew in new people, spending money locally and supporting our local small businesses.
Climate Action & Environment - This is a zero, not because it is a zero but because we already have operational funding in place for this and there are grants available which are already being accessed. Much of the other impacts of this are achievable through regulatory changes and the way we engage in transportation (over 50% of emissions) and housing (Close to 30% of emissions) thus internal work flows and actions taken in these regards will have far greater impacts than any lump sums spent here.
Unhoused Resident Services: This is again and zero not zero because this was already captured in the funding allocation for the housing category.
Community-Based Clinics: One of the largest successes this term was partnering with SIPCS to create a space for new doctors which were able to attach 12,500 people to a family doctor in the region. This is entirely a capital expense to acquire land and engage in improvement for the site for the clinic which has had tremendous impact. Importantly though this is outside of the municipal mandate, so while it has tremendous impact and we should be evaluating it, we also need to ensure that we are focusing on our mandate for local government and not taking on too many extra downloaded responsibilities.
Healthcare access
What Keith Yacucha said
- Not graded HLT-01
What role should your municipality play in establishing new primary care clinics?
Why we ask this
Ungraded. Mainly curious about how you'd approach expanding healthcare access in your region.
Chose 1 of 4 options - Not graded HLT-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to healthcare in your municipality, feel free to share your thoughts below.
Our partnership with SIPCS to bring doctors to City Hall and the Bryn Maur clinic has been wildly successful with about 12,500 people attached to a family doctor.
we need to be careful, as this is not within the local government mandate, so every dollar spent here is taken away from an aspect of our mandated service delivery.
That being said, given the wild success of this model to date we are currently exploring an expansion of this with another clinic being proposed in partnership with SIPCS in Happy Valley.
Transit
A- 20% of this topic TRN-01 A
Which fare measures would you actively advocate for at the VRTC? Select all that apply.
Why this grade: Backed free travel for under 19s, cheaper fares for seniors, and cheaper fares for people on income or disability assistance. Only the lower cost regional monthly pass went unticked, so every group of riders the question named is covered.
How this question is graded
A count of ticks, because no option here is cheaper than the others in the way CLI-06's are. Four or more = A. Three = B. Two = C. One = C-. None = F. The rows graded before this rubric was written are not perfectly consistent with it at three and two ticks; they were left as typed and the majority letter was taken. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Keith Yacucha chose 3 of 6 options (up to 4 allowed) - 30% of this topic TRN-02 B
Do you support removing general on-street parking (excluding accessible parking spaces) from frequent transit corridors and main arterial streets in your municipality, and reallocating that space to bus lanes, loading zones, and walking and cycling infrastructure?
Why this grade: Would take general street parking off transit corridors only where a particular project needs it, so the corridor as a whole stays as it is and each removal has to be argued on its own. That is partial support for the right change, which is why it sits below a full yes. Note: Langford's transportation master plan highlights a select few targeted transit supportive interventions that will guide the city's growing transit priority network; targeted transit priority solutions, such as the Peatt Rd corridor, will have an outsized impact on overall transit performance within the city. Keith has previously expressed support for these specific interventions.
How this question is graded
Yes, across the whole corridor = A. Yes, only during peak hours = B. Kind of, only when a specific project requires it = C. No = F. Peak hours only is a real, testable limit on a yes, so it takes the conditional-yes B. Only when a specific project requires it names no project and commits to nothing in advance, which is the case-by-case answer CLI-08 puts at C. A No is F because the question is about street space, which is infrastructure. Eight of the earlier rows put the case-by-case option at B and nineteen put it at C; the nineteen were followed. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 6 options - 30% of this topic TRN-03 A
Do you support rapid deployment of transit priority measures on frequent transit corridors, even where this requires removing on-street parking or a general-purpose traffic lane?
Why this grade: A clear yes to deploying transit priority quickly on frequent corridors, parking and a general traffic lane included. No conditions on the answer.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Yes, but not at the cost of a general-purpose travel lane = C-. No = F. The question asks specifically about giving up a traffic lane, so a yes that rules the lane out withholds the one thing being asked for and cannot take the conditional-yes B. C- rather than F because the rest of the toolkit is still on the table. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 6 options - 10% of this topic TRN-04 A
Do you support the creation of a regional transportation authority?
Why this grade: Supports creating a regional transportation authority. A plain yes with nothing attached to it.
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No = C-. A No is C- rather than F because this asks who should decide, not what should be built or funded, which puts it on the governance side of the CLI-03 split. Three earlier rows typed F and two typed C-; the governance rule was followed over the count. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 3 options - 10% of this topic TRN-05 A
Do you support building new bus-only and bike-only connections through parks, golf courses or public land when doing so would substantially shorten transit and cycling trips?
