How to read this page. Each row below is one policy area, with Mary Wagner'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 Mary Wagner 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?
I believe in sustainable development and balancing community, affordability and the environment. That's why I would change the comprehensive development zones in Langford to not allow clearcuts like on Skirt Mountain. Since we can't change the past, I am a champion for our new Urban Forest Management Plan and improved landscaping requirements. - 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.
Mary Wagner's allocation of ten million dollars Housing $1,000,000 Transit $200,000 Walking Infrastructure $800,000 Rolling & Cycling Infrastructure $500,000 Roadway Infrastructure $500,000 Policing $100,000 Fire & Emergency Services $100,000 Parks & Recreation $1,900,000 Arts & Culture $1,900,000 Climate Action & Environment $1,000,000 Unhoused Resident Services $1,000,000 Community-Based Clinics $1,000,000 - Not graded GEN-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to communicate about your region, generally, feel free to share your thoughts here.
Langford is growing fast. We need a bit of everything to support our diverse needs. Some spending could improve transportation infrastructure such as a bus shelter, connecting sidewalks and cycling routes and repairing roads.
For Fire and Emergency Services as well as Policing, I believe they should be part of our core budget and not a special one time funding allocation - I suggest a small portion of funds can be used for community outreach/initaitves such as traffic safety education or FireSmart activitives.
I would support a significant and deeply affordable housing project such as the Habitat for Humanity project our council recently approved. We can leverage our affordable housing program to bring the kind of housing most needed in Langford - truly affordable housing.
Langford needs an arts and culture focused community centre that can provide seniors, youth and community organizations access to a variety of affordable activities close to home. Westshore parks and rec is great, and Langford is the majority owner, but it is reaching capacity, is located in Colwood and is not focused on the arts.
Climate action initiatives can save ~$10 in future cost with investments we make today such as flood and fire mitigation.
The Province is not doing enough to support health care and we already have a successful community-based clinic in downtown Langford with hopes for another in Happy Valley. Mental health supports and other services for unhoused are also increasingly in demand.
Healthcare access
What Mary Wagner 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.
I believe our support of the South Island Primary Care Society to keep open medical offices located in City Hall and to open a new clinic in downtown Langford speaks for itself as a huge success. We have attached over 10,000 patients in our area with a family doctor. We have not stopped there - we are currently working on an innovative partnership to build a second clinic in Happy Valley. As the 2nd fastest growing municipality of our size category in Canada, we need to pay attention to the needs of everyone including health care. The Province should be funding this, but we didn't have time to wait - I'm proud of the healthcare that we delivered to residents this term.
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: Takes up every measure offered, namely free travel for under 19s, cheaper fares for seniors, cheaper fares for people on income or disability assistance and a lower cost regional monthly pass. Support extends across all four groups of riders rather than stopping at one of them.
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.
Mary Wagner chose 4 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: Ties any removal of general parking on transit corridors to the requirements of an individual project. Deciding one scheme at a time sets no threshold that a future proposal would have to meet. 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.
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.
Mary Wagner chose 1 of 6 options - 30% of this topic TRN-03 —
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: Has not settled on whether to move quickly on transit priority along frequent corridors where that would cost parking or a lane of general traffic. An unsure answer is treated as no position stated rather than as a weak yes, so the row is left without a letter and drops out of the transit calculation.
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.
Mary Wagner 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: Backs a regional authority taking on transportation across municipal boundaries. Nothing narrows or conditions the commitment.
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.
Mary Wagner chose 1 of 3 options - 10% of this topic TRN-05 —
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: Is undecided on whether new bus and bicycle links should run through parks, golf courses and public land to cut journey lengths. With no view recorded in either direction, the row is deliberately left without a letter and does not count toward the transit result.
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.
Mary Wagner 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.
I support Transit and am advocating for big improvements to the service. The Province has been underfunding Transit in the CRD for decades. For now, Langford is not set up for good transit service except the one route that is the 95 Blink rapid bus to downtown. Until bus service improves throughout the region, the westshore and within Langford, I feel it is too early to say what parking and other features should be traded for bus priority. Walkability and enjoyment of parks is a top priority, so adding transit through parks may not be a good fit, and cycling infrastructure should be decided on a case by case basis. I am open to seeing feasibility studies on specific projects.
