How to read this page. Each row below is one policy area, with Carolynne Clark'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 Carolynne Clark 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 make proactive infrastructure maintenance and asset management a higher municipal priority. Maintenance shouldn't happen only when something becomes a major problem. We’ve seen examples around town recently where aging or damaged infrastructure has created avoidable issues which often lead to higher costs than would be involved with regular preventative maintenance. From aging traffic signals to damaged infrastructure that remains unrepaired for months.
I want to see a more proactive approach to maintenance and infrastructure planning.
That means identifying problems before they become emergencies, properly maintaining our roads and sidewalks, keeping public spaces looking cared for, and ensuring infrastructure keeps pace with development. - 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.
Carolynne Clark's allocation of ten million dollars Housing $2,000,000 Transit $500,000 Walking Infrastructure $750,000 Rolling & Cycling Infrastructure $1,000,000 Roadway Infrastructure $1,750,000 Policing $500,000 Fire & Emergency Services $500,000 Parks & Recreation $750,000 Arts & Culture $250,000 Climate Action & Environment $1,000,000 Unhoused Resident Services $250,000 Community-Based Clinics $750,000 - Not graded GEN-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to communicate about your region, generally, feel free to share your thoughts here.
I feel it is important to protect View Royal’s identity, View Royal is a gem.
We’re close to the amenities and activity of Greater Victoria, but we also have something special: parks, forests, the ocean, Portage Inlet, and neighbourhoods that feel like home.
As we grow, I want us to be intentional about protecting that identity.
Responsible growth doesn't have to mean sacrificing the character of our community. It means paying attention to the details. Preserving our public spaces to maintaining the sidewalks, trees, parks, and streetscapes that residents experience every day.
Sometimes the little things matter. A neglected median full of weeds or an overgrown, difficult-to-navigate sidewalk may seem insignificant individually, but together they contribute to how residents feel about their community.
We should be proud of how View Royal looks and feels.
Healthcare access
What Carolynne Clark 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: Ticked free travel for under 19s and cheaper fares for people on income or disability assistance, leaving cheaper fares for seniors and a lower cost regional monthly pass unticked. Half the list is backed, and seniors are a group of riders the answer leaves out.
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.
Carolynne Clark chose 2 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 pulling general street parking off frequent transit corridors along their whole length, with the space reallocated to bus lanes, loading and people walking and cycling. That is the strongest option in the question.
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.
Carolynne Clark 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 transit priority but rules out taking a general purpose travel lane to get it, which leaves only parking and spare width to work with. Removing that tool weakens the commitment, so it falls below a full yes.
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.
Carolynne Clark 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: Yes to creating a regional transportation authority, with no conditions attached.
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.
Carolynne Clark 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: Backs new bus and bike connections through parks, golf courses and public land only where no mature trees are lost. Many of the routes the question has in mind would fail that test, so the support is partial.
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.
Carolynne Clark chose 1 of 5 options
Housing
F- HFL-01 3 / 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
Carolynne Clark chose 3 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-02 4 / 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.
Carolynne Clark chose 4 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.
Carolynne Clark chose 1 of 5 options - HFL-04 2 / 5
If there was a type of housing you wanted to see more of (e.g., affordable, non-market, family-sized, townhouses, etc.), what do you think are effective methods of getting more of it? Select all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point for each option, but -1 for choosing mandated requirements (d). To increase the building of certain desireable types of housing (affordable, family sized, etc), cities need to pursue a broad approach of both removing barriers and targetted incentives. Mandated requirements (or inclusionary zoning) have a track record of acting like a tax and therefore reducing housing construction or increasing costs.
Carolynne Clark chose 2 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.
Carolynne Clark 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.
Carolynne Clark 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.
Carolynne Clark chose 1 of 5 options - HFL-08 0 / 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.