Why this grade: Said yes to new bus and bike connections through parks, golf courses and other public land where they would substantially shorten trips. Nothing conditional in the answer.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Yes, if no mature trees are lost during construction = B. No = F. Losing no mature trees is a named and checkable condition, so it takes the conditional-yes B. A No is F because the question is about building a connection, which is infrastructure. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 5 options
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded TRN-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to transit in your region, feel free to share your thoughts below.
Our first ever Transportation master plan identifies many of these suggestions as priorities and has been adopted and endorsed by council
Housing
C- HFL-01 6 / 8
What kinds of housing could your municipality use more of? Select all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point per selected type to max of 8. Housing exists on a continuum and different types are appropriate for different households. All housing is needed and positively affects other types via vacancy chains
Keith Yacucha chose 6 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-02 6 / 8
Which of the following items do you support to minimize tenant displacement and maintain/grow the supply of affordable housing? Select up all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point per strategy to max of 8. To tackle tenant displacement local governments must take an all of the above approach to reduce the impacts associated with renovictions and evictions.
Keith Yacucha chose 6 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-03 4 / 6
Do you think your municipality should have target approval times for multifamily housing?
How this question is graded
6 points for 30/180 days, prorated for longer timelines. Housing delayed is housing denied. Long delays drive us costs for housing, increase the chance that they will be cancelled, and indicate a lack of clear published guidelines. A time limit on decisions prioritizes housing action and reforms.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 5 options - HFL-04 3 / 5
If there was a type of housing you wanted to see more of (e.g., affordable, non-market, family-sized, townhouses, etc.), what do you think are effective methods of getting more of it? Select all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point for each option, but -1 for choosing mandated requirements (d). To increase the building of certain desireable types of housing (affordable, family sized, etc), cities need to pursue a broad approach of both removing barriers and targetted incentives. Mandated requirements (or inclusionary zoning) have a track record of acting like a tax and therefore reducing housing construction or increasing costs.
Keith Yacucha chose 5 of 8 options - HFL-05 0 / 3
Do you believe that the municipality should pre-zone to the uses, heights and densities outlined in the Official Community Plan, so that OCP-compliant projects can be built without rezoning or public hearing?
How this question is graded
3 points for yes, 0 for no. An OCP sets out the direction and vision for a municipality with broad input from the community and council. Matching zoning to long term consensus-based plans reduces scarcity and allows incentivizes OCP compliant housing to be built quickly.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 3 options - HFL-06 2 / 6
Beyond the three to four units Bill 44 already requires, what is the most housing you think should be legal to build by-right (i.e. without rezoning) in traditional single-family areas of your municipality?
How this question is graded
a) 0 points b) 1 points c) 2 points d) 5 points e) 6 points. With little room for new single family developments, housing abundance relies on density. People unable to afford a single family house should not be relegated to living only on busy arterials where high density is legal, but should have a diversity of housing options in every neighbourhood.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 6 options - HFL-07 0 / 3
A housing proposal has been reviewed by staff and they recommend approval. It requires rezoning because the existing zoning has not been updated. If it faces substantial neighbourhood opposition, how would you generally vote?
How this question is graded
3 points for a), 0 otherwise. Housing approval rules must be predictable and clear for those building housing, or it will lead to scarcity. If municipal planning staff have adequately considered objections to a project and still recommend approval it should be approved. If unanticipated issues are raised, policies should be clarified to ensure staff can work with applicants on future projects.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 5 options - HFL-08 2 / 2
Do you support eliminating minimum parking requirements for new developments or suites?
How this question is graded
1 point for yes, 2 points for yes with transportation demand management measures, 0 points for no. A single additional parking space can add tens of thousands to the cost of a home. However, a development without parking and without offsetting remedies can impact livability for the eventual occupants of a home.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-09 5 / 6
Non-market housing often faces additional challenges getting approved. Which of the following measures do you support to improve the prospects for below-market housing construction? Select all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point for each option, but -1 for choosing mandated requirements (d). Building homes is hard, building non-market homes is substantially harder. This has serious socio-economic consequences for certain members of society. With the exception of mandated requirements (or inclusionary zoning), which have a track record of acting like a tax and therefore a deterrent to new construction, a broad and flexible approach is needed to help non-market housing across the approval finish line.
Keith Yacucha chose 7 of 9 options (up to 7 allowed) - HFL-11 1 / 6
The BC government set a housing target for Victoria at 4,902 homes over five years, which represents 75% of the estimated housing need for that period. Regardless of provincial requirements or penalties, do you believe the city should strive to build:
How this question is graded
6 points for too low, 1 for about right, 0 for too high. By definition, the provincial housing targets, being set as only 75% of estimated housing need is too low of a target to meet local housing needs.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-10 2 / 7
If elected, what do you hope to have accomplished on the housing file at the end of your first year, and end of your four-year term?