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
Mary Wagner chose 6 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-02 5 / 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.
Mary Wagner chose 5 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.
Mary Wagner chose 1 of 5 options - HFL-04 2 / 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.
Mary Wagner chose 4 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.
Mary Wagner chose 1 of 3 options - HFL-06 0 / 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.
Mary Wagner 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.
Mary Wagner 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.
Mary Wagner chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-09 2 / 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.
Mary Wagner chose 4 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.
Mary Wagner chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-10 3 / 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.
Mary Wagner's answerI hope to implement our new Housing Strategy including developing a tentant support policy in the first year. By the end of 4 years, I would like to see several affordable housing projects in Langford. We have already built more than double the first year targets of market housing in Langford, so I don't believe the provincial housing target makes sense for us. We need more affordable housing and the Province needs to fund it.
For Question HFL05 note that there are already no public hearings for rezonings that are OCP compliant so part of that question does not apply. In terms of rezonings, it is a valuable opportunity to hear from the public and potentially make amendments to maximize community benefit or alter an application to a better fit with the particulars of the lot or new regulations such as design guidelines that are not in the OCP. The point is not to slow housing if an application is OCP-compliant, but rather to add that oversight to make sure that the building is as good as it can be. Our OCP is new and not perfect to taking a look at the rezoning stage is important for thoughtful well-planned development.
For HFL-06, we just did our OCP and have taken the time to create strategic development areas. The provincial legislation is new and our OCP is newly overhauled in a big way so we need time to see how it plays out.
For HFL-07, a councillor vote must always be on a case by case basis. Staff can provide a report that lets us know whether a housing project is OCP compliant, but councillors should be looking at each application on its merits. Public comments can indicate that some information is not clear or that an application could be improved and should also be considered on a case by case basis.
For HFL-08, Langford council already supported no parking minimums in the city centre. I do NOT support no parking minimums everywhere as our transit and other options are not good enough. We still have many car dependent neighbourhoods.
30% of this topic Incumbent record 23.5625 / 29What Mary Wagner 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: 92%
Scored from Homes for Living's vote tracker.
Climate
A- 8% of this topic CLI-01 A
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 clear fossil fuel promotion from everything the municipality runs and press for the same on buses. The answer goes the full distance.
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.
Mary Wagner chose 1 of 6 options Follow-up: Mary Wagner chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-02 A
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: Would have climate govern the four year plan. Nothing in the answer softens that ranking.
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.
Mary Wagner chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-03 A
Will you pledge to never take meetings from fossil fuel company lobbyists?
Why this grade: Pledges to refuse. Nothing is reserved for exceptional cases, which is what makes this the full mark.
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.
Mary Wagner 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: Leaves the question open. Nothing here can be scored for or against, so the row is set aside.
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.
Mary Wagner chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-05 —
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: Left this one unanswered while committing clearly across the rest of the climate questions. The gap is treated as a limit of the form rather than as opposition.
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.
Mary Wagner chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-06 A
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: Takes four of the five measures, including subsidised assessments and staffed cooling and clean air centres. Both of those cost the municipality money and reach people directly, which is what the top band requires.
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.
Mary Wagner chose 4 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, without conditions. The tools would be phased out by rule.
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.
Mary Wagner 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: Support rests on conditions set case by case. That is a process answer rather than a position on electricity and water demand.
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.
Mary Wagner 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: Clearly identifies risks and provides concrete strategies grounded in their local context.
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.
Mary Wagner's answerExtreme heat, wildfire and flood risk are high in Langford. We already adopted and are implementing a new Urban Forest Management Plan and are developing our first Climate Action Plan. Our newly overhauled award-winning Official Community Plan has climate action built in through better land use planning, tying land use to transportation options. We adopted the Energy Level 4 of the Zero Carbon Step Code and new design and landscaping guidelines to support climate-resilient buildings and neighbourhoods. We are currently working on storm water management guideline improvements. I support other green initiatives as well such as a natural asset management plan. We should also continue our FireSmart activities, habitat restoration and other climate actions. - 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: Clearly supports the concept of ecosystem connectivity but does not provide specifics about how protection and improvement would take shape in their local context.