Carolynne Clark chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-09 2 / 6
Non-market housing often faces additional challenges getting approved. Which of the following measures do you support to improve the prospects for below-market housing construction? Select all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point for each option, but -1 for choosing mandated requirements (d). Building homes is hard, building non-market homes is substantially harder. This has serious socio-economic consequences for certain members of society. With the exception of mandated requirements (or inclusionary zoning), which have a track record of acting like a tax and therefore a deterrent to new construction, a broad and flexible approach is needed to help non-market housing across the approval finish line.
Carolynne Clark chose 2 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.
Carolynne Clark chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-10 2 / 7
If elected, what do you hope to have accomplished on the housing file at the end of your first year, and end of your four-year term?
How this question is graded
To receive full marks, candidates receive a point up to 7 for referencing impactful housing ideas in their answer including but not limited to: a rental vacancy rate target, a quantitative target regarding annual homes built, pre-zoning commitments / OCP alignment, non-profit by right commitment, commitment to tenant production aligned with platform, commitment to regulate and enforce Airbnb rules, delegate more rezoning / variance decisions to staff, a continuation of policies that have been working, developing a pre-approved catalog of housing designs, loosening design guidelines or other restrictive regulations, minimizing tenant displacement, increasing the regional housing fund, enhancing partnerships with other levels of government, the private sector, co-ops, and non-profit housing developers, streamlining regulations, and shorten requirements.
Carolynne Clark's answerGiven the changes to density created by Bill 44, my goal would be to make sure View Royal is prepared to accommodate new housing while ensuring that new development continues to fit thoughtfully within the character of our neighbourhoods.
By the end of my first year, I would want to see new housing projects approved within the established guidelines and provincial requirements, with careful consideration given to building form, setbacks, preserving the tree canopy, ensuring adequate parking, and the infrastructure needed to support additional density. By the end of four years, I would want View Royal to have successfully added housing while maintaining the qualities that make our community desirable; green spaces and livability. New development should be designed to suit their neighbours, supported by appropriate infrastructure and contribute fairly to the community.
I recognize that we need more housing, but density should not mean giving up thoughtful planning. My goal is to find the balance between meeting our housing needs and ensuring View Royal remains a community where people want to live for generations.
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: Commits to both halves. Municipal surfaces and events are cleared, and the same case would be made at the regional table.
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.
Carolynne Clark chose 1 of 6 options Follow-up: Carolynne Clark chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-02 B
The Capital Regional District declared a climate emergency in 2019. How should your municipality treat climate action in its next four-year plan?
Why this grade: Top three with money attached. That is a real commitment that still leaves climate competing with other priorities.
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.
Carolynne Clark 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: Signs on to the pledge without reservation. That is the maximum the question offers and the answer takes 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.
Carolynne Clark chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-04 B
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: Agrees to join if costs are capped. Support with a fiscal guardrail rather than support outright.
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.
Carolynne Clark chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-05 A
Will you support a zoning bylaw amendment that prohibits the approval of any new or expanded commercial gas stations within municipal boundaries?
Why this grade: Agrees to the zoning prohibition. No exception is reserved for particular sites or particular operators.
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.
Carolynne Clark chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-06 B
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: Chooses three measures. Enough to count as a programme, not enough to reach most people in existing homes.
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.
Carolynne Clark chose 3 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: A direct yes. The answer accepts that some equipment currently in use would have to be replaced.
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.
Carolynne Clark 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 refuse all of them. Nothing is left to case by case judgement.
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.
Carolynne Clark 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 relevant climate risks and practical steps to address them in the context of View Royal.
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.
Carolynne Clark's answerInterface fires are a high risk given our proximity to large forested parks. I support the ongoing efforts and expansion of the FireSmart program, as well as ensuring our emergency planning and response capabilities keep pace with the risk.
Sea level rise is a real risk given our geography. We need to understand which areas and infrastructure are most vulnerable and plan for long-term adaptation rather than waiting until damage occurs. This includes protecting and upgrading critical infrastructure and considering climate resilience in future development and infrastructure decisions.
I also support continuing the shift away from fossil-fuel-powered vehicles and tools owned and used by the Town of View Royal, where practical and cost-effective.