How this question is graded
To receive full marks, candidates receive a point up to 7 for referencing impactful housing ideas in their answer including but not limited to: a rental vacancy rate target, a quantitative target regarding annual homes built, pre-zoning commitments / OCP alignment, non-profit by right commitment, commitment to tenant production aligned with platform, commitment to regulate and enforce Airbnb rules, delegate more rezoning / variance decisions to staff, a continuation of policies that have been working, developing a pre-approved catalog of housing designs, loosening design guidelines or other restrictive regulations, minimizing tenant displacement, increasing the regional housing fund, enhancing partnerships with other levels of government, the private sector, co-ops, and non-profit housing developers, streamlining regulations, and shorten requirements.
Keith Yacucha's answerAs I am sure I have already taken up my space, I will keep this brief. Largely following through with our updates to the OCP, Transportation plans, and Inclusionary Zoning and Housing strategy.
Nuance to Questions;
HFL-05; -- Current financial frame-work has a significant amount of municipal revenue collected and negotiated at the point of re-zoning. Without significant changes at the provincial level, large scale pre-zoning would result in either a significant cut to amenity and infrastructure funding, or require a significant burden shift to property taxes.
HFL-07; -- A big deciding factor of this is also whether or not the proposed project is OCP compliant. A project that is showing staff support which is NOT OCP compliant may be more likely to be voted against while a project showing staff support which is OCP compliant would be more likely to receive a vote in favour.
HFL-08; -- We have already done this in our core and implemented Transportation Demand Management to allow for reaching below minimum parking with acceptable trade-offs in other areas.
HFL-09; -- We have just passed Inclusionary zoning bylaws and are set to receive our new housing strategy (just received the final draft) which recommends all the points listed.
HFL-11; -- We are already well underway to achieve and blow past this target. There are significant social and physical infrastructure costs that also are required to have a community for this many people, from schools and health care to regional and provincial transportation networks. If we grow too fast and outpace the ability for this infrastructure to expand in step, we will create a whole other slew of social costs. Need to be careful to grow, but also have the supporting services.
30% of this topic Incumbent record 27.55 / 29What Keith Yacucha did about housing during their current term, scored by Homes for Living. This is not a questionnaire answer: no candidate was asked it.
Why this score: 94.20%
Scored from Homes for Living's vote tracker.
Climate
B- 8% of this topic CLI-01 B
Would you support ending fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship on property, media and events controlled by your municipality, to the extent the law allows? And would you advocate for the same at the Victoria Regional Transit Commission for BC Transit vehicles and shelters?
Why this grade: Would end fossil fuel advertising but not the sponsorship, and would carry the advertising case to the transit commission. The advocacy lifts the answer, while leaving sponsorship in place keeps it off the top.
How this question is graded
Two commitments in one question, so the menu answer alone cannot reach the top. The menu sets a base and a Yes on the follow-up about advocating at the Victoria Regional Transit Commission raises it one step. Yes, both advertising and sponsorship = B, and A with the follow-up. Yes, advertising only or Yes, sponsorship only = C, and B with the follow-up. No = F, because ending the advertising is something the municipality controls outright. A follow-up written as free text rather than ticked is a judgement about the candidate and is graded by hand. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 6 options Follow-up: Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-02 B
The Capital Regional District declared a climate emergency in 2019. How should your municipality treat climate action in its next four-year plan?
Why this grade: A funded place in the top three. The dedicated budget is what separates this from a stated intention, and the ranking is what keeps it below the top.
How this question is graded
The overriding priority, other decisions should be tested against it = A. One of the top three priorities, with a dedicated budget = B. One priority among many, addressed where affordable = C-. Not a municipal priority = F. The ladder skips C on purpose: a dedicated budget is the line between a priority and a sentiment, so addressing climate only where affordable drops two steps rather than one. Handing the file to another order of government is F. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-03 C-
Will you pledge to never take meetings from fossil fuel company lobbyists?
Why this grade: Will not commit to refusing fossil fuel lobbyists. Keeping that access open is below what the question asks, and it is a matter of practice rather than of municipal delivery.
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No = C-. The No is C- rather than F because of the split the grading settled on: a plain No is C- where the question is about governance or conduct and F where it is about infrastructure, land use or funding. This one asks a candidate to give up a channel of access to themselves, which is conduct. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-04 —
Climate-related damage and adaptation costs increasingly fall on municipal budgets. Would you vote to have your municipality join other BC local governments in legal action to recover a share of those costs from major fossil fuel producers?
Why this grade: Neither supports nor opposes joining the legal action. Left ungraded because an unsure is an absence of a position rather than a position to grade.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Yes, if municipal costs are capped = B, because a conditional yes is B wherever one appears and a cap on municipal exposure lands there. No = F, because the question is about spending to recover costs, which is the funding side of the split CLI-03 sits on the other side of. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-05 A
Will you support a zoning bylaw amendment that prohibits the approval of any new or expanded commercial gas stations within municipal boundaries?