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.
Mary Wagner's answerWe should implement a natural asset management strategy. We should also develop a watershed sustainability strategy and uphold our new development standards. Our Parks Master Plan will help guide our decision making and supports protecting certain natural areas such as wetlands and existing forests. - 8% of this topic CLI-11 A
Do you see development as an opportunity to increase resilience to climate-related events, and if so, how?
Why this grade: Shows clear support for the idea and connects it to concrete actions relevant to their local context.
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.
Mary Wagner's answeryes, we have been requiring electric heat pumps in all new builds since I first proposed this in 2023, and we recently adopted Emissions Level 4 of the Zero Carbon Step Code. New buildings will have a better ability to cool themselves during heat events. New developments with higher landscaping requirements, use of rain gardens etc. will help us be more climate resilient. - 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.
Mary Wagner 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.
The new CRD Climate Action Strategy should be implemented and at the local level each decision should be assessed for whether it is helping us meet our OCP and Climate Action goals.
Higher levels of government should be doing much more to support climate mitigation and adaptation and not download all the costs and responsibilities to local governments who must provide basic services such as police, fire a bylaw officers - climate action should be a top priority and initiatives such as grants for retrofits and direct funding to municipalities such as the Local Government Climate Action Program should be re-instated.
Arts
A- 6.67% of this topic ART-01 3 / 3
Do you consider arts and culture to be a core part of your municipality's economic development strategy?
Why this score: Connects adopted arts/cultural and economic-development planning with municipal implementation responsibility. Identifies needs and citing Langford as a region to develop a new community theatre and performing arts space.
How this question is graded
Mary Wagner chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: We have an important role to play supporting the arts at the local government level in order to create community and develop the creative economy. Langford has recently adopted both an Arts and Cultural Development Plan and an Economic Development Plan which work well together. Both these plans call for a person on city staff be responsible for implementing these plans. In addition to developing the arts through economic activity, I believe Municipalities have a responsibility to support non-profits, community groups and students to enrich our community with diverse arts and culture opportunities. We need a community theatre and a larger performing arts space in the Westshore with Langford being a logical place as the fast growing hub of the area. - 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: Identifies a concrete first-year staff action, as well as developed use of new bandshell and park area, but the four-year outcome is framed as meaningful/tangible progress rather than a sufficiently measurable deliverable.
How this question is graded
Mary Wagner's answerIn the first year, I would support a city staff position to focus on implementing the recently adopted Arts and Cultural Development Plan. Also, the Arts and Culture District at Station Avenue along with the new outdoor bandshell at Veterans Memorial Park can host a variety of free events for the public that can showcase and encourage development of local artists, community groups and school groups.
By the end of the term, I would like to see tangible results of implementing the plan including more free and affordable arts and culture offerings, collaboration with the region, and meaningful progress on a theatre/ gallery community space that supports performance and visual arts. - 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: Provides meaningful cultural-space implementation support across low to high structural impacts mechanisms, including partnerning with non-proftis to secure cultural assets.
How this question is graded
Mary Wagner 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 consequential permitting/regulatory reforms.
How this question is graded
Mary Wagner chose 8 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 substantive cultural-space funding and asset mechanism package.
How this question is graded
Mary Wagner 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: Supports arts and culture maintaining or growing alongside core services.
How this question is graded
Mary Wagner 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: Supports preservation/replacement or equivalent community benefit.
How this question is graded
Mary Wagner 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 high-impact municipal cultural-space incentives.
How this question is graded
Mary Wagner chose 4 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.
We already provide permissive tax exemptions for non-profits in Langford - this practice should continue.
Working closely with community members and community groups such as the Westshore Arts Council, the Juan de Fuca Performing Arts Centre Society, and other groups or businesses including Indigenous-led initiatives that are supporting arts and culture should be a priority for the City.
