How to read this page. Each row below is one policy area, with Jordan Weaver'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 Jordan Weaver 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 would introduce a three-year policy capping Saanich’s annual budget-driven municipal property-tax increase at inflation. Inflation would be the maximum, with lower increases wherever achievable.
I care deeply about Saanich and want it to thrive. That means taking affordability seriously. Property taxes affect homeowners, businesses paying those costs through triple-net leases, and the cost of providing rental housing. I do not believe repeated increases substantially above inflation are sustainable.
Being elected to Council comes with a responsibility to make choices, set priorities and explain them. I would seek a costed plan to meet this commitment, examining operating spending, identifying efficiencies and making the trade-offs public. Essential services, public safety and maintaining the infrastructure we already own would guide those decisions.
New infrastructure should be planned thoughtfully. We can phase projects, assess their full operating and maintenance costs, and bring residents into the conversation about priorities and timing. We should also weigh the costs of delay: postponing necessary maintenance can make tomorrow’s bill larger.
For me, evidence-based decision-making means asking whether a proposal is needed, whether it represents good value and whether we can afford it—then explaining the decision clearly.
I’m running to govern responsibly, not to build a personal legacy. My goal is a Saanich that delivers dependable services, plans for the future and respects the financial pressures people face today. - 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.
Jordan Weaver's allocation of ten million dollars Housing $0 Transit $0 Walking Infrastructure $0 Rolling & Cycling Infrastructure $0 Roadway Infrastructure $0 Policing $0 Fire & Emergency Services $0 Parks & Recreation $0 Arts & Culture $0 Climate Action & Environment $0 Unhoused Resident Services $0 Community-Based Clinics $0 - Not graded GEN-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to communicate about your region, generally, feel free to share your thoughts here.
I believe public spending decisions should begin with evidence, clear priorities and an understanding of the people they will affect.
The question above asks me to divide $10 million in new annual funding among important services. Without information about existing budgets, funding shortfalls, proposed projects and expected outcomes, I cannot justify specific dollar allocations. My zero entries mean that I have not predetermined that allocation.
I support investment in housing, transit, walking and cycling infrastructure, roads, police, fire and emergency services, parks and recreation, and the other community needs identified here. Deciding how much each should receive requires understanding where additional funding would make the greatest difference.
I would ask staff to identify unmet needs, assess risks and present costed options, including their ongoing financial implications. I would engage the community to understand the experiences and priorities of a diverse range of residents, including people whose voices are too often missing from budget discussions.
Council must then exercise judgment and make a decision. With that evidence and public input, I would support an allocation of the full $10 million and explain the priorities, trade-offs and outcomes residents should expect.
My commitment is to make timely, informed decisions that I can explain and defend. The evidence and the conversation should come before the allocation.
Healthcare access
What Jordan Weaver 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
Transit
B- 20% of this topic TRN-01 B
Which fare measures would you actively advocate for at the VRTC? Select all that apply.
Why this grade: Backs free travel for under 19s, cheaper fares for seniors and cheaper fares for people on income or disability assistance, without extending the commitment further. Three of the four measures are taken up, leaving one group of riders outside the commitment.
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.
Jordan Weaver chose 3 of 6 options (up to 4 allowed) - 30% of this topic TRN-02 A
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 clear general parking from busy bus corridors end to end, in favour of bus lanes, loading zones and space for people walking and cycling. This is the strongest option the question offers and carries no limit on where it applies.
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.
Jordan Weaver chose 1 of 6 options - 30% of this topic TRN-03 C-
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: Supports rapid deployment of transit priority on frequent corridors, but not where it would cost a lane of general traffic. The exception removes the one measure the question is testing, which keeps this below a conditional yes while stopping short of outright opposition.
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.
Jordan Weaver 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: Would establish a regional transportation authority covering the whole area. No condition is set on the yes.
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.
Jordan Weaver chose 1 of 3 options - 10% of this topic TRN-05 B
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: Supports new connections for buses and bicycles through parks, golf courses and public land, provided no mature trees are lost in building them. The condition can be tested against a construction plan, so the commitment still holds in practice.
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.
Jordan Weaver 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 affordable, reliable transit, regional coordination and safer walking and cycling connections. Some fixed-choice answers leave limited room for the local circumstances that should shape individual projects.