Why this grade: Agrees to prohibit new and expanded stations. That closes off further fossil fuel retail capacity for the life of the bylaw.
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No = F. A land use question, so a No is F rather than C-. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-06 C
Extreme heat, wildfire smoke and wildfire risk all affect people living in existing homes. What would you have your municipality do to protect them? Select all you support.
Why this grade: Picks two measures only. That is a narrow response to a question about people living in homes they cannot easily cool or seal.
How this question is graded
Up to five measures may be ticked. Four or more ticks including at least two of the three the municipality has to pay for (subsidized home assessments, grants or financing for retrofits, designated centres with guaranteed opening hours) = A. Three or more ticks = B. Two = C. One = C-. None of the above = F. The funding floor is there because a straight count of ticks would let a candidate reach the top on the two cheapest options, a vegetation bylaw and an information campaign, while committing no money to anyone actually living in an overheating home. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Keith Yacucha chose 2 of 7 options (up to 5 allowed) - 8% of this topic CLI-07 A
Are you supportive of phasing out fossil fuel powered tools such as leaf blowers (following the lead of Oak Bay and other municipalities across the country)?
Why this grade: Yes to following the lead of municipalities that have already done this. The path is proven and the candidate is willing to take it.
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No = F. A regulatory phase-out, graded on the same footing as CLI-05. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-08 C
Large data centres can add substantial electricity and water demand. Under what conditions, if any, would you support a new data centre in your municipality?
Why this grade: Would support a data centre under conditions set case by case. Nothing is named, so the answer commits to a process rather than to a limit.
How this question is graded
Oppose all new data centres = A. Support only with waste-heat recovery and no net increase in potable water use = B. Support only under conditions set case by case = C. Support without special conditions = F. The two conditional options are separated by whether the condition binds. Waste-heat recovery and no net potable water increase is a testable commitment, so it takes the conditional-yes B. Conditions set case by case name nothing and commit to nothing, so it takes the C that a depends-case-by-case answer gets everywhere else. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-09 A
What are the primary climate risk(s) facing your community, and what actions would you take to support adaptation and resilience in your community?
Why this grade: Identifies a specific risk relevant to Langford and identifies an existing program to support to work towards resilience and adaptability.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = names a climate risk specific to the municipality and specific actions against it, usually tied to data or a programme already running. B = one half only, a risk with no action or actions with no risk named, or backing an existing plan without either. C = general support with nothing local in it, a list of risks and nothing else, or the work handed to the region. C- = a risk gestured at and nothing more. F = an answer that is not about climate.
Keith Yacucha's answerAs recently identified in our first Climate Action Plan, Wildfire interface risk is one of the biggest threats we face.
Continued funding and support for our Firesmart program is one of the immediate ways we can mitigate this risk. - 8% of this topic CLI-10 B
Ensuring ecosystem connectivity is an important adaptation strategy for climate change. How do you plan to maintain or increase ecosystem features across the urban landscape?
Why this grade: Connects the issue directly to the current research and plans for Langford, but does not elaborate in this answer on strategies to improve ecosystem connectivity.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = says what connectivity is and why it matters, with local examples, usually tied to data, a programme already running or the official community plan. B = practical examples with no local detail, or no link back to connectivity. C = general support with no project named, or an answer broad enough to fit any question. C- = agrees with the idea and offers nothing to do about it, or answers about something tangential. F is not used.
Keith Yacucha's answerThis is an identified benefit in our first parks and trails masterplan, coupled with our Urban Forestry masterplan we have identified Equity deserving area's that are most in need of investment and further how maintaining access to parks, ecosystems and green space provides natural breaks from the heat. - 8% of this topic CLI-11 C
Do you see development as an opportunity to increase resilience to climate-related events, and if so, how?
Why this grade: They make a good point and have general support for reslience-focused development, but miss the mark by not providing much information on opportunties or strategies for development to improve climate resilience.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = yes, with how and why, naming strategies or a local policy that ties development to resilience. B = yes with relevant examples but no account of how they build resilience or how they get built. C = general support and nothing past what the building code already requires. C- = a bare yes, or support that doubts it is possible. F = does not accept that development can make a community more resilient.
Keith Yacucha's answerShort of a massive social change, we will continue to grow. Every new building and development will impact our landscape and environment for at least 50 or more years. thus with the base belief that growth will happen, the question becomes how do we ensure that these new developments are contributing, at worst, to a net-zero situation. - 8% of this topic CLI-12 A
The UBCM passed several resolutions saying municipalities should be able to have climate action lens and climate considerations in development and housing mandates. Do you support blue-green infrastructure upgrades as a requirement of developments for climate readiness?
