How to read this page. Each row below is one policy area, with Jeremy Caradonna'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 Jeremy Caradonna 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?
This is a great and challenging question, as it could be answered in any number of ways. Prior to this year, I might have answered "the Crystal Pool," which is the most important municipal asset that needs replacing in Victoria. Now that this project is underway, I would narrow in on the "feature" aspect of this question, and specifically unsheltered homelessness, street disorder, and community safety.
Community safety is probably the #1 issue in this election. While the City has made huge strides in winding down encampments in parks, by getting people housed (mainly in supportive housing), the City is overwhelmed with the scale of the challenge before it.
To truly solve the issue would require a large and sustained investment by the Province to supply the sheltering, housing, and treatment spaces required to address the crisis on our streets and make the city a safer place for everyone.
If re-elected, I would continue to do my part to wind down encampments and get people inside, but the heavy lifting must be done by senior governments that are in charge of these issues. - 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.
Jeremy Caradonna's allocation of ten million dollars Housing $2,000,000 Transit $750,000 Walking Infrastructure $1,000,000 Rolling & Cycling Infrastructure $1,250,000 Roadway Infrastructure $0 Policing $0 Fire & Emergency Services $0 Parks & Recreation $1,000,000 Arts & Culture $750,000 Climate Action & Environment $1,500,000 Unhoused Resident Services $1,750,000 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'll take the opportunity to reflect upon the previous question, which is fascinating and challenging to answer.
In a hypothetical scenario in which the City were given $10m in unrestricted funds, I would spend those funds thusly: $2m for housing, $1m for parks and rec, $750k for transit, $750k for arts and culture, $1.25m for rolling and cycling infrastructure, $1m for walking infrastructure, $1.5m for climate action, and $1.75m for unhoused resident services.
I would not put the $10m into roads, policing, clinics, or emergency services, not because they aren't important services, but rather because they either 1) already possess stable funding streams, or 2) a few million dollars wouldn't move the needle enough to make it worthwhile, or 3) the funding they require is ongoing operational costing rather than one-time capital grants.
The $2m for housing would go into the Housing Reserve Fund, which is used for co-investing in affordable housing projects. The $1m for walking and $1.25m for active transportation would go into specific capital projects meant to make it safer for people to get around Victoria. The $1m for parks and rec would go towards any number of stalled projects that are meant to improve the lives of Victoria families, and could include a splash park, new swimming features in the Gorge, sport courts, or even reducing some of the borrowing costs of the Crystal Pool. The $750k for arts and culture would go towards the acquisition of a decommodified arts and music space for local artists. The $1.5m for climate action would become part of a fund to offset the costs of deep retrofits in apartments that badly need heat pumps to decarbonize and create cooling systems for vulnerable tenants. The $1.75m for unhoused residents would go towards programs that help flow people up from shelters into housing, which I'd seek to pair with funding from the Province for the same. The $750k for transit would likely go towards infrastructure upgrades for transit priority.
This is a great thought experiment because it reminds us that cities must always do more than one thing at a time, and that there's no easy answers when it comes to resource allocation and competing priorities.
Healthcare access
What Jeremy Caradonna 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 am interested both in the Colwood model and in the model used elsewhere in the region. Victoria still has a major shortage of family doctors and my own mother took years to find a regular physician. The main issue I hear about is lack of affordable space, but also a lack of affordable housing to retain doctors and staff.
There are tremendous opportunities to build turn-key healthcare facilities that attract and retain medical talent. The new Community Safety and Wellbeing Plan, in fact, commits to doing so, and this will be a priority for the next 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: Ticked every fare measure the question listed: 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. Nothing left off the list.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna chose 4 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: Supports taking general street parking off frequent transit corridors along their whole length, not only at peak hours. That is the strongest option the question offered, and it turns the space over to bus lanes, loading, and people walking and cycling. Note: Victoria is home to the highest number of FTN corridors of any municipality in the region, chief among them the Douglas Corridor which will be seeing substantial redevelopment and transit priority in the coming years. This question is of critical importance to Victoria, and the CRD at large with respect to tranist priority.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna chose 1 of 6 options - 30% of this topic TRN-03 A
Do you support rapid deployment of transit priority measures on frequent transit corridors, even where this requires removing on-street parking or a general-purpose traffic lane?