For TRN-05, I support new connections in suitable locations, with mature trees protected. Ecological protection must also include wetlands, wildlife habitat and other sensitive areas. I would not support routing a bus or cycling lane through a sensitive ecosystem.
I would assess each proposed connection on its merits, drawing on staff advice, ecological evidence and community input. That means comparing alternative routes, travel benefits, accessibility, safety, costs and environmental impacts before deciding.
My support for better transportation comes with a responsibility to ensure that individual projects are well designed and appropriate for their location. Council should then make timely decisions and explain its reasoning.
Housing
C-- HFL-01 5 / 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
Jordan Weaver chose 5 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.
Jordan Weaver chose 5 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-03 6 / 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.
Jordan Weaver chose 1 of 5 options - HFL-04 4 / 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.
Jordan Weaver chose 4 of 8 options - HFL-05 3 / 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.
Jordan Weaver 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.
Jordan Weaver 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.
Jordan Weaver 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.
Jordan Weaver chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-09 4 / 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.
Jordan Weaver 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.
Jordan Weaver chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-12 6 / 6
Municipal asset-management plans have identified substantial gaps between current funding and the amount needed to maintain and replace roads, water and sewer systems, public buildings, and other infrastructure. In Victoria, the 2024 Corporate Asset Management Strategy identified $570 million worth of infrastructure in poor or very poor condition. Which approaches would you prioritize to address this infrastructure problem? Select up to two.
How this question is graded
5 points for selecting more housing and commercial development, 1 for seeking additional provincial or federal funding, 0 points for increasing taxes or reducing infrastructure projects, and -2 points for increasing development charges, amenity contributions, and other fees imposed on new houses.
Jordan Weaver chose 2 of 6 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.
Jordan Weaver's answerBy the end of my first year; I would want to have listened carefully to residents, community associations, developers, housing providers and staff, and developed a sound understanding of where housing needs are greatest and what is preventing us from meeting them.
First-year progress; I would aim to have helped Council turn that learning into clear housing priorities and practical next steps. Listening and learning would inform my work from day one, including decisions on proposals already before Council.
By the end of my four-year term; I would hope to see more housing choices that people can afford and that meet their needs at different stages of life. I would want that progress to reflect local needs, infrastructure capacity and the distinct characteristics of our neighbourhoods.
Housing as part of a community; I would want better coordination between housing, employment, transportation and recreation, so people can live closer to work and get around safely at every age, using the transportation that suits their needs. My goal is a welcoming, family-friendly Saanich where people can live, work, play and feel they belong.
My measure of success; I see public service as a civic duty and an opportunity to give back. My decisions would be guided by evidence and community input. I would put Saanich’s long-term wellbeing ahead of short-term electoral advantage, and remain accountable for the decisions I make.
Climate
B- 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 remove the advertising and turn down the sponsorship, then argue the same case for buses and shelters. Both halves are given plainly.
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.
Jordan Weaver chose 1 of 6 options Follow-up: Jordan Weaver chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-02 C-
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: Climate gets no dedicated budget and no ranking above other items. The affordability test is what keeps this near the bottom.
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.
Jordan Weaver 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: Says no to ruling the meetings out. That leaves fossil fuel lobbyists with the same access as anyone else, and the shortfall is one of conduct.
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.
Jordan Weaver 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: Says the decision is still open. Without a position to grade, the question drops out of the climate score.
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.
Jordan Weaver 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: Yes to the prohibition. The answer commits the zoning tool rather than describing a preference about fuel.
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.
Jordan Weaver 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: The campaign alone. That is the cheapest item on the list and it commits the municipality to no protection at all.
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.
Jordan Weaver chose 1 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: Supports the phase out. The noise and the fumes are treated as something the municipality can act on.
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.
Jordan Weaver 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 depends on conditions worked out one application at a time. Nothing is specified now, so there is nothing a proposal has to meet.
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.
Jordan Weaver 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.
Jordan Weaver's answerMy husband, climate scientist Andrew Weaver, helped develop CleanBC. I share his commitment to evidence and practical solutions.
