How to read this page. Each row below is one policy area, with David Screech'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 David Screech 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 will work to reconstitute the citizen led advisory committees. Prior to 2022 the Town always had citizen volunteers who supplied invaluable advice to Council. Those have been disbanded this past term. I will work to see they are again put into place and also create a youth advisory commission. - 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.
David Screech's allocation of ten million dollars Housing $15,000 Transit $10,000 Walking Infrastructure $5,000 Rolling & Cycling Infrastructure $3,000 Roadway Infrastructure $8,000 Policing $12,000 Fire & Emergency Services $10,000 Parks & Recreation $20,000 Arts & Culture $5,000 Climate Action & Environment $3,000 Unhoused Resident Services $5,000 Community-Based Clinics $4,000 - Not graded GEN-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to communicate about your region, generally, feel free to share your thoughts here.
The previous question asking about the allocation of funds is a little misleading as some of the areas are arguable not areas of local government responsibility.
I think those that are fortunate enough to live on Southern Vancouver live in one of the most beautiful parts of the world. I am passionate about out region.
Healthcare access
What David Screech 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.
There are many opportunities for local government to assist in bringing doctors to their communities that don't involve a major financial outlay. I am all for exploring these opportunities.
Transit
C-- 20% of this topic TRN-01 C-
Which fare measures would you actively advocate for at the VRTC? Select all that apply.
Why this grade: Would advocate for cheaper fares for people on income or disability assistance and a lower cost regional monthly pass. Half the list is taken up, which commits to lower fares for some riders but not as a general direction.
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.
David Screech chose 2 of 6 options (up to 4 allowed) - 30% of this topic TRN-02 F
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: Records the question about removing general street parking from frequent transit corridors as not applying to this municipality. The question was treated as not applying rather than answered, and no commitment on street space was offered in its place. Note: View Royal is home to the FTN Route 14 along the length of Craigflower Rd, Old Island Highway, and Helmcken Rd to Vic General. Route 14 is the third busiest route in the system, runs entirely in mixed traffic, and suffers from substantial delay and overcrowding at almost all times of day; Screech's answer is indicative of a poor understanting and lack of commitment to addressing this critical issue.
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.
David Screech chose 1 of 6 options - 30% of this topic TRN-03 F
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: Declines to answer whether transit priority should be deployed rapidly on frequent corridors where that costs parking or a lane of general traffic. No explanation for the decline appears elsewhere in the topic, so it stands as a question left unanswered. Note: View Royal is home to the FTN Route 14 along the length of Craigflower Rd, Old Island Highway, and Helmcken Rd to Vic General. Route 14 is the third busiest route in the system, runs entirely in mixed traffic, and suffers from substantial delay and overcrowding at almost all times of day; Screech's refusal to answer is indicative of a lack of support for transit within View Royal.
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.
David Screech 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: Agrees that transportation across the region should sit with a single authority. The answer is a plain yes with nothing attached to it.
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No = C-. A No is C- rather than F because this asks who should decide, not what should be built or funded, which puts it on the governance side of the CLI-03 split. Three earlier rows typed F and two typed C-; the governance rule was followed over the count. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Screech chose 1 of 3 options - 10% of this topic TRN-05 F
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: Does not support building new connections for buses and bicycles through parks, golf courses or public land, even where they would shorten trips substantially. Declining rules out the links themselves rather than the way they would be built, and a new connection is infrastructure.
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.
David Screech chose 1 of 5 options
Housing
F- HFL-01 5 / 8
What kinds of housing could your municipality use more of? Select all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point per selected type to max of 8. Housing exists on a continuum and different types are appropriate for different households. All housing is needed and positively affects other types via vacancy chains
David Screech chose 5 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-02 5 / 8
Which of the following items do you support to minimize tenant displacement and maintain/grow the supply of affordable housing? Select up all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point per strategy to max of 8. To tackle tenant displacement local governments must take an all of the above approach to reduce the impacts associated with renovictions and evictions.
David Screech chose 5 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-03 4 / 6
Do you think your municipality should have target approval times for multifamily housing?