I would also prioritize resilient stormwater and drainage infrastructure. More frequent and intense rainfall events can increase flooding, erosion and damage to roads and properties. Investing proactively in infrastructure and maintenance will help protect residents while reducing costly repairs in the future. - 8% of this topic CLI-10 B
Ensuring ecosystem connectivity is an important adaptation strategy for climate change. How do you plan to maintain or increase ecosystem features across the urban landscape?
Why this grade: Shows strong support for the idea of ecosystem connectivity and general identifies some development ideas that could occur to improve it, but does not provide many specifics about how they will encourage development with connectivity in mind.
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.
Carolynne Clark's answerView Royal is fortunate to have significant natural areas, parks, waterways and mature trees, and I believe we should protect and connect these assets with neighbourhoods wherever possible.
As development occurs, I would encourage planning that preserves mature trees and vegetation, incorporates native landscaping and maintains natural features. We should also create practical, non-car dependent ways to connect new developments and existing neighbourhoods to nature. - 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 some examples, but does not elaborate on specific strategies to support this.
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.
Carolynne Clark's answerAbsolutely. Any new development is an opportunity to build climate resilience into our community from the start, rather than retrofitting buildings and infrastructure later.
I would support incorporating FireSmart principles into new development and green building practices that improve energy efficiency, reduce emissions and help buildings remain resilient during extreme weather.
I support strengthening requirements for EV charging infrastructure in new development so that we are building the capacity for electrification from the beginning. This allows us to transition away from fossil-fuel-powered transportation without putting the cost of retrofitting entirely on future homeowners.
Good planning today can reduce future costs, improve resilience and ensure that growth strengthens rather than compromises the community we have built. - 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.
Carolynne Clark 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 action is important to me and my family; we spend much of our free time enjoying the outdoors. I believe municipalities have an important role to play in building a more sustainable community.
I want to support practical initiatives such as:
• Safe, connected bike paths and active transportation
• Waste reduction and diversion
• Green building initiatives and energy-efficient development
• Practical steps that make sustainable choices easier for residents
I believe we can plan for a livable future for our children while making View Royal a better place to live today.
Arts
C- 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 connects arts and culture to economic development through attracting residents, visitors and investment and strengthening local venues.
How this question is graded
Carolynne Clark chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: Arts and culture can play an important role in View Royal’s economic development strategy. We should look for practical investments that make our community more attractive to businesses, residents and visitors.
Murals and public art can beautify commercial areas and public spaces while helping deter graffiti, the art under the E&N bridge at Helmcken is a perfect example.
I would also support promoting and strengthening existing venues such as the Victoria Scottish Community Centre, which bring performances, cultural events and visitors into our community. Supporting these venues can help create more reasons for people to visit View Royal, spend locally and discover what our community has to offer.
Arts and culture should help build a vibrant community that people want to visit, invest in and call home. - 16.67% of this topic ART-02 1 / 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: Supports concrete arts/public-art actions, but does not provide a measurable four-year outcome.
How this question is graded
Carolynne Clark's answerI would expand opportunities for local artists and performers while using art to improve and beautify public spaces. I would support a program for community murals in appropriate locations, using anti-graffiti coatings. The Helmcken Road E&N mural is a great example of how public art can add character to an area while helping discourage tagging and vandalism.
I would also support continued and expanded support of community arts programs and events such as “View Royal’s Got Talent”, which give local residents of all ages an opportunity to participate, perform and connect with their neighbours. - 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 priority-space identification, regulatory review and public reporting, but lacks the strongest affordability/permanent-asset components.
How this question is graded
Carolynne Clark chose 3 of 11 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-04 2 / 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 published standards/criteria, simplified events, coordination and disproportionate-cost review, but not the full regulatory package.
How this question is graded
Carolynne Clark chose 5 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - 16.67% of this topic ART-05 3 / 3
If preserving and securing long-term cultural space requires additional municipal support, which approaches would you support? Select up to five.
Why this score: Supports development/amenity contributions, leveraging outside capital, nonprofit acquisition, cultural land trusts and long-term leases.