Saanich must prepare for extreme heat, drought, heavy rainfall and coastal flooding, wildfire smoke and local wildfire risk. I would use local risk assessments to prioritise shade, accessible cooling and clean-air spaces, water conservation, drainage improvements and wildfire preparedness, with support for residents least able to protect themselves.
Adaptation also means anticipating change beyond our boundaries. Climate-related displacement elsewhere could increase demand for housing and services here. I would ask that regional planning consider this possibility, including affordable housing, water, transportation and emergency capacity. We need to prepare for the community we may become, as well as the one we are today. - 8% of this topic CLI-10 A
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: Identifies clear, actionable strategies to improve resilience through development relevent to 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.
Jordan Weaver's answerI would build on Saanich’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy to protect and restore connected habitats across public and private land.
That means safeguarding streams, wetlands, mature trees and native vegetation, identifying gaps between habitats, and using restoration and development planning to strengthen those connections. I would work with First Nations, the CRD and neighbouring municipalities to identify opportunities for wider ecological links through the Highlands and farther north and west.
Public understanding and participation are essential. I would support practical advice on native planting, invasive-species removal and habitat-friendly gardens, alongside community restoration projects. Residents and landowners should understand how their properties contribute to a larger habitat network.
I would want ecological evidence to guide priorities and public reporting to show whether habitat quality and connectivity are improving. - 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 several 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.
Jordan Weaver's answerYes. Responding to environmental challenges creates opportunities for innovation. Development can help us build homes and neighbourhoods that are safer, more comfortable and better prepared for future conditions.
I would support effective cooling, shading and air filtration, water-efficient design, rain gardens, permeable surfaces and space for healthy trees. These measures should suit each site, with clear requirements and plans for long-term maintenance.
This is why I answered yes to CLI-12. Water-management and green-infrastructure upgrades should be integrated into development from the outset, alongside protection of sensitive ecosystems and careful assessment of flood and other climate risks.
I would also consider affordability and lifetime operating costs. The opportunity is to meet housing needs while reducing future vulnerability and avoiding costs that would otherwise fall to the next generation. - 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.
Jordan Weaver 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.
Climate change remains a long-term responsibility, even when other crises dominate public attention. The consequences of today’s decisions will be felt by generations who cannot yet vote.
I want Saanich to make progress through practical action, public education and leadership within our community. We can start with measures that have clear benefits: improving building efficiency, helping residents access cooling, conserving water, restoring habitat and making everyday travel easier with lower emissions.
These actions should form part of a sustained plan to reduce emissions and prepare for unavoidable impacts. Council should explain the benefits, identify funding partnerships and report results.
I believe people are more likely to participate when they understand what is being asked, can see how it helps and have the support to act. My approach is to bring people with us and make climate action part of building a healthier, more affordable and resilient Saanich.
Arts
B- 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: Explicitly identifies arts and culture as a core part of Saanich's economic development strategy and proposes regional coordination, accessible cultural spaces and easier municipal processes.
How this question is graded
Jordan Weaver chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: I believe arts and culture should be a core part of Saanich’s economic development strategy and community life. Our region punches well above its weight in the arts, and we can achieve more by working together.
I would advocate for strengthening the CRD Arts Commission and bringing all local governments into a shared regional arts and culture strategy. We should coordinate investment, identify gaps and share responsibilities fairly, rather than duplicate efforts.
Saanich should be an active partner, supporting accessible cultural spaces and programming and making municipal processes easier for artists and organizations to navigate. Artists, cultural organizations, Indigenous communities and residents should help shape the strategy.
Regional cooperation should support, not replace, local creativity. My goal is more opportunities to create, perform and participate, a stronger cultural economy and better use of public resources. - 16.67% of this topic ART-02 3 / 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 initiating a structured regional strategy process in year one and identifies a four-year target involving participating governments, implementation timelines, a jointly delivered initiative and annual public reporting.
How this question is graded
Jordan Weaver's answerIn my first year, I will bring forward a council motion proposing that Saanich engage neighbouring municipalities and the CRD in a structured dialogue about a broader regional arts and culture strategy. I will seek a first meeting within that year, bringing municipal representatives together with artists, cultural organizations and Indigenous partners to identify shared priorities and opportunities for cooperation.