How this question is graded
6 points for 30/180 days, prorated for longer timelines. Housing delayed is housing denied. Long delays drive us costs for housing, increase the chance that they will be cancelled, and indicate a lack of clear published guidelines. A time limit on decisions prioritizes housing action and reforms.
David Screech chose 1 of 5 options - HFL-04 3 / 5
If there was a type of housing you wanted to see more of (e.g., affordable, non-market, family-sized, townhouses, etc.), what do you think are effective methods of getting more of it? Select all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point for each option, but -1 for choosing mandated requirements (d). To increase the building of certain desireable types of housing (affordable, family sized, etc), cities need to pursue a broad approach of both removing barriers and targetted incentives. Mandated requirements (or inclusionary zoning) have a track record of acting like a tax and therefore reducing housing construction or increasing costs.
David Screech chose 4 of 8 options - HFL-05 0 / 3
Do you believe that the municipality should pre-zone to the uses, heights and densities outlined in the Official Community Plan, so that OCP-compliant projects can be built without rezoning or public hearing?
How this question is graded
3 points for yes, 0 for no. An OCP sets out the direction and vision for a municipality with broad input from the community and council. Matching zoning to long term consensus-based plans reduces scarcity and allows incentivizes OCP compliant housing to be built quickly.
David Screech 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.
David Screech 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.
David Screech 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.
David Screech 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.
David Screech chose 4 of 9 options (up to 7 allowed) - HFL-11 1 / 6
The BC government set a housing target for Victoria at 4,902 homes over five years, which represents 75% of the estimated housing need for that period. Regardless of provincial requirements or penalties, do you believe the city should strive to build:
How this question is graded
6 points for too low, 1 for about right, 0 for too high. By definition, the provincial housing targets, being set as only 75% of estimated housing need is too low of a target to meet local housing needs.
David Screech chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-10 3 / 7
If elected, what do you hope to have accomplished on the housing file at the end of your first year, and end of your four-year term?
How this question is graded
To receive full marks, candidates receive a point up to 7 for referencing impactful housing ideas in their answer including but not limited to: a rental vacancy rate target, a quantitative target regarding annual homes built, pre-zoning commitments / OCP alignment, non-profit by right commitment, commitment to tenant production aligned with platform, commitment to regulate and enforce Airbnb rules, delegate more rezoning / variance decisions to staff, a continuation of policies that have been working, developing a pre-approved catalog of housing designs, loosening design guidelines or other restrictive regulations, minimizing tenant displacement, increasing the regional housing fund, enhancing partnerships with other levels of government, the private sector, co-ops, and non-profit housing developers, streamlining regulations, and shorten requirements.
David Screech's answerI have a track record of supporting housing being built. I led the drive to see CRD Housing build two new buildings at Thetis Lake. I support density on our major corridors. Across the region we are in need of truly affordable housing being built. This will mean partnering with all levels of government and the development community. I am not in favour of abandoning our standards and regulations simply to see a project built. The housing we build needs to be quality development that works with the broader community. My hope for both the one year and four year mark would be to see more truly affordable housing in View Royal that is family oriented. View Royal is home to many housing Coops and I would like to see us expand that model where possible. I do believe the community needs to be involved. Obviously you will never get universal buy in but I think done properly you can get a majority of the community on board.
Climate
C- 8% of this topic CLI-01 —
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: Has not settled on whether the promotion should end. With nothing to grade, the row is left blank.
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.
David Screech chose 1 of 6 options - 8% of this topic CLI-02 F
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: Gave no answer on how the plan should treat climate, with nothing in the written climate comments to explain it. An unexplained pass on the framing question is graded as a refusal.
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.
David Screech chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-03 C-
Will you pledge to never take meetings from fossil fuel company lobbyists?
Why this grade: Declines to rule out the meetings. That is below the mark on access, and it says nothing either way about willingness to act elsewhere.
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.
David Screech chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-04 F
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: Declined this question with nothing in the written climate comments to explain it, and declined the climate priority question as well. Graded here rather than set aside, because the surrounding climate answers do not establish a position the menu failed to capture.