How this question is graded
Carolynne Clark chose 5 of 16 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-06 3 / 3
Municipal budgets require difficult choices. Would you support maintaining arts and culture investment alongside other core municipal services?
Why this score: Explicitly supports arts and culture maintaining or growing alongside other core services.
How this question is graded
Carolynne Clark 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 an overall-community-benefit standard rather than specifically prioritizing preservation or replacement of cultural space.
How this question is graded
Carolynne Clark chose 1 of 5 options - 16.67% of this topic ART-08 3 / 3
Would you support municipal incentives to encourage private property owners and developers to provide affordable community & cultural space for nonprofits? Select all that apply.
Why this score: Supports development requirements/incentives and nonprofit property-tax relief, including a high-impact mechanism.
How this question is graded
Carolynne Clark chose 2 of 7 options (up to 5 allowed)
Rolling & cycling
B- 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: Commits to the area around Victoria General Hospital and ties the choice to growth already approved under the Official Community Plan, heavy commuter traffic and new development built with lower parking ratios. The priority is identified with reasoning rather than left open.
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.
Carolynne Clark chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: I would prioritize the area around Victoria General Hospital, where significant growth has already occurred and based on the Official Community Plan is very likely to continue with this growth pattern. This area has a combination of challenges that make active transportation particularly important: heavy commuter traffic though the area, smaller homes with greater demand for access to shared outdoor spaces, and many newer developments with lower parking ratios.
As our community grows, we need to make sure our infrastructure grows with it. Creating safe, connected routes for walking, cycling and other forms of active transportation can reduce pressure on our roads, improve access to parks and services, and help residents get around safely without relying on a vehicle for every trip. - 15% of this topic ROL-02 B
Will you commit (or continue to commit) to physical protection (not paint alone) as the standard for all new and upgraded cycling infrastructure on busy streets in your municipality?
Why this grade: This question asks about supporting a design standard to establish a level of safety. Infrastructure is not "physically impossible"; it is a question of cost and assessing alternatives. Qualifying an answer with "except where physically impossible" leaves an easy out because many obstacles initially appear impossible to overcome. Hard work is needed to identify viable solutions.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Yes, except where physically impossible = B. No = F. Except where physically impossible is a condition that can be checked against a street, so it takes the conditional-yes B, and that is where the 19 rows graded before this rubric existed put it. A No is F because the question sets a construction standard, which is infrastructure. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Carolynne Clark chose 1 of 5 options - 15% of this topic ROL-03 A
Will you oppose efforts (current and future) to remove, narrow or downgrade existing protected bike lanes and other all-ages-and-abilities (AAA) cycling infrastructure in your municipality during your term?
Why this grade: Will oppose removal, narrowing or downgrading of existing protected bike lanes and all ages and abilities infrastructure, with no conditions on the commitment.
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.
Carolynne Clark 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: Identifies Helmcken Road from Burnside through to the E&N connection and View Royal Elementary, states that the current painted lanes are inadequate for the traffic volumes and speeds on that corridor, and asks for physical separation, safer crossings and accessible pedestrian facilities treated as one connected project. Specific corridor, specific deficiency, specific standard.
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.
Carolynne Clark's answerI would focus on progressing the improvement of pedestrian and cycling safety along Helmcken Road from Burnside Road through to the E&N connection and View Royal Elementary School.
Helmcken carries significant commuter traffic and traffic associated with the hospital. The current painted bike lanes are not adequate for the volume and speed of traffic we see on this corridor.
Further south, the connection from the existing painted bike lane near the Craigflower Creek bridge to the E&N Trail and View Royal Elementary is another significant safety concern. I have personally witnessed close calls between vehicles & cyclists, as well as between cyclists & pedestrians.
I would like to see this corridor treated as a connected, multi-use safety project, with proper physical separation for cyclists, safe & accessible pedestrian facilities, safer crossings, and better connections to the E&N Trail and school. - 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: The record offered is Parent Advisory Council advocacy on traffic management and student safety around one school. Genuine community work, but confined to a single location and to traffic management, with nothing on walking, rolling, cycling or transit more broadly.