Why this grade: A clear yes to deploying transit priority fast on frequent corridors, even where parking or a general traffic lane has to go. Nothing attached to the answer. Note: Victoria is home to the highest number of FTN corridors of any municipality in the region, chief among them the Douglas Corridor which will be seeing substantial redevelopment and transit priority in the coming years. This question is of critical importance to Victoria, and the CRD at large with respect to tranist priority.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna chose 1 of 6 options - 10% of this topic TRN-04 A
Do you support the creation of a regional transportation authority?
Why this grade: Supports creating a regional transportation authority, with nothing qualifying 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.
Jeremy Caradonna chose 1 of 3 options - 10% of this topic TRN-05 A
Do you support building new bus-only and bike-only connections through parks, golf courses or public land when doing so would substantially shorten transit and cycling trips?
Why this grade: Said yes to new bus and bike connections cut through parks, golf courses and public land where they would substantially shorten trips. No conditions on the answer.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Yes, if no mature trees are lost during construction = B. No = F. Losing no mature trees is a named and checkable condition, so it takes the conditional-yes B. A No is F because the question is about building a connection, which is infrastructure. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Jeremy Caradonna 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.
Where to begin!
In addition to being a Victoria City Councillor, I have also had the pleasure of serving as a CRD Director on the Transportation Committee and as a Victoria Regional Transit Commissioner, all of which places me at the centre of the rapidly shifting transportation reality that we find ourselves in.
At a high level, the problem is that all aspects of transportation governance have been balkanized and siloed for many years. Even the fact that the CRD and the VRTC have their own transportation plans is, in my view, a problem. Too much of the authority is divided between local governments, the CRD, the VRTC, the Province, and even the Reconciliation Corridor Steering Committee and Island Corridor Foundation. It is a confused transportation situation at the moment.
I support the fusing of authorities between the CRD (Transportation Committee) and the VRTC into a unified Transportation Commission. This process is in the early stages of development and advocacy has begun.
Housing
A- HFL-01 7 / 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
Jeremy Caradonna chose 7 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-02 8 / 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.
Jeremy Caradonna chose 8 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.
Jeremy Caradonna 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.
Jeremy Caradonna chose 6 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.
Jeremy Caradonna chose 1 of 3 options - HFL-06 6 / 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.
Jeremy Caradonna chose 1 of 6 options - HFL-07 3 / 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.
Jeremy Caradonna 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.
Jeremy Caradonna chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-09 5 / 6
Non-market housing often faces additional challenges getting approved. Which of the following measures do you support to improve the prospects for below-market housing construction? Select all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point for each option, but -1 for choosing mandated requirements (d). Building homes is hard, building non-market homes is substantially harder. This has serious socio-economic consequences for certain members of society. With the exception of mandated requirements (or inclusionary zoning), which have a track record of acting like a tax and therefore a deterrent to new construction, a broad and flexible approach is needed to help non-market housing across the approval finish line.
Jeremy Caradonna chose 7 of 9 options (up to 7 allowed) - HFL-11 6 / 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.
Jeremy Caradonna 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.
Jeremy Caradonna chose 2 of 6 options - HFL-10 7 / 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.
Jeremy Caradonna's answerBy the end of year 1, I would want to work out any of the kinks in the new Official Community Plan, the tenant displacement and assistance bylaw, the process streamlining work that's underway, the tax-breaks-for-deep-retrofits program, and the substantial pre-zoning that occurred as part of the updated OCP, in addition to continuing to approve market and non-market projects.
By the end of year 4, I would want to see the thousands of homes that have been approved come to fruition and a substantial reduction in the red tape that slows down the delivery of new housing and drives up costs for everyone. In the end, the city will be judged by its ability to meet and exceed provincial housing targets, the levelling off of rents, vacancy rates, overall affordability, and new supply of market and non-market housing.