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No = F. Graded by RUSH from 2026-09-01; the mapping is recorded so the remaining rows match the ones already typed. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 3 options
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded CLI-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to climate concerns with respect to your municipality or the region as a whole, feel free to share your thoughts below.
CLI-02: With our climate action plan (currently in draft form) aims to make this a core aspect of how we approach our OCP, asset management, transportation and more.
CLI-03: Generally against absolutes like this.
CLI-05: As this is Yes/No only, I would lean towards 'yes' however I believe there is significant nuance here that needs to be addressed, especially as it comes to commercial vehicle re-fueling and cardlocks.
CLI-06: Much of this is being recommended in our current draft climate action plan which I am hopeful will be adopted in September based on what i've seen and heard from public feedback to date.
CLI-08: I think generally oppose, and only support under specific circumstances and conditions, but that was not an option.
Arts
A- 6.67% of this topic ART-01 2 / 3
Do you consider arts and culture to be a core part of your municipality's economic development strategy?
Why this score: Directly links the recently adopted arts and culture and economic development plans and identifies their arts/economic objectives as core to the city's success.
How this question is graded
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: We have just passed the city's first Arts and culture as well as Economic development plan. I believe both are intricately linked to each other. the outcomes and objectives laid out in these plans I believe are core for increasing the vibrancy of our city as well as it's economic success. - 16.67% of this topic ART-02 2 / 3
If elected, what specific action will you commit to in your first year to strengthen your municipality's arts and cultural sector, and what measurable outcome should residents expect by the end of your four-year term?
Why this score: Commits to carrying out the existing strategy's timelines, but does not establish a distinct new four-year measurable outcome beyond implementation of that strategy.
How this question is graded
Keith Yacucha's answerWe have many ambitious goals and targets laid out in our recently adopted arts and culture strategy. My commitment in re-election is to commit to the timelines laid out and see through this strategy. - 13.33% of this topic ART-03 3 / 3
Cultural strategies are often adopted and then not implemented. Would you support a cultural space implementation framework with defined tools, timelines and public reporting? Select up to three components you would prioritize. Select your top three options.
Why this score: Combines permanent-asset partnerships, measurable targets/timelines and public reporting, providing a strong implementation framework.
How this question is graded
Keith Yacucha chose 3 of 11 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-04 3 / 3
Arts organizations and event producers identify permitting, zoning and regulatory requirements as barriers to cultural activity. What would you commit to? Select all that apply.
Why this score: Supports a broad package of published standards/criteria, permitting review, simplified events, coordination and disproportionate-cost review.
How this question is graded
Keith Yacucha chose 7 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - 16.67% of this topic ART-05 3 / 3
If preserving and securing long-term cultural space requires additional municipal support, which approaches would you support? Select up to five.
Why this score: Supports development/amenity contributions, leveraging outside capital, nonprofit acquisition, cultural land trusts and long-term municipal leases.
How this question is graded
Keith Yacucha chose 5 of 16 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-06 3 / 3
Municipal budgets require difficult choices. Would you support maintaining arts and culture investment alongside other core municipal services?
Why this score: Explicitly supports arts and culture maintaining or growing alongside other core services.
How this question is graded
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 5 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-07 3 / 3
When a major development project affects an existing cultural space, what should your municipality prioritize?
Why this score: Commits to replacement cultural space or equivalent community benefit as part of redevelopment.
How this question is graded
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 5 options - 16.67% of this topic ART-08 3 / 3
Would you support municipal incentives to encourage private property owners and developers to provide affordable community & cultural space for nonprofits? Select all that apply.
Why this score: Supports development requirements/incentives and nonprofit property-tax relief, both high-impact mechanisms, plus fee reductions.
How this question is graded
Keith Yacucha chose 3 of 7 options (up to 5 allowed)
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded ART-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to the arts in your municipality or the region as a whole, feel free to share your thoughts below.
Please check out Langford first Arts and Culture strategy - Like all out recently approved strategy's and plans, these are not intended to be background documents that just sit on a shelf, but action and accountability documents as to what is promised. I fully endorse these plans and if re-elected intend to see each of them through as proposed.
CLI-07 - We have done just this, we had plans to bring in new affordable housing at centennial park which would have displaced the existing WSPR arts centre. Through this funding opportunity we were able to relocate this arts centre to new, larger, modern space.
Rolling & cycling
A- 15% of this topic ROL-01 A
Will you commit to funding and completing at least one 'missing link' in your municipality's Active Transportation Plan during your four-year term? If yes, which one would you prioritize?
Why this grade: Response does not identify a specific project buty cites support for the ATP which incorporates implementation.