That discussion should build on existing regional work and focus on practical needs, including affordable rehearsal, exhibition and performance spaces, coordinated promotion, and municipal processes that enable cultural activity rather than unnecessarily complicating it.
My four-year target is an updated regional strategy endorsed by participating local governments, with clear responsibilities, implementation timelines and at least one jointly delivered initiative that improves access to cultural spaces or programming. I would seek annual public reporting showing which communities are participating, what actions have been agreed and what has actually been delivered.
One councillor cannot guarantee the decisions of other councils. What I can commit to is initiating the conversation, working to build agreement and reporting publicly on progress. Success should mean more than another strategy on a shelf: it should mean demonstrable cooperation and better opportunities for artists and residents. - 13.33% of this topic ART-03 2 / 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: Supports measurable targets and timelines, public reporting and a coordinated regional cultural-space strategy, directly addressing implementation accountability.
How this question is graded
Jordan Weaver 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 comprehensive permitting, zoning and regulatory reforms including service standards, published criteria, coordination, simplified requirements and review of disproportionate nonprofit costs.
How this question is graded
Jordan Weaver 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 regional infrastructure funding, nonprofit acquisition, cultural land trusts, patient-capital financing and long-term municipal leases, providing substantial structural tools for cultural-space security.
How this question is graded
Jordan Weaver 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 maintaining or growing arts and culture investment alongside other core municipal services.
How this question is graded
Jordan Weaver chose 1 of 5 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-07 1 / 3
When a major development project affects an existing cultural space, what should your municipality prioritize?
Why this score: Uses overall community benefit as the decision criterion but does not make preservation, replacement or another arts-specific cultural-space protection commitment.
How this question is graded
Jordan Weaver 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 private-owner property-tax incentives, development requirements or incentives, fee reductions and nonprofit tax relief, including mechanisms capable of expanding affordable cultural-space supply.
How this question is graded
Jordan Weaver 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.
Our region punches well above its weight in the arts, yet I believe we could accomplish so much more by thinking and working regionally. Arts and culture connect our communities; our approach to supporting them should not stop at municipal boundaries.
Each municipality brings something distinctive to our cultural life. A regional approach should celebrate those strengths while helping us coordinate investment, share spaces and resources, and reach wider audiences. Working together can create opportunities that individual municipalities would struggle to provide alone.
The whole can be much greater than the sum of its parts. I would like to see Saanich help bring our local governments and arts communities together around that idea—not to diminish local identity, but to build a richer cultural life for everyone in the region.
Rolling & cycling
C- 15% of this topic ROL-01 —
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: Answered no on committing to a missing link, while the topic comment box states plainly that the graded cycling questions are being declined because their framing is felt to be adversarial, not because cycling is opposed. Taken as an explained decline and left ungraded rather than scored as opposition the candidate disclaims in writing.
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.
Jordan Weaver chose 1 of 4 options - 15% of this topic ROL-02 —
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: Answered no on physical protection as the standard, alongside a written statement in the topic comment box that the graded cycling questions are being declined over their framing. The decline is explained, so the row is left ungraded rather than counted as a position against the standard.
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.
Jordan Weaver chose 1 of 5 options - 15% of this topic ROL-03 C
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: Would take removal, narrowing or downgrading of existing protected infrastructure case by case. Infrastructure already built was funded because the need was identified, and reopening each piece keeps it provisional.
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.
Jordan Weaver chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic ROL-04 C
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: Declines to name a most important project, on the reasoning that the choice belongs to a process weighing staff advice, evidence and competing community needs. Council sets and funds those priorities, so leaving the question to the process commits to nothing that can be tracked.
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.
Jordan Weaver's answerPlease see my ROL-GEN response. I will not identify a single “most important” project based on my personal preferences. That is a value judgment that must take account of different community needs. Some residents prioritize sidewalks, others safer cycling connections, and others accessibility or traffic flow.
I am seeking election to govern for the whole community, not to advance one predetermined project. Responsible government means listening to the various stakeholders, considering evidence and staff advice, and weighing safety, accessibility, costs and benefits.