30% of this topic Incumbent record 29 / 29What Jeremy Caradonna 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: 100%
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: Yes on both forms of promotion, with the advocacy at the regional table attached. That is the full commitment the question asks for.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna chose 1 of 6 options Follow-up: Jeremy Caradonna 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 make climate the overriding priority, with other decisions tested against it. That is the strongest treatment the next four year plan could give it.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna 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: Takes the pledge without qualification. Refusing the access is the whole substance of the question and the answer gives it.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-04 A
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: Yes, with no conditions. The candidate accepts the cost of pursuing recovery as part of the commitment.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna 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: Backs the amendment with no conditions. Zoning is the tool the municipality actually controls here, and the candidate is willing to use it.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna 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: Selects the full range, funded measures included. The answer commits the municipality to spending rather than only to rule making.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna chose 5 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: Agrees to phase the tools out. The commitment covers the practice itself rather than a study of it.
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No = F. A regulatory phase-out, graded on the same footing as CLI-05. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Jeremy Caradonna chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-08 A
Large data centres can add substantial electricity and water demand. Under what conditions, if any, would you support a new data centre in your municipality?
Why this grade: Would not permit any new data centre. The position is unconditional and leaves nothing to be negotiated later.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna 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 outlines a risk backed by data and provides specific example actions that are relevant to Victoria.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna's answerMitigation risks: around 40% of Victoria's GHG emissions come from road transportation and around 50% come from the built environment. Thus, to continue reducing emissions means investing in:
1) transportation modes other than single-occupancy vehicles, and especially fossil-fueled ones. That means bike lanes, EV chargers, mass and rapid transit, and especially an expansion in EV buses and the revival of the E&N line and/or a new rail alignment along Highway 1, and
2) programs that help decarbonize existing buildings. (The city already implemented the Zero Carbon Step Code for new builds.) The city's main tool is property tax reductions in exchange for deep retrofits. I would like to massively expand this program next term, as it is currently a limited pilot project for 5 buildings.
Adaptation: We are faced with hundreds of millions in at-risk infrastructure, including roads, bridges, retaining walls, older buildings, and the urban foreshore. The city also faces hotter temperatures that put people in extreme risk. Key strategies include: managed retreat and rewilding (e.g. of some retaining walls and pathways), investing in public cooling features, and effective advocacy to senior governments to fund rapidly degrading municipal assets. - 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: Clearly identifies and outlines what we hope to protect and why it's important. Provides concrete examples in the region supported by data and existing programs.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna's answerThree main strategies:
1). Expand and protect the urban canopy. The city is currently 30% covered by the urban forest, up from 26% a few years ago. There are now over 150,000 trees inside the city limits. Trees provide numerous ecosystem services, from oxygen and habitat, to shading and cooling of the heat island effect. We must continue to expand the urban forest on private and public lands.
2). Protecting the urban foreshore. Oceans generally fall to the Federal government, but the areas where water meets land are often municipal jurisdiction. This zone is crucially important to protect against sea-level rise, storms, unpredictable weather, and food harvesting.
3). Restore urban waterways and better manage urban stormwater. There are opportunities to daylight at least two buried creeks in Victoria (Bowker and Spring Ridge / Rock Bay), but also to better manage rainfall in ways that replenish urban landscapes.
As a bonus, I would add urban agriculture to the list. While gardens are not natural systems, they do provide important ecosystem services, including habitat and food for pollinating species. The city has done much to support urban agriculture, through Get Growing and the garden coordinator position, but there's opportunities to add new urban gardens across the city. - 8% of this topic CLI-11 B
Do you see development as an opportunity to increase resilience to climate-related events, and if so, how?
Why this grade: Shows general support for the idea and provides one example, but does not elaborate on specific strategies.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna's answerIt depends on what the development is. I believe that cities are the right place for densification and housing development to occur. It pains me when I see whole forests and hilltops wiped out in the West Shore for more low-density, high-impact sprawl. That is not sustainable development.
But I do see smart densification in urbanized areas as an under-appreciated aspect of climate resilience. It reduces emissions, creates economic and transport efficiencies, and supports low-impact lifestyles in which neighbours and neighbourhoods rely on each other for mutual support. - 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.
Jeremy Caradonna 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.
I am proud of the work that I've been involved in at the city and CRD on climate action. That includes 1) becoming the first city to adopt the ZCSC, which more or less requires electrification in all new builds; 2) beginning early work to require cooling in existing buildings; 3) offsetting the costs of deep retrofits (heat pumps, etc) in rental buildings via tax breaks; 4) expanding active transportation and reducing vehicle emissions on the road; 5) at the CRD, advancing the thermal processing facility that will convert biosolids into biochar, for carbon sequestration or fossil fuel displacement; and 6) expanding urban forest canopy while still densifying the city with housing.