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.
David Screech chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-05 F
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: Declines to support the zoning prohibition. The municipality would keep approving these applications, which is what the question asked them to stop.
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.
David Screech 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: Backs a partial set of three. The gaps are on the funded side, which is where households feel the difference.
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.
David Screech 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 committed yes. The measure would be pursued rather than kept under review.
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.
David Screech chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-08 F
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: Declined with no explanation in the written climate comments, alongside declines on the climate priority and the cost recovery questions. Graded rather than set aside, because nothing in the section establishes a position the answer options failed to capture.
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.
David Screech chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-09 C
What are the primary climate risk(s) facing your community, and what actions would you take to support adaptation and resilience in your community?
Why this grade: Identifies a climate risk but sees true climate resiliency as being in the regional rather than local realm.
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.
David Screech's answerThis is a very involved and complex question to answer here. Clearly climate change is the biggest challenge of our generation and View Royal is well aware of that. Fire is likely the biggest concern for our community with the substantial urban interface we have. Fire smart programs are well underway and should be expanded. I believe many decision need to be made with a view to the potential impacts on Climate change. But I also believe that climate change initiatives really should be happening more on the regional level rather than a smaller local government. But I absolutely agree that we must do what we can moving forward. Examples would be education on what all residents can do to lessen their impact. In the long run I do think fossil fuel powered garden equipment can be ruled out especially as the electric ones are improving all the time. - 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 clear support for the concept, but misses the mark in this answer in terms of providing specifics about the future rather than past actions.
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.
David Screech's answerView Royal has some of the strongest environmental development permit regulations in the region and I was part of getting these implemented. View Royal has ambitious targets with its new urban forestry strategy. Over the years View Royal has worked hard to increase the numbers of municipal parks and to protect our ecosystems such as Millstream and Craigflower Creek. Environmental protection must be at the forefront in our decision making. - 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: Touches on several concrete strategies that would allow development to increase resiliency.
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.
David Screech's answerThis is a question that one could write an essay on easily and unfortunately there is simply not time. Obviously new standards in building materials must be implemented in terms of fire safe buildings especially. Water conservation and reuse is also important. heat pumps are vital. We can reduce emissions through smart new builds. And we can also increase resilience to climate change events through smart new builds. - 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.
David Screech chose 1 of 3 options
Arts
A- 6.67% of this topic ART-01 3 / 3
Do you consider arts and culture to be a core part of your municipality's economic development strategy?
Why this score: *Amended/Clarification Sept. 28th: Screech’s history with the CRD Arts Service, including serving as Chair of the CRD Arts Committee, and his advocacy for View Royal to remain a Tier 1 contributor demonstrate the importance he places on regional arts investment, even as a small municipality with limited capacity for its own programming. His proposed Oak Bay-style public-art program further connects municipal arts investment to cultural richness and economic development. // ORIG: Says arts/culture are core, but the supporting answer speaks primarily to continued CRD Arts support rather than View Royal's economic-development strategy.
How this question is graded
David Screech chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: I always have been a strong supporter of the CRD Arts programs and I will continue to be. View Royal is a small jurisdiction and we do not have a local arts program but I will always support the arts in our communities via the CRD arts Committee. - 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: Amended/Clarification Sept. 28th: The response identifies two concrete areas of municipal arts action: establishing a public-art program modeled on Oak Bay's and introducing performing arts/music programming in parks. The Oak Bay reference is more substantive than a generic arts aspiration, because that model includes recurring municipal programming, artist opportunities, public-art acquisition, community engagement, sponsorship and formal policy infrastructure.This ties back to economic development and municipal cultural richness. /// Original: Public art and summer performing arts/music are relevant ideas, but “would love to” / “would also like to see” is aspirational rather than a concrete first-year commitment, and there is no measurable four-year outcome.
How this question is graded
David Screech's answerI would love to implement a public art program similar to Oak Bay's in View Royal. I would also like to see us have some performing arts and/ or music in the parks during the summer months. - 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: Selects all three substantive implementation mechanisms: regional strategy, nonprofit partnerships for permanent assets, and municipal tools for long-term affordability/stability.