I will support setting priorities through that process, drawing on existing plans and community input. Walking, rolling, cycling, transit and driving must be considered as parts of an integrated network. My commitment is to transparent, evidence-based decisions that serve the community, rather than declaring my preferred project more important than everyone else’s needs. - 35% of this topic ROL-05 C
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: Describes living without a car in Vancouver and in European cities, walking and taking transit with an elderly parent, and how transportation needs change with age and disability. Personal experience rather than a record of advancing walking, rolling, cycling or transit.
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.
Jordan Weaver's answerMy commitment is reflected in how I have lived. When I returned to Canada following a leukemia diagnosis to live with my mother after my father’s death, I did not own a car in Vancouver. My mother, now 84, and I walked and used public transit to get around. It worked exceptionally well for us.
I also spent decades living in European cities. In Kensington, London, walking and public transport made owning a car unnecessary. Those experiences showed me the value of convenient alternatives to driving.
In Greater Victoria, I find living without a car more difficult because there are fewer transit options. That strengthens my support for better connections, not a one-size-fits-all approach.
As I have grown older, I have also recognized how needs change with age, disability or temporary mobility limitations. Good transportation policy makes walking, rolling, cycling and transit easier while respecting people who need a vehicle.
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.
support cycling and value much of Greater Victoria’s cycling network. Yet the debate has become too divisive. “Bike lane good, car bad” is not a basis for good governance. I believe Saanich has generally done a better job than Victoria of bringing residents along.
Having lived in European cities for decades, I believe active transportation must be part of an integrated network serving people who walk, roll, cycle, take transit or drive. Older residents, people with disabilities and those who need a vehicle must be respected. Ageism and dismissing accessibility concerns have no place in this discussion.
I am declining to answer the graded cycling questions, not because I oppose cycling, but because I find their framing adversarial and too black and white. Infrastructure decisions require evidence, local context and consideration of everyone’s needs. We should be bringing people together around a transportation network that works for the whole community.
Walking
A- 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: Supports meeting the municipality's mode shift targets but rules out the street space changes needed to reach them. Backing the goal while refusing the main tool leaves the commitment largely symbolic.
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.
Jordan Weaver chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-02 B
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 missing sidewalks where children, older residents and people with disabilities have no continuous route, and would seek council support for staff to align development upgrades with municipal projects. Declines to promise a particular sidewalk before consulting, so the commitment stays at the process.
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.
Jordan Weaver's answerMissing sidewalks concern me, particularly where children, older residents and people with disabilities have no safe, continuous route.
I support continuing to secure appropriate sidewalk improvements through development and redevelopment. As older housing is replaced, we should use those opportunities to connect neighbourhoods, not simply build isolated stretches of pavement. Urgent safety gaps should not have to wait for redevelopment.
In my first term, I would seek council support for staff to identify how development-related upgrades and municipal projects can work together to close those gaps.
I am seeking election to govern, not to promise a particular sidewalk before consulting the community. My commitment is to listen, assess evidence and work with council on priorities, costs and achievable timelines. - 10% of this topic WLK-03 —
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: Did not commit to a figure, having written that specific allocations cannot be justified without the budget and shortfall information to support them. That is a stated reason rather than silence, so the row is left out of the grade.
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.
Jordan Weaver chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-04 A
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 and car free streets permanently. Committing to a permanent change is the strongest answer this question allows.
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.
Jordan Weaver 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 state that children's safety comes before motorists' convenience, and would build on collaborative school travel planning by bringing municipal and school district staff together with parents, students and school staff, with shared information, clear recommendations and a named owner for each action. Refusing to prescribe a fix before hearing from the school community, while insisting someone is accountable for each action, is a disciplined way to run this work.
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.
Jordan Weaver's answerChildren’s safety must come before motorists’ convenience. I live near a school and see the importance of safe walking and cycling routes.
I would build on Saanich’s collaborative school travel planning, bringing municipal and school district staff together with parents, students and school staff to identify concerns and practical solutions.
Council and school boards need shared information, clear recommendations and an understanding of who is responsible for each action. I would listen directly to families, draw on staff expertise and support decisions based on identified risks, rather than prescribe a particular solution before hearing from the school community.
My husband’s work with the Victoria Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils has reinforced my appreciation of what cooperation between families and school districts can achieve. That is the approach I would bring to council. - 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 have staff work with older residents and people with disabilities to identify barriers, rank improvements by safety and access, and bring forward costed priorities with timelines and annual progress reports covering connected sidewalks, curb ramps, safe crossings and places to rest. Costed priorities reported on every year are what let a resident judge progress rather than take it on faith.