There is lots more to do, but Victoria has reduced its emissions by 18% and is more or less on course to meet its GHG reduction targets in the coming years. Our city generates a relatively small percentage of global GHGs, but we can inspire others through bold and effective action.
Arts
A- 6.67% of this topic ART-01 2 / 3
Do you consider arts and culture to be a core part of your municipality's economic development strategy?
Why this score: Clearly identifies arts, culture and music as essential to urban life and the local economy and describes a major municipal role in protecting and investing in space.
How this question is graded
Jeremy Caradonna chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: Municipalities play a hugely important role in supporting the arts. It is easy for arts, culture, and music to get lost in the mix, when we face various crises -- housing, homelessness, climate, etc. -- but they are nonetheless essential parts of urban living and the local economy, not "nice-to-haves."
This term, the city purchased the Hermann's building for just under $4m and it now generates around $275k in annual income. That decision preserved multiple beloved arts venues. The city also revived Symphony Splash, via my advocacy at Council, which cost the city $250k, but generated millions in local spending and tax dollars (per their economic impact study). Likewise, the city rescued Fernfest in 2026, which was crucial for the local arts scene.
Victoria has lost many arts and music venues. A major priority of the city has been -- and should continue to be -- to invest in and protect marquee spaces and events. Next up is investing in decommodified arts spaces. - 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: Provides multiple concrete year-one priorities and specific year-four outcomes, including subsidized space, a long-term event plan, a permanent arts hub and acquisition work.
How this question is graded
Jeremy Caradonna's answerBy the end of year 1, I'd like to have in place a clear vision to invest in and/or support:
1) a public, subsidized arts space. Buying Hermann's produced a good outcome for the city, but we have heard feedback that the next move should be a subsidized arts space, rather than one that's market rental;
2) the implementation of a multi-year plan for Symphony Splash, to derisk the Symphony's planning and ensure the long-term success of that event;
3) the coordination of a permanent visual arts hub. The arts hub at 780 Blanshard must relocate at some point, and the city can play an important role in helping the organizers land on their feet; The current hub supports dozens of artists who otherwise could not afford craft space in the city;
4) the acquisition and re-envisioning of the Bell Media building at Broad and Pandora. A prospective buyer is currently negotiating the purchase of that building, to create a dynamic arts and innovation hub, and the city can support this work by, amongst other things, waiving the property taxes on the portions of the building that align with the city's property tax exemption policies.
By the end of year 4, I'd like to see all of these initiatives come together -- subsidized arts space, long-term plan for Splash, successful acquisition of the Bell building, and a new permanent arts hub, along with the overall and ongoing vision to activate downtown (e.g. at Ship Point).
Beyond that, I'd like to better integrate arts into a new economic vision for downtown, which would likely include some type of immersive arts experience in the empty space at the Bay Centre, as well as a clearer collective vision regarding the economic opportunities of expanded arts and entertainment downtown.
Finally, I'd like to ensure that the theatre rental grants program that the CRD implemented (Royal, Mac) this term gets off the ground and functions properly, providing subsidized space to local arts groups.
Success will be measured by the overall health and vibrancy of Victoria's arts sector. - 13.33% of this topic ART-03 3 / 3
Cultural strategies are often adopted and then not implemented. Would you support a cultural space implementation framework with defined tools, timelines and public reporting? Select up to three components you would prioritize. Select your top three options.
Why this score: Combines long-term affordability/stability, priority-space intervention and nonprofit partnerships for permanent assets.
How this question is graded
Jeremy Caradonna 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 the full range of consequential permitting, event, zoning, coordination and disproportionate-cost reforms.
How this question is graded
Jeremy Caradonna 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 increased municipal infrastructure funding, property-tax increases for cultural infrastructure, development/amenity contributions, leveraging outside capital and cultural land trusts.
How this question is graded
Jeremy Caradonna chose 5 of 16 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-06 3 / 3
Municipal budgets require difficult choices. Would you support maintaining arts and culture investment alongside other core municipal services?
Why this score: Explicitly supports arts and culture investment maintaining or growing alongside other core services.