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.
Carolynne Clark's answerI have not previously served in local government, but I have experience advocating for our community through my work as a Parent Advisory Council member, including advocating for better traffic management and student safety around Shoreline Middle School.
Traffic in this area is a significant safety concern. Students crossing Shoreline Drive at Island Highway create a bottleneck that can back traffic well down Shoreline Drive, often resulting in drivers making unsafe turns onto Island Hwy. Students then have to navigate the already complex Admirals/Island Hwy/Craigflower intersection.
As a parent and community advocate, I have seen firsthand how challenging this area can be during school drop-off and pick-up. If elected, I would bring that same practical, community-focused approach to Council and work with the Town, school district and other jurisdictions to find solutions that improve traffic flow while, most importantly, keeping students and other pedestrians safe.
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.
I have biked most paths in View Royal, and have noticed that one of the biggest gaps in our cycling network is the connection between road based cycling infrastructure and our regional trails, such as the E&N and Galloping Goose.
We can build bike lanes along our roads, but if the connection to the trail is unclear, poorly designed or unsafe & often in areas with heavy traffic, we haven’t created a truly connected network. These gaps can create dangerous situations for cyclists and pedestrians and can make cycling less accessible for people who might otherwise choose it.
As a parent of school-aged children who bike to school, friends’ houses, parks and even downtown Victoria, I see the importance of having safe, continuous routes firsthand. I believe we need to focus not just on individual bike lanes and sidewalks, but on how they connect, so that our entire transportation network works safely and effectively for people walking, cycling, taking transit and driving.
Walking
B- 10% of this topic WLK-01 C
Municipalities, the CRD and the Province have all adopted targets to shift trips away from driving. Do you support meeting your municipality's adopted mode-shift targets, and would you vote for the necessary street-space and budgetary changes?
Why this grade: Shows a lack of commitment to multimodal planning and transportation demand management.
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.
Carolynne Clark 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 residential streets carrying more traffic without sidewalks or calming, and would prioritise walking routes to schools, the hospital and transit stops. Also raises the upkeep of sidewalks already built, though no single change is named as the first term commitment.
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.
Carolynne Clark's answerView Royal has many residential streets that are experiencing increased traffic and lack sidewalks or traffic-calming measures, creating safety concerns for pedestrians.
I believe we need to prioritize pedestrian infrastructure and traffic calming on routes to our schools, the hospital and transit stops, so residents can safely walk and access essential services.
We also need to take better care of the infrastructure we already have. Some existing sidewalks are difficult or unsafe to navigate because of uneven pavement, overgrown trees and vegetation, or sightlines that are blocked near intersections. - 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 substantially increase pedestrian infrastructure funding, more than doubling what is spent now. A firm commitment to close the sidewalk gap.
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.
Carolynne Clark chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-04 F
Do you support expanding pedestrian-priority and car-free streets in your municipality's downtown, main street or village centre?
Why this grade: Opposes expanding pedestrian priority and car free streets in the municipality's centre. A no here keeps the existing streets exactly as they are.
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.
Carolynne Clark 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: Your first hand experience is invaluable. As a Councillor, you will need to advocate for adequate funding to support road safety improvements you advocate. Asking a staff member to accompany you when you meet with parents and teachers will help everyone gain a better understanding of how pedestrian improvements are constructed, and staff will likely have ideas to share with Council and parents. Budgeting and timelines are key components of getting work done.
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.
Carolynne Clark's answerI believe children’s safety needs to come before the convenience of moving traffic quickly through our neighbourhoods. As the Past President of the View Royal Elementary PAC and past Fundraising Coordinator at Shoreline Middle School (I stepped back from both to run for council), I have firsthand experience listening to families and understanding the safety concerns they face around our schools.