Rolling & cycling
A- 15% of this topic ROL-01 B
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: Wants the city's new walking and cycling plan implemented, but says the choice of link depends on many factors and would follow a staff report, a study of costs against benefits and community input, naming the walking and cycling overpass over the highway as the ideal while conceding it may be out of reach in four years. That is a commitment to a process rather than to a link that can be finished during the term.
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.
Mary Wagner chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: I absolutely want to implement our new Active Transportation Plan and choosing which "missing link" should be prioritized will depend on many factors. I would like to see a staff report and hear from the community to make an evidence based decision looking at a cost-benefit analysis. Ideally, I want an pedestrian and cycling overpass over highway 1 particularly because of the new highschool being built for 2000 students in the Costco area but the cost is so high and requires partnership with the Province so while it is a high priority for me, it may not be possible in the next 4 years. - 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: Backs physical protection on busy streets except where it cannot physically be built. A condition that can be checked, which keeps it a notch under an unconditional yes.
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.
Mary Wagner 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 removing, narrowing or downgrading protected lanes and all ages and abilities routes already in place. No qualification is attached.
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.
Mary Wagner 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: Puts walkability first, naming the safe routes to school programme and sidewalk infill, then quick wins joining up existing cycling routes, with cost against the number of people served as the test and known safety problems weighed in. Named programmes with a stated way of choosing between them.
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.
Mary Wagner's answerWalkability is the highest priority for me, so continuing our safe routes to school and our sidewalk infill program is critical. In terms of cycling and rolling, I would prioritize connection of existing routes with as many "quick wins" as possible ensuring that there is some resourcing in the budget. I would use an approach of serving the most amount of people for the least cost but dependent on including known safety concerns as a factor in decision making.
Similar to the previous question, I would like to see a staff report and hear from the community to make an evidence based decision looking at a cost-benefit analysis. Ideally, I want an pedestrian and cycling overpass over highway 1 particularly because of the new highschool being built for 2000 students in the Costco area but the cost is so high and requires partnership with the Province so while it is a high priority for me, it may not be possible in the next 4 years. - 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: On council, helped develop the city's new walking and cycling plan, ended the practice of using amenity fees as a tax break and spent them instead on safe routes to school at seven schools, pressed the transit provider for better service, voted for the new regional transportation service, built a sidewalk infill matrix and backed a bike valet. A long list of decisions actually taken.
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.
Mary Wagner's answerWe made huge strides to advance all aspects of active transportation through development of our new Active Transportation Plan.
Our council stopped the previous practice of using amenity fees as a tax break and instead we used the funds collected from development for tangible amenities for our safe routes to school program. We improved the area for 7 schools in Langford!
I personally participated in several engagement activities with BC Transit to advocate for improvements to service in Langford and in the CRD.
As a CRD Alternate Director, I personally voted for the new CRD Regional Transportation Service to advance regional transportation planning and encourage investment from BC Transit and the Province.
We developed a Sidewalk Infill Matrix to assist in equitable decision making.
We also supported a bike valet for some big events at Starlight Stadium.
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded ROL-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to the rolling and cycling in your municipality or the region as a whole, feel free to share your thoughts below.
We now have a Proposed Transit Network, a Proposed Walking Network, and a Proposed Cycling Network for Langford through our Active Transportation Plan. The way we developed the plan in tandem with the Transportation Plan and the way it is integrated with our newly overhauled Official Community Plan, we are setting ourselves up for a bright future if the plans are implemented which will require elected officials who believe in the plan.
Walking
B- 10% of this topic WLK-01 C-
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: Unsure
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.
Mary Wagner 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 sidewalks that do not connect and commits to continuing three named programmes: safe routes to school, the sidewalk infill matrix and the traffic calming policy developed this term. Existing machinery with money already attached.
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.
Mary Wagner's answerWe have many sidewalks that don't connect. I am committed to increasing walkability in Langford, and will continue to support the safe routes to school program, the sidewalk infill matrix program, and the Traffic Calming Policy that we have developed this term to ensure informed, equitable decision making that improves pedestrian safety. - 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 a smaller increase than the question's top option. The spending commitment is still genuine.