How this question is graded
Jeremy Caradonna 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 preserving existing cultural space where feasible; this is meaningful protection but does not commit to replacement/equivalent benefit.
How this question is graded
Jeremy Caradonna chose 1 of 5 options - 16.67% of this topic ART-08 3 / 3
Would you support municipal incentives to encourage private property owners and developers to provide affordable community & cultural space for nonprofits? Select all that apply.
Why this score: Supports development requirements/incentives, fee reductions, property-tax incentives for long-term affordable space and nonprofit property-tax relief.
How this question is graded
Jeremy Caradonna 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.
Question ART-05 is incredibly challenging. There are 13 potentially viable, selectable answers, and yet one can select only up to 5 responses. The reality is that preserving and securing long-term cultural spaces is very context-specific, and any of those 13 answers could be valid in a given scenario.
The bottom line is that the city needs to 1) invest in or enable arts spaces of all kinds, especially ones that offer subsidized or below-market access to artists, and 2) work with partners (senior governments, CRD, market developers) to leverage opportunities to create new arts venues, for instance as part of mixed-use developments.
Rolling & cycling
A- 15% of this topic ROL-01 A
Will you commit to funding and completing at least one 'missing link' in your municipality's Active Transportation Plan during your four-year term? If yes, which one would you prioritize?
Why this grade: Names the Pandora Avenue stretch from Cook Street to Stadacona Park, planned but not yet built, and explains that a two way bike lane there is the overdue connector for the east of the city and towards Saanich and Oak Bay. Specific, with the connections it opens.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: One missing link that's currently being planned but has not yet been completed is the stretch from Cook Street to Stadacona Park on Pandora Ave. Creating a two-way bike lane on this road is a long overdue connector for the east part of the city and connections to Saanich and Oak Bay. - 15% of this topic ROL-02 A
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: Takes physical protection rather than paint as the standard for new and upgraded cycling infrastructure on busy streets. The answer is unqualified.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna 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: Commits to opposing efforts to remove, narrow or downgrade protected cycling infrastructure already built. The answer is plain.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna 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: Names completing the two way lane on Pandora as the immediate priority alongside the regional trail widening and lighting project on the Goose and Lochside, with Oak Bay Avenue, Richmond and Hillside flagged for feasibility work after that. A sequence of named projects rather than a single aspiration.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna's answerMuch of the network as originally designed is coming to fruition. That said, I think completing the two-way lane on Pandora is the immediate priority along with the trail widening and lighting project on the Goose/Lochside via the CRD. Beyond that, I would be interested in assessing the feasibility of Oak Bay Ave, Richmond, and/or Hillside as potential future multimodal routes. - 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: Supported every bike lane the city completed this term, including Gorge Road, Fort, Blanshard, Shelbourne, Tolmie and Cook, expedited Shelbourne, and saved the bike valet when it was at risk of being cut. Also sits on the regional transportation committee behind the trail widening and lighting project and on the transit commission, where service expansion and a longer term rail vision have been supported.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna's answerI have played an active and integral role in expanding active transportation in the city and at the CRD.
The city of Victoria has 45 km of existing AAA bike lanes and is the gold standard for active transportation across the country. This term, the city completed bike lanes on Gorge Road, Fort, Blanshard, Shelbourne, Tolmie, and Cook. I supported all of these projects and was involved in expediting some of them, including Shelbourne.
In addition, I successfully advocated to save the bike valet when it was at risk of being cut from the budget, and supported the commitment to a second downtown bike valet in the new Official Community Plan.
Per 2022 data, 13% of all trips in the city are done by bike, and the new dataset is expected to see those numbers grow to 15-20%. I am confident that the work I've done as a civic leader has contributed to this increased ridership.
At the CRD, I am a member of the Transportation Committee and supported the trail widening and lighting project. This is a $50m project that will make the Goose/Lochside network safer, wider, and better equipped to handle a growing ridership.
I am a Transit Commissioner and have supported service expansion, EV bus acquisitions, a new transit hub and a new bus depot, a longterm LRT vision for the region, closer affiliations with the RCI SC (E&N), direct service to YYJ, and much more.
Ridership on transit is relatively flat and this is a major problem for the region. The realities of the Transit Act mean that more funding from the Province is required if we're truly intent on expanding service and increasing ridership.