I will continue to attend PAC and school community activities at both schools and will seek an invitation to do the same at Eagle View Elementary, to keep those lines of communication open. I would also work closely with municipal staff to bring those concerns forward and look for practical solutions, whether that means improved crosswalks, traffic calming, signage, sidewalks, sightline improvements or changes to traffic patterns.
Most importantly, I would support a process where parents, school staff and municipal staff work together to identify safety issues before they become accidents. Traffic flow matters but getting children safely to school and home should always be the priority. - 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: All of us who advocate for pedestrian safety sound like broken records. Your point about maintenance of the infrastructure your municipality already has is important. Communities are in a time of transition where there is greater public realization that measures to promote safety for those travelling outside a motor vehicle is as important as measures to promote road safety for motorists . Public roads, public sidewalks and public safety are shared responsibilities. Pedestrian infrastructure needs to receive a greater portion of transportation funding. Approximately one-third of the population does not drive. The one-third includes children (who are chauffeured by adults), older adults who have given up driving, people with disabilities that prevent them from driving, people who are unable to afford a motor vehicle, and people who choose not to drive for environmental reasons and/or to promote their physical and mental health. .
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.
Carolynne Clark's answerAt the risk of sounding like a broken record, View Royal has many residential streets experiencing increased traffic that lack sidewalks or traffic-calming measures, creating safety concerns for pedestrians. I believe we need to take a systematic approach to improving pedestrian safety and accessibility.
I would work with municipal staff and the community to identify the most important gaps, prioritizing routes to schools (many of our seniors are handling childcare for school aged children), the hospital, transit stops, parks and other essential services.
We need to take better care of the infrastructure we already have. Uneven pavement, overgrown vegetation and blocked sightlines can make existing sidewalks difficult or unsafe to navigate.
I support creating and funding a pedestrian improvement plan so View Royal is safer and more accessible for everyone.
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.
Carolynne Clark 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: Backs a regional service for the design, construction and maintenance of local infrastructure across the Capital Region. The answer sets no conditions on that support.
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.
Carolynne Clark 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").
Carolynne Clark's answer1. Prioritize infrastructure maintenance and long-term planning. We need to properly maintain the infrastructure we already have and plan ahead for major repairs and replacements. Preventative maintenance is often far less expensive than waiting for infrastructure to fail.
2. Look for opportunities to share services with neighbouring municipalities. I would continue exploring shared services, equipment and purchasing with neighbouring municipalities and regional partners.
3. Make every taxpayer dollar count. We should be regularly review spending, contracts and service delivery to identify efficiencies and ensure we are getting good value.
View Royal has a strong financial foundation. My goal is to protect it while finding responsible ways to reduce pressure on property owners and businesses through long term, sustainable financial planning. - 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 )
Carolynne Clark 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 being represented in transit governance in the region. The answer is unqualified.
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.
Carolynne Clark 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.
Carolynne Clark chose 1 of 7 options
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded GOV-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to governance, shared services, and municipal infrastructure, feel free to share your thoughts below.
There are a number of developments across Greater Victoria, including in View Royal, that have been approved with reduced parking requirements. While I support the goal of encouraging alternative transportation, we need to make sure our infrastructure is ready to support that shift.
A drive through these neighbourhoods shows the challenges reduced parking creates - street parking is increasingly occupied by residents who don’t have assigned parking, and bike lanes can become blocked by parked vehicles. This creates frustration for residents and can make walking and cycling less safe.
I believe we need to build out reliable alternatives commuting infrastructure before reducing mandated parking requirements. We should make it easier for people to choose alternatives to driving, rather than making it harder to own a vehicle. - Not graded REC-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to First Nation transit governance or consultation practices, feel free to share your thoughts below.
I believe reconciliation needs to be an ongoing relationship, not simply a consultation step in a planning process. View Royal has made progress in building relationships with the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations, and I believe Council should continue that work in a meaningful and respectful way. I support engaging First Nations early in decisions that affect their interests, rather than bringing them into the conversation after plans are already developed. I would also look for practical opportunities to work together, particularly around environmental stewardship, parks, infrastructure and transportation.
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).