How this question is graded
Yes + Project surfaced = A; Yes + No specific project in mind, or vague project = B; Combination of No and/or a lack of project ideas = C-F, depending on severity.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: Here is our first ever Active Transportation plan: https://www.letschatlangford.ca/47404/widgets/224486/documents/171277
Like all our plans, I fully endorse these and the steps laid out within. Table 16 starting on page 79 lists the project order and costs which, again, I support and endorse. - 15% of this topic ROL-02 B
Will you commit (or continue to commit) to physical protection (not paint alone) as the standard for all new and upgraded cycling infrastructure on busy streets in your municipality?
Why this grade: This question asks about supporting a design standard to establish a level of safety. Infrastructure is not "physically impossible"; it is a question of cost and assessing alternatives. Qualifying an answer with "except where physically impossible" leaves an easy out because many obstacles initially appear impossible to overcome. Hard work is needed to identify viable solutions.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Yes, except where physically impossible = B. No = F. Except where physically impossible is a condition that can be checked against a street, so it takes the conditional-yes B, and that is where the 19 rows graded before this rubric existed put it. A No is F because the question sets a construction standard, which is infrastructure. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 5 options - 15% of this topic ROL-03 A
Will you oppose efforts (current and future) to remove, narrow or downgrade existing protected bike lanes and other all-ages-and-abilities (AAA) cycling infrastructure in your municipality during your term?
Why this grade: Will oppose removal, narrowing or downgrading of existing protected bike lanes and infrastructure built for all ages and abilities. Nothing qualifies it.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Depends, case-by-case = C. No = F. Depends case by case names no test and commits to nothing, which is the C it gets on CLI-08 and TRN-02; 13 of the 14 rows graded before this rubric existed agree. A No is F because the question is about keeping built infrastructure in place. An answer of N/A is a claim that the question does not apply to that municipality, which is a judgement about a candidate and is passed in by hand, like an excused decline. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic ROL-04 A
What is the most important active transportation project in the municipality that you will be focused on progressing? Please provide your reasoning.
Why this grade: Commits to the project list and timelines in the active transportation plan passed only months ago, on the reasoning that the list was built from community feedback alongside capacity and traffic need. The plan carries the projects and the schedule with it.
How this question is graded
A = Candidate is able to identify a project in their community and speak to its importance. B & C = Candidate has a general idea of something that can be improved but it isn't high on their priority list. F = Candidate does not think any improvements can/should be made.
Keith Yacucha's answerTo be a broken record in many ways. As we had just passed our first active transportation plan only months ago, my commitment would be to the project lists and timelines as laid out in the plan as these lists were created through community feedback coupled with ability and traffic need. - 35% of this topic ROL-05 A
If you have previously served in local government, what did you do to advance walking, rolling, cycling or transit? If you have not, what in your record outside of council shows the same commitment?
Why this grade: More than doubled the sidewalk infill budget using developer amenity fees, launched the city's first active transportation plan and put in its first protected bike lanes as roadways were rebuilt. Money moved, a plan adopted and infrastructure in the ground.
How this question is graded
Free text, graded by a person on what the record shows about advancing walking, rolling, cycling or transit. A = delivered work, meaning budgets moved, plans adopted, infrastructure built, or a sustained organisational role with results behind it. B = substantial relevant advocacy or a directly relevant role, with less account of what it produced. C = a record from a different office, or advocacy confined to one location or issue, or no previous term with nothing offered in its place. C- = personal experience or unrelated work with no advocacy behind it. F = nothing relevant offered, or a record that closed the question rather than advancing it. The bands come from the 79 rows graded before 2026-09-20. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Keith Yacucha's answerWe have more than doubled the sidewalk infill budget using developer amenity fees.
We have launched the city's first ever active transportation plan to create a long-term network as to how people will move around the city through active forms of transportation.
We have put in the first set of protected bike lanes as roadways were updated.
Walking
A- 10% of this topic WLK-01 A
Municipalities, the CRD and the Province have all adopted targets to shift trips away from driving. Do you support meeting your municipality's adopted mode-shift targets, and would you vote for the necessary street-space and budgetary changes?
Why this grade: Shows commitment to multimodal planning and transportation demand management to increase transportation system efficiency.
How this question is graded
A = yes, even if it means removing driving lanes. C = yes, but not when it takes road space from drivers. F = no. Two steps between the two yeses because the adopted targets cannot be met without reallocating street space. Unsure and Decline to answer are both C- on this tab.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-02 A
Which pedestrian safety problem in your municipality concerns you most, and what is the one change you would commit to in your first term to make walking safer and more attractive than driving for short trips?
Why this grade: Names a sidewalk network left disjointed by relying on new development to build it, worst around elementary schools, and points to the infill already delivered near four of them. Commits to the next stretch along Glen Lake Road so high school students have a safe route on foot.