How this question is graded
David Screech 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: *Amended/Clarification Sept 28: The response identifies three practical mechanisms to improve municipal permitting: clear service standards, simplified requirements for small-scale events, and better interdepartmental coordination. Given View Royal’s limited municipal capacity and permitting being handled through the Parks division rather than a dedicated arts/events function, these measures could meaningfully reduce administrative barriers to cultural activation. // Orig Supports service standards, simplified small-scale events, and departmental coordination. These are useful administrative reforms, but he does not select the higher-impact permitting/zoning review lever.
How this question is graded
David Screech chose 3 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 a regional cultural infrastructure funding program and nonprofit acquisition partnerships — both are high-impact structural mechanisms under the rubric.
How this question is graded
David Screech chose 3 of 16 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-06 3 / 3
Municipal budgets require difficult choices. Would you support maintaining arts and culture investment alongside other core municipal services?
Why this score: Explicitly supports maintaining or growing arts and culture investment alongside other core municipal services.
How this question is graded
David Screech chose 1 of 5 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-07 2 / 3
When a major development project affects an existing cultural space, what should your municipality prioritize?
Why this score: *Amended/Clarification Sept. 28th: The response prioritizes overall community benefit when redevelopment affects an existing cultural space, but does not specifically commit to preservation or equivalent replacement where displacement occurs. However, in further discussion with Screech, this question has limited applicability in View Royal, which has very limited existing cultural-space inventory, including the recently developed Scottish community hall at Craigflower. // “Overall community benefit” recognizes a community consideration but does not specifically identify cultural-space preservation, replacement, mitigation or protection.
How this question is graded
David Screech chose 1 of 5 options - 16.67% of this topic ART-08 2 / 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: *Amended/Clarification Sept. 28th: Screech identified a concrete municipal mechanism to support cultural space: reducing or waiving municipal fees for eligible cultural-space projects. He cited View Royal’s waiver of municipal fees for the approval and development of a new Scottish community hall, demonstrating a willingness to use municipal financial and regulatory tools to facilitate cultural infrastructure. // Orig: Declines to answer the question and therefore provides no supported municipal incentive commitment.
How this question is graded
David Screech chose 1 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.
I was the past chair of the CRD Arts committee and a long time member of the committee. I believe my track record displays strong support for arts in the region.
Rolling & cycling
C- 15% of this topic ROL-01 B
Will you commit to funding and completing at least one 'missing link' in your municipality's Active Transportation Plan during your four-year term? If yes, which one would you prioritize?
Why this grade: Commits to funding and completing a missing link, then leaves the choice to staff, residents and council. The commitment stands but nothing is identified that progress could be measured against.
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.
David Screech chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: This decision would be made in concert with staff, residents, and council. - 15% of this topic ROL-02 F
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: Rejects physical protection as the standard for new and upgraded cycling infrastructure on busy streets. Without separation from traffic, paint is left as the default on precisely the streets where the risk to riders is highest.
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.
David Screech 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 other infrastructure built for all ages and abilities. Given as a plain 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.
David Screech chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic ROL-04 C-
What is the most important active transportation project in the municipality that you will be focused on progressing? Please provide your reasoning.
Why this grade: Defers to the results of a transportation master plan now under way, while naming Admirals Road and the Island Highway as important. Waiting for the plan leaves no project committed to and nothing to progress in the meantime.
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.
David Screech's answerView Royal is in the middle of a Transportation Master plan so will be awaiting the results of that. Admirals Road is certainly important along with the Island Highway. - 35% of this topic ROL-05 B
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: Long standing support for a transportation system built around more than cars, plus years of lobbying for the trail in the rail corridor and for commuter rail to return. Specific and sustained advocacy, though the answer names no walking, rolling or cycling work delivered while in office.
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.
David Screech's answerI was always a supporter of a multi modal transportation philosophy in View Royal and those values are still in place today. I also lobbied for many years to see the E & N trail built in the corridor and I have lobbied for return of a commuter rail service.