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.
Mary Wagner 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: Supports pilot and seasonal schemes. Real, and short of the lasting change the top answer commits to.
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.
Mary Wagner chose 1 of 6 options - 20% of this topic WLK-05 A
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: You would continue the safe routes to school program, the sidewalk infill matrix and the traffic calming policy developed this term, note the memorandum with the school district and the significant municipal contribution to crossing guards that you voted to protect, and you want a closer relationship with parent advisory councils under a framework that gives each of them equal opportunity. Voting to keep crossing guards funded where the province underfunds them is the sort of decision this question is really testing.
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.
Mary Wagner's answerAs previously stated, I am committed to increasing walkability and safety in Langford, and will continue to support the safe routes to school program, the sidewalk infill matrix program, and the Traffic Calming Policy that we have developed this term that already prioritize schools and all ages and abilities standards. We have an MOU with SD62 and have an excellent working relationship with the school system. In Langford, we also pay a significant amount towards crossing guards at schools due to underfunding by the Province. I have voted to keep the crossing guards in the budget. I would like to see City Staff and Council develop a closer relationship with the PACS but care must be taken to not politicize the issues so a framework for discussions and ensuring all PACS receive equal opportunity could be helpful. - 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: You would hold to an all ages and abilities standard and follow through on the gaps, initiatives, priorities and timeframes already identified in the new accessibility plan, active transportation plan and community plan, using the provincial design guidelines as the benchmark. You are right that the plans exist and the open question is whether elected officials follow them, and your record this term is the evidence for that.
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.
Mary Wagner's answerI will continue to support an all ages and abilities standard to transportation options. Our new Accessibility Plan, our new Active Transportation Plan and our new Official Community Plan have identified gaps and initiatives including setting priorities and timeframes. It will be up to elected officials to be committed to following through on the plans and to use best practices such as the Active Transportation Guidelines provided by the Province. I have proven my commitment to active transportation and accessibility throughout my term on council.
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.
It is important that the walking experience is pleasant so new street frontage, on site and off site landscaping standards, setbacks, and improving the streetscape have all been prioritized this term. Our new retaining wall standards and new Urban Forest Management Plan are also critical to ensure there is room for trees in our urban environment. I will continue to fight for quality of life improvements in our fast growing city.
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.
Mary Wagner chose 1 of 5 options - 17% of this topic GOV-02 B
Do you support creating a regional service that designs, builds and maintains local municipal infrastructure shared across Capital Region municipalities?
Why this grade: Conditional yes, with the condition being that no cost falls on the municipality. Real and limited at once.
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.
Mary Wagner 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").
Mary Wagner's answerWe need to follow our Asset Management Plan and Economic Development Plans that we just adopted and also look at the budget earlier in the year and in more detail to ensure spending aligns with our priorities and keeps tax increases reasonable. - 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 )
Mary Wagner 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: Backs representation in both bodies the question names. Nothing is made conditional.
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.
Mary Wagner 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: Qualified support for 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.
Mary Wagner 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.
Good governance should include meaningful public engagement as well as transparency and accountability to the public through providing clear plans and opportunities for public input during regular reviews of these plans.
Similar to the housing question on parking, Langford council already supported no parking minimums in the city centre. I do NOT support no parking minimums everywhere as our transit and other options are not good enough. We still have many car dependent neighbourhoods. Good governance requires that we look at sustainable development on a neighbourhood specific basis - understanding context matters for good decision making. - Not graded REC-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to First Nation transit governance or consultation practices, feel free to share your thoughts below.
I believe we should have a framework for reconciliation and consultation with first nations, but this should be consistent across municipalities which will take a significant amount of time for discussions with the province and the many First Nations. Many of our processes are not set up for meaningful consultation and capacity of our local government and that of many First Nations is limited so while more consultation is needed, we can lean on the good work happening through the CRD and their new Reconciliation Action Plan.
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).