How this question is graded
Free text, graded by a person against the two things the question asks for: a named local problem, and one change committed to in a first term. A = both, with the change specific enough to be delivered and usually tied to funding, a named corridor or an existing plan. B = the problem is named and the response is concrete but soft, narrow, or a review rather than a change. C = a problem is named and nothing is committed to, or the framing of the question is declined. C- = no local problem is settled on, or the answer is a general gesture. F = nothing responsive is offered. The bands come from the 31 rows graded before 2026-09-20 and were applied to the remaining 51 on that date. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Keith Yacucha's answerWe have a very disjointed side-walk network as we relied on new development to fund frontage improvements.
This create significant problems around schools, especially elementary schools.
We have to date invested heavily in creating safer routes to schools with sidewalk and active transportation infill around Ruth King, Happy Valley, Savory and Scianew Stelitkel elementary schools.
We have plans in place to engage in sidewalk infill along Glen Lake rd to provide a safe route for highschool student walking to Belmont from the Happy Valley area. - 10% of this topic WLK-03 B
Sidewalk construction and maintenance is chronically underfunded across the region. Would you vote to increase the share of your municipality's transportation capital budget dedicated to pedestrian infrastructure?
Why this grade: Backs raising the pedestrian share of transportation capital spending by a modest amount. Real support, though held under a doubling.
How this question is graded
Yes, a substantial increase, meaning more than double what is currently spent = A. Yes, a modest increase, meaning more but less than double = B, because that is a real commitment with a ceiling on it. No, the current amount is sufficient = F, because the question is about money for infrastructure, which is the funding side of the split. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-04 B
Do you support expanding pedestrian-priority and car-free streets in your municipality's downtown, main street or village centre?
Why this grade: Would expand pedestrian priority streets on a seasonal or pilot basis rather than permanently. Genuine support with a time limit on it.
How this question is graded
Yes, and I would pursue a permanent expansion or implementation = A. Yes, but only temporary, seasonal or pilot closures = B, because it is a yes with a stated limit on it. No = F, because the question is about street space, which is infrastructure. An answer of N/A is not on this list: it is a claim that the municipality has no downtown, main street or village centre, which is a judgement about a candidate and is passed in by hand. It has been left blank where that is true of the municipality and graded F everywhere the question plainly does apply. Unsure was typed C on two rows before 2026-09-13 and those rows were reset to blank on 2026-09-20, so the question now follows the shared policy. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 6 options - 20% of this topic WLK-05 B
How will you work with parent groups, school staff, and municipal staff to assure that children’s safety is prioritized over convenience and flow of motor traffic?
Why this grade: Continuation of funding as well as ongoing consultation with parents, teachers and staff is required to make walking to and from school safer for children. 30km/hr signage and enforcement is also essential.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = names parents, school staff and municipal staff and attaches something concrete: an audit, measures, funding, timelines, or work delivered. B = one half only, consultation without measures or measures without consultation. C = points at an existing programme as enough. C- = vague, deflects, or denies the problem. Blank only where Walk On cannot judge local conditions. F is not used.
Keith Yacucha's answerThis is explicitly identified to preserve safe-routes to school in our existing plans and if re-elected commit to continue this. - 20% of this topic WLK-06 A
What will you do, in a 4 year term, to identify, prioritize and set time-lines to assure that pedestrian infrastructure is improved to meet the needs of the older and disabled members of your community?
Why this grade: Good for Langford for putting timelines in your Active Transportation Plan. It is important to continue meeting with constituents to help evaluate satisfaction (or concerns) with the improvements.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = names what to fix and the order it gets fixed in: an audit, named priorities, consultation with older and disabled residents, a timeline inside the term. B = real improvements with no process behind them, or continuing existing work. C = states the need and defers it, or one fix with no plan. C- = a problem with no action, or an answer about something else. Blank only where Walk On cannot judge local conditions. F is not used.
Keith Yacucha's answerWe have timelines outline in our active transportation plan for these infrastructure upgrades - I commit to this being a transparent accountability document as I support the recommendations and timelines within it.
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded WLK-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to walking or pedestrian activity in your municipality, feel free to share your thoughts below.
WLK-03 - We had already done this, but would evaluate a change in funding given our active transit plan which is now adopted.
WLK-04 - we have had some successful events already from the show and shine to special events (Change makers, FIFA, and more) which closed down Station ave. That being said, in our community at this point in time, such closures make more sense to be seasonal rather than permanent. As we grow this may change.
Governance
B- 17% of this topic GOV-01 A
Do you support expanding shared or regional delivery of municipal services in the Capital Region?
How this question is graded
Yes/Partly = A, Unsure = C, No = F.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 5 options - 17% of this topic GOV-02 A
Do you support creating a regional service that designs, builds and maintains local municipal infrastructure shared across Capital Region municipalities?