My support for expansion on transit would remain the same if I stayed on the Commission, as would my efforts to combine the functions of the VRTC with that of the CRD's Transportation Committee into a new Transportation Commission.
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.
Victoria is headed in the right direction on most aspects of transportation. Cycling is expanding (13%+), 30% of people walk to work, and car-free households continue to increase (25% overall), suggesting that more people are mode-shifting to other forms of transportation, including car-share.
There are essentially two big problems that need to be fixed in the coming years.
The first is transportation governance. It is crazy how much of the local transportation authority is divided between a panoply of governments and agencies (munis, CRD, VRTC, etc), which keeps the region disconnected and inefficient.
Congestion is getting worse as more suburbanites buy vehicles and drive around the region. We need to provide better transportation alternatives.
The second issue is the flat ridership on transit. 8-9% is not good enough. We must expand service (requires provincial investment) *and* build LRT & BRT.
Thus, the region requires better transportation governance and rapid transit.
Walking
A- 10% of this topic WLK-01 A
Municipalities, the CRD and the Province have all adopted targets to shift trips away from driving. Do you support meeting your municipality's adopted mode-shift targets, and would you vote for the necessary street-space and budgetary changes?
Why this grade: Shows commitment to multimodal planning and transportation demand management to increase transportation system efficiency.
How this question is graded
A = yes, even if it means removing driving lanes. C = yes, but not when it takes road space from drivers. F = no. Two steps between the two yeses because the adopted targets cannot be met without reallocating street space. Unsure and Decline to answer are both C- on this tab.
Jeremy Caradonna 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: Identifies driver speed and the worry about children getting to school safely, then commits to more traffic calming, speed bumps, curb extensions, crossings with signals and mapping the routes children actually walk and ride. Also commits to raising the pedestrian share of road spending rather than the total alone.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna's answerVictoria is fortunate to have a high percentage of people who walk to work (30%, per CRD transpo study), but we could be doing better.
The main issue I hear repeatedly is that drivers still drive too fast, even with efforts to reduce speed limits, and that families worry about getting their kids safely to school.
What I would commit to in my second term is increased efforts at traffic calming -- speed-bumps, bump-outs, signalized crossings, crosswalks -- and better systems mapping of frequent routes to school that kids take (on foot and on bike) so that we can better target our investments.
Upgrading roads is a major expense, but one that I was involved in increasing spending on in my first term. Per our CFO, we are now back to "sustainable" levels of road investments, including pedestrian infrastructure, so we need to maintain those investments overall, but increase the portion of roadwork investment that goes towards pedestrian safety. - 10% of this topic WLK-03 A
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: Would vote to more than double the share of the transportation capital budget going to sidewalks and crossings. That is the strongest of the choices offered, and it is what closing a chronic funding gap takes.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna 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: Supports expanding pedestrian priority and car free streets, and would pursue a permanent expansion rather than a trial. The strongest answer available, and the one that actually changes how a street works.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna 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: Serious intent and an action plan, as indicated, help assure intended results. Consultation with parents and school staff is very important, along with ICBC collision data. Parents are at the school daily at the times of day when children are going to and from school. Parents, and often children themselves, are aware of where ”near misses” occur, and their lived experiences are important to planning and construction.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna's answerYes, this is a concern I hear quite frequently when campaigning.
I think the answer is for the city's engineering and transportation staff to produce a systems map -- or heat map -- that better indicates where and how children get to school. That would require staff working with SD61 and parents groups to assess the data, which could then be converted into an investment priority matrix. Staff would likely also look at ICBC collision data and other datasets to produce a clearer vision of where infrastructure needs the most upgrades. - 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: Identifying priorities for improvements is always important . Frequency of crosswalks where people need to cross the road needs to be assessed, as does curb height. Look for streets where accessing a bus or simply crossing the road requires too long a walk for someone who has mobility challenges. Victoria encompasses a lot of neighbourhoods where sidewalk upgrades have not occurred in many decades. Assurring ongoing funding is essential to accomplishing all the work that is needed. Direct consultation with the population who travel by foot is important.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna's answerThis is a topic that I worked on as the James Bay liaison in my first two years as a councillor. Accessibility is a major challenge in this region, especially with many tree-lined streets and frequent rainfall, both of which impact the grading, deterioration rates, and safety of sidewalks.