Walking
C-- 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 knowledge and 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.
David Screech chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-02 C
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: Says answering the question as asked would be irresponsible because different situations call for different measures, while supporting more sidewalks in some areas. No single problem is named and no first term commitment is made.
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.
David Screech's answerOver the years View Royal has done a good job if improving the sidewalk and the trail network. In regards to the question above it is irresponsible to my way of thinking to answer that as different situations call for different measures and evaluating. View Royal still needs to build more sidewalks in certain areas to improve walkability and I would definitely support this. - 10% of this topic WLK-03 B
Sidewalk construction and maintenance is chronically underfunded across the region. Would you vote to increase the share of your municipality's transportation capital budget dedicated to pedestrian infrastructure?
Why this grade: Backs a modest increase in the share of transportation capital dedicated to walking infrastructure. An increase, kept below doubling current spending.
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.
David Screech 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: Selected not applicable rather than answering on pedestrian priority and car free streets. The municipality has village shopping areas the question applies to, so this leaves no position stated.
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.
David Screech chose 1 of 6 options - 20% of this topic WLK-05 C
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: A safe routes to school program needs ongoing oversight and consultation with parents and teachers. The most effective consultation needs to happen at the sites where parents' concerns can be viewed first-hand. Pedestrian improvements need to be budgeted for, and there need to be time-lines for when the work will be 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.
David Screech's answerWe have a safe routes to school program in View Royal that has been successful. I absolutely agree that local government has to work closely with the schools to ensure safe routes to school and to encourage more use of active transportation modes to get to and from school. - 20% of this topic WLK-06 C-
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: To achieve the goal of safe pedestrian infrastructure, Council needs a vision of how they will proceed toward creating that safe infrastructure. On the street consultation with community members is an effective means to gain insights Council won't get from viewing staff drawings inside a meeting room. Barriers to safe walking often deter older and disabled people from leaving their homes due to fear of falling. Ideally Councils propose and budget for policies and actions that promote safe modes of travel for all their residents..*
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.
David Screech's answerAgain, I would need to look at this issue, discuss with council and staff, and take actions as we can. But clearly the goal of having a safe pedestrian network for all is a worthy one.
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.
David Screech chose 1 of 5 options - 17% of this topic GOV-02 A
Do you support creating a regional service that designs, builds and maintains local municipal infrastructure shared across Capital Region municipalities?
Why this grade: Supports creating a regional service to design, build and maintain local infrastructure across Capital Region municipalities. The answer is a plain yes.
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.
David Screech chose 1 of 5 options - 17% of this topic GOV-03 C-
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").
David Screech's answerFor a smaller jurisdiction View Royal is in relatively good financial shape. Our debt is low and we have a large amount of cash on hand. I would see that we continue to fund our reserves and asset replacement funds. I believe we need to invest in our community as well and maintain it well. I believe in being fiscally prudent. - 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 )
David Screech 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 seated in transit governance here, including the Victoria Regional Transit Commission and the CRD Transportation Commission. Given as a clear yes.
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.
David Screech chose 1 of 3 options - 17% of this topic REC-02 B
Concerning our municipal government’s First Nations’ reconciliation and consultation practices, I support:
Why this grade: Indicates knowledge and support for reconciliation.
How this question is graded
A = significantly more consultation practices. B = somewhat more. C = the current amount is enough. Written answers take the same ladder: A commits to partnership with local First Nations, B wants better consultation without committing to a change, C questions whether more is wanted. Nothing here has been graded C- or F.
David Screech chose 1 of 7 optionsI would need to evaluate this once elected. I would speak to the leadership at both the Songhees and Esquimalt Nation to get an idea of their thoughts. We would then discuss with Council and staff and take it from there. View Royal has a good relationship with our neighbouring First nations and clearly this needs to continue and be improved.
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 many areas where we need to cooperate better across the region. Transportation planning is certainly the glaring one. We need regional transportation demand strategies put into place. We also need significant investment in sophisticated modern day transit across our region and the senior levels of government must come to the table.
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).