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.
Jordan Weaver's answerAccessibility must be central to transportation planning, not an afterthought. During my term, I would seek council support for staff to work with older residents and people with disabilities to identify barriers, rank improvements by safety and access needs, and bring forward costed priorities with timelines and annual progress reports.
That should include connected sidewalks, curb ramps, safe crossings and places to rest, while respecting those who need a vehicle.
My broader vision is villages within our municipality: neighbourhoods where daily needs are close to home. Cadboro Bay Village is the kind of community I value, and I see opportunities around Uptown and other centres to strengthen that model.
As a third-generation Victorian who lived in Europe for decades, I want to help shape neighbourhoods where people can remain connected and independent as their needs change. Residents’ lived experience should guide both immediate improvements and long-term planning.
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.
Walking, rolling, cycling, transit and driving must be planned together. I support safer walking routes, but I will not endorse every proposed change without considering local needs, accessibility and the wider network.
We need long-term planning for population growth, changing demographics and climate pressures. Before removing traffic lanes, I want practical alternatives to driving and a clear assessment of the consequences.
I would work with regional partners to advance rapid transit linking the airport and Swartz Bay ferry terminal with downtown Victoria via the Pat Bay Highway, with connections to the West Shore, UVic and Camosun College.
My goal is to make leaving the car at home a practical choice, not simply make driving harder. Walking improvements should proceed alongside better transit, while respecting those who still need a vehicle. We need an integrated transportation vision for future generations, not a series of disconnected projects.
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.
Jordan Weaver 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 the regional service outright. Nothing is reserved about cost or control.
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.
Jordan Weaver chose 1 of 5 options - 17% of this topic GOV-03 F
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").
Jordan Weaver's answer1) Cap Saanich’s annual budget-driven municipal property-tax increase at inflation for three budgets, with lower increases where achievable. I would work with staff and Council on a costed plan, making trade-offs public and prioritising essential services, safety and maintenance.
2) Base spending on evidence and community priorities. I would review service costs and funding gaps with staff, identify duplication and efficiencies, engage residents on priorities, and report publicly on costs and results.
3) Assess infrastructure’s full lifetime costs. I would prioritise existing assets and phase new projects where this offers better value. Decisions would account for construction, operation, maintenance and renewal, with realistic funding plans. I would weigh the costs of delay and explain priorities, timing and financial implications before major commitments. - 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 )
Jordan Weaver 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: A plain yes. First Nations would be represented where transit is actually decided.
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.
Jordan Weaver 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:
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.
Jordan Weaver chose 1 of 7 optionsI would support periodic government-to-government meetings between Saanich Council and the leadership of the W̱SÁNEĆ Nations and the Lekwungen-speaking Songhees and Esquimalt Nations, building on existing relationships and agreements. The timing, format and agenda should be agreed together, respecting each Nation’s priorities and capacity. The purpose would be to listen, identify shared interests, raise concerns early and follow through on agreed actions—not simply meet for the sake of meeting. I want us to work together rather than at odds. That does not mean we will always agree, but regular dialogue can help us understand one another’s perspectives and find a constructive way forward. To me, reconciliation requires sustained relationships grounded in mutual respect. Consultation should be an ongoing conversation, not something that happens only when a decision is imminent or a disagreement arises.
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.
I believe housing, infrastructure and services must be planned together, with growth supported by transportation, water, drainage and parks.
I support cooperation with neighbouring municipalities and the CRD, including rental-housing partnerships and long-term leases of suitable public land that retain public ownership. I would assess shared services on value, service quality, accountability and fair sharing of costs.
Infrastructure decisions must include construction, operating, maintenance and renewal costs. I would seek provincial and federal funding partnerships.
Residents should shape plans early, including those whose voices are often missing. Clear requirements and timelines should allow projects that meet agreed standards to proceed promptly.
I would listen, weigh the evidence, make timely decisions and explain the costs, responsibilities and expected results. - 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 would need to seek consultation with First Nation representatives before answering this. I only receive the survey on September 14 and there was no time for me to do this.
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).