I believe there are opportunities to work with accessibility groups, including our Accessibility Advisory Committee, and seniors groups to identify the areas that are most in need of immediate repair. The city cannot upgrade all of the sidewalks and pedestrian infrastructure at the same time, so we need better data to identify the priority accessibility issues and address them.
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, or other forms of sidewalk usage, often get lost in the mix. Twice as many people walk to work as cycle and yet pedestrians get very little community attention.
In addition to the big upgrades mentioned above, including sidewalk repairs and crosswalks, there are plenty of opportunities to increase safety, accessibility, and comfort for walkers, including with landscaping, benches, and better lighting.
The $50m trail widening and lighting project at the CRD is not solely for cyclists. It will create a multimodal pathway that's 4m of width for cyclists and 2.5m for pedestrians. The lighting will make it safer and more comfortable for walkers to commute home at 5pm in the winter, when it will be pitch dark due to the permanent time switch. This is but one example of ways that local governments can support pedestrians.
Governance
A- 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.
Jeremy Caradonna 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: A clear yes to a regional service designing, building and maintaining local infrastructure shared across Capital Region municipalities. Nothing qualifying the answer.
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.
Jeremy Caradonna chose 1 of 5 options - 17% of this topic GOV-03 B
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").
Jeremy Caradonna's answer1. Moving away from the practice of deferred maintenance and short-term cost-cutting measures that only end up costing the city more in the long-run. Maintaining infrastructure properly extends its life and reduces total asset management costs.
2. Diversify revenue streams. The city has already begun doing so, via pickleball court bookings and by buying revenue-generating assets (e.g. the Hermann's building).
3) Regionalizing more costs. Amalgamation aside, there are opportunities to pool resources and share costs across the region. I am supportive, for instance, of reviving the E&N line as the Reconciliation Corridor from Victoria to Langford. The governance of that entity is still TBD, but it goes without saying that it becomes more affordable if the costs are shared regionally, as it would benefit the entire region. In general, there are opportunities to share infrastructure costs across the CRD. - 17% of this topic GOV-04 A
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 )
Jeremy Caradonna 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: Supports local First Nations representation in transit governance, naming both the Victoria Regional Transit Commission and the CRD Transportation Commission. The answer is a plain yes with nothing attached to it.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. No = C-, on the same reasoning as GOV-02 and TRN-04: the question is about who sits at the table, not about what gets built or funded. No candidate has answered No, so that letter is a rule rather than a record of how anyone was graded. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Jeremy Caradonna chose 1 of 3 options - 17% of this topic REC-02 A
Concerning our municipal government’s First Nations’ reconciliation and consultation practices, I support:
Why this grade: Shows commitment to reconciliation.
How this question is graded
A = significantly more consultation practices. B = somewhat more. C = the current amount is enough. Written answers take the same ladder: A commits to partnership with local First Nations, B wants better consultation without committing to a change, C questions whether more is wanted. Nothing here has been graded C- or F.
Jeremy Caradonna chose 1 of 7 optionsSee my answer below.
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 am supportive of letting Saanich and Victoria voters vote in a binding referendum on whether to amalgamate. I am not supportive of the current "temperature check" ballot question that merely kicks the question down the line.
Amalgamation aside, I believe there are substantial opportunities to regionalize services -- the most important of which is regional policing -- and pool resources via the CRD. This term, the CRD finally created a Transportation Service, which creates the possibility of shared regional transportation planning. That can be done without full amalgamation. - 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.
The question above is framed around quantity of consultation, but I'd say the real issue is quality of consultation and the crucial importance of relationship-building and shared governance practices.
It would be much better if the Nations had permanent representation on, for instance, the CRD Water Commission and the VR Transit Commission. The MOUs that have recently been signed by the CRD and several First Nations are a step in the right direction because they streamline consultation and create shared decision-making processes.
At the moment, the Songhees and Kosapsum are leading the efforts to revive the E&N line as a Reconciliation Corridor. The governance of the entity that would operate the rail line is TBD, but the process holds out the possibility of a shared governance entity that would see First Nations and non-First Nations representatives working collaboratively on an initiative of great regional significance. For me, that is a higher objective and better outcome than an exclusive focus on consultation.
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).