Why this grade: Supports a shared regional service for designing, building and maintaining local municipal infrastructure.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Yes, only if full cost recovery is guaranteed for my municipality = B. No = C-. Full cost recovery is a named, checkable condition on a yes, so it takes the conditional-yes B. A No is C- rather than F because the question is about how services are organised and who runs them, which is the governance side of the split CLI-03 sits on the other side of. Unsure was typed C on three rows before 2026-09-13 and those rows were reset to blank on 2026-09-20, so the question now follows the shared policy. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 5 options - 17% of this topic GOV-03 A
If elected, what three steps would you take to put your region or municipality on a firmer financial footing?
How this question is graded
“Real financial resilience comes from increasing the productivity of land that's already served by infrastructure: letting neighborhoods incrementally thicken, encouraging redevelopment where roads and pipes already exist, building more value per acre instead of more acres that need public maintenance.” The Strong Towns approach thinks about revenue vs liabilities and the cost of replacing infrastructure as a key driver of municipal financial success. Next-increment intensification or better allows improved use of pipes, roads, and wires, increasing the economic base for the city while lowering vacancies (examples, strongtowns.org , archive.strongtowns.org ). No credit was given for/against for either a) sharing costs with neighbouring governments or b) asking for money from higher levels of government, both of which may have additional merit beyond the boundaries of the muncipality. A-level (excellent) answer: 1. a comment about density being linked to financial wellbeing (revenue side), 2. a comment about efficient use of that revenue (expenses side), 3. thinking about infrastructure liabilities and how to pay for them given the intergenerational problems. B-level (good) answer considers some of these principles, but likely doesn't consider both revenue and expenses. C-level (mixed) - may have other ideas about arbitrary efficiencies and doesn't provide a mechanism for doing the work they propose (e.g. "fill up the reserve fund" -- with what money?). F - working in the opposite direction of resilience (e.g. arbitrary property tax increase caps), or doesn't answer the question (e.g. "my municipality is on firm financial footing").
Keith Yacucha's answer1) Evaluate the efficient provision of contracted services. Large savings were found to bring Garbage under a single contract, potentially with Colwood. Similar evaluation should take place for public works.
2) Work towards appropriate funding of asset management to ensure public assets are properly maintained.
3) Work in conjunction with WSPR to expand recreational services across the sub-region, having one, public, provider.
Nuance to Gov-01 and Gov-02 -- I completely believe that coordination of services should be evaluated and adopted where cost savings are possible. The first, and probably best step to start this would be to consider and evaluate at a sub regional level (Peninsula, Core, Westshore) before considering the whole region. Again, these should be explored and adopted where economies of scale are possible and cost savings of shared services exist. Sometimes increasing size across large areas brings dis-economies of scale and won't bring the benefits imagined. - 17% of this topic GOV-04 F
Do you commit to eliminating mandatory parking minimums for all land uses in your municipality by 2030?
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No/Decline = F. Parking minimums are pseudoscience that should be eliminated from city codes everywhere, and have been eliminated in Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina, Ottawa, and others across North America without any negative consequences (archive.strongtowns.org )
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 3 options - 17% of this topic REC-01 A
Do you support ensuring that local First Nations are represented in transit governance, such as on the Victoria Regional Transit Commission and the CRD Transportation Commission?
Why this grade: Said yes to ensuring local First Nations hold seats in regional transit governance. No conditions placed on it.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. No = C-, on the same reasoning as GOV-02 and TRN-04: the question is about who sits at the table, not about what gets built or funded. No candidate has answered No, so that letter is a rule rather than a record of how anyone was graded. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 3 options - 17% of this topic REC-02 B
Concerning our municipal government’s First Nations’ reconciliation and consultation practices, I support:
Why this grade: Shows commitment to reconciliation.
How this question is graded
A = significantly more consultation practices. B = somewhat more. C = the current amount is enough. Written answers take the same ladder: A commits to partnership with local First Nations, B wants better consultation without committing to a change, C questions whether more is wanted. Nothing here has been graded C- or F.
Keith Yacucha chose 1 of 7 options
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded GOV-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to governance, shared services, and municipal infrastructure, feel free to share your thoughts below.
Langford has a history of relying heavily on contracted services. from recreation (YMCA and City Centre Park) to public services (VCCMC) and Garbage and Sewer. These contracted services have the potential to save money while providing adequate service, at the loss of public oversight, accountability, and control. The problem is, this evaluation has largely not been done to ensure that sufficient savings are realized that justify those losses of accountability and control. We have started this process. it needs to continue, while looking for potential savings through sub-regional collaboration.
Nuance to GOV-04: It’s not that simple. Broad stroke zeros aren't useful everywhere. While minimums are likely too high and should be phased down, buyers lack the market leverage to demand necessary car and bike parking without targeted regulations in specific situations.
Livable CRD is a registered local elections advertising sponsor with Elections BC. Election advertising on this site is authorized by Livable CRD, [email protected]. Elections BC explains what that means in its Guide for Local Elections Third Party Sponsors in B.C. (PDF).