How to read this page. Each row below is one policy area, with Volker Dammann'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 Volker Dammann 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 adopt an accessibility-first infrastructure policy requiring every new or renewed street, sidewalk, crossing, bus-stop connection, park and municipal facility to meet universal-design standards.
Building accessibility improvements into every project from the outset is safer, more equitable and less expensive than retrofitting infrastructure later.
The policy would include direct involvement from older residents and people with disabilities, a public inventory of existing barriers, clear priorities and timelines, and annual reporting on progress. The result would benefit everyone—from wheelchair and mobility-device users to parents with strollers and residents recovering from injury—while making View Royal easier to navigate independently. - 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.
Volker Dammann's allocation of ten million dollars Housing $1,500,000 Transit $750,000 Walking Infrastructure $1,500,000 Rolling & Cycling Infrastructure $1,000,000 Roadway Infrastructure $500,000 Policing $250,000 Fire & Emergency Services $1,000,000 Parks & Recreation $750,000 Arts & Culture $400,000 Climate Action & Environment $1,000,000 Unhoused Resident Services $550,000 Community-Based Clinics $800,000 - Not graded GEN-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to communicate about your region, generally, feel free to share your thoughts here.
View Royal is a relatively small community with a limited tax-base, yet seemingly "unlimited" possibilities to spend tax-dollars. The next Mayor and Council should consider very carefully where tax-dollars go, and make sure that VR gets the "best bang for the buck".
Healthcare access
What Volker Dammann 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.
Healthcare delivery is primarily a provincial responsibility, but municipalities can help remove barriers to local access. View Royal should use its planning, zoning and partnership tools to support non-profit primary-care providers, particularly where municipal action can help secure suitable space or reduce occupancy costs.
The Town should also advocate for services that reflect population growth, work with neighbouring municipalities and First Nation partners, and plan complete communities where clinics are accessible by walking, rolling, transit and accessible transportation.
Municipal support must be transparent, financially responsible and tied to clear public benefits, such as additional primary-care capacity, long-term affordability of clinical space and measurable improvements in access. Our role should be to enable and advocate—not to let the Province transfer its healthcare responsibilities and costs onto local property taxpayers.
Transit
A- 20% of this topic TRN-01 A
Which fare measures would you actively advocate for at the VRTC? Select all that apply.
Why this grade: Selected every fare measure listed, from free travel for under 19s and cheaper fares for seniors to cheaper fares for people on income or disability assistance and a lower cost regional monthly pass. The whole ask is accepted.
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.
Volker Dammann chose 4 of 6 options (up to 4 allowed) - 30% of this topic TRN-02 A
Do you support removing general on-street parking (excluding accessible parking spaces) from frequent transit corridors and main arterial streets in your municipality, and reallocating that space to bus lanes, loading zones, and walking and cycling infrastructure?
Why this grade: Backs removing general street parking along the entire length of frequent transit corridors rather than at peak times alone, with the space going to bus lanes, loading and people walking and cycling. That is the strongest answer available. 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; Dammann's response is indicative of a high degree of support for geting transit moving through View Royal's tightest bottlenecks.
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.
Volker Dammann chose 1 of 6 options - 30% of this topic TRN-03 A
Do you support rapid deployment of transit priority measures on frequent transit corridors, even where this requires removing on-street parking or a general-purpose traffic lane?
Why this grade: A clear yes to rapid transit priority on frequent corridors, parking and a general traffic lane included. Nothing qualifies it. 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; Dammann's response is indicative of a high degree of support for geting transit moving through View Royal's tightest bottlenecks.
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.
Volker Dammann chose 1 of 6 options - 10% of this topic TRN-04 A
Do you support the creation of a regional transportation authority?
Why this grade: Supports the creation of a regional transportation authority, answering yes without reservation.
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.
Volker Dammann chose 1 of 3 options - 10% of this topic TRN-05 A
Do you support building new bus-only and bike-only connections through parks, golf courses or public land when doing so would substantially shorten transit and cycling trips?
Why this grade: Yes to cutting new bus only and bike only connections through parks, golf courses and public land where trips would get substantially shorter. No conditions were set.
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.
Volker Dammann chose 1 of 5 options
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded TRN-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to transit in your region, feel free to share your thoughts below.
Transit must become a reliable, convenient and affordable first choice—not simply an option for people who cannot drive. That requires sufficient capacities, frequent service throughout the day, dependable travel times, accessible stops and safe walking and cycling connections to every major route.
I support a regional transportation authority capable of coordinating transit, roads, active transportation and land-use priorities across municipal boundaries.
I would advocate for rapid transit- to consider alternatives to busses.
Transit investment must be paired with housing and employment growth near frequent routes, protection of accessible parking and loading needs, and a transition to a low-emission fleet. Success should be measured by shorter and more reliable trips, higher ridership and improved access—not simply by the number of buses purchased.
Housing
A- HFL-01 7 / 8
What kinds of housing could your municipality use more of? Select all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point per selected type to max of 8. Housing exists on a continuum and different types are appropriate for different households. All housing is needed and positively affects other types via vacancy chains
Volker Dammann chose 7 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-02 8 / 8
Which of the following items do you support to minimize tenant displacement and maintain/grow the supply of affordable housing? Select up all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point per strategy to max of 8. To tackle tenant displacement local governments must take an all of the above approach to reduce the impacts associated with renovictions and evictions.
Volker Dammann chose 8 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.
Volker Dammann chose 1 of 5 options - HFL-04 4 / 5
If there was a type of housing you wanted to see more of (e.g., affordable, non-market, family-sized, townhouses, etc.), what do you think are effective methods of getting more of it? Select all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point for each option, but -1 for choosing mandated requirements (d). To increase the building of certain desireable types of housing (affordable, family sized, etc), cities need to pursue a broad approach of both removing barriers and targetted incentives. Mandated requirements (or inclusionary zoning) have a track record of acting like a tax and therefore reducing housing construction or increasing costs.
Volker Dammann chose 6 of 8 options - HFL-05 3 / 3
Do you believe that the municipality should pre-zone to the uses, heights and densities outlined in the Official Community Plan, so that OCP-compliant projects can be built without rezoning or public hearing?
How this question is graded
3 points for yes, 0 for no. An OCP sets out the direction and vision for a municipality with broad input from the community and council. Matching zoning to long term consensus-based plans reduces scarcity and allows incentivizes OCP compliant housing to be built quickly.
Volker Dammann chose 1 of 3 options - HFL-06 5 / 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.
Volker Dammann 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.
Volker Dammann chose 1 of 5 options - HFL-08 2 / 2
Do you support eliminating minimum parking requirements for new developments or suites?
How this question is graded
1 point for yes, 2 points for yes with transportation demand management measures, 0 points for no. A single additional parking space can add tens of thousands to the cost of a home. However, a development without parking and without offsetting remedies can impact livability for the eventual occupants of a home.
Volker Dammann chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-09 5 / 6
Non-market housing often faces additional challenges getting approved. Which of the following measures do you support to improve the prospects for below-market housing construction? Select all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point for each option, but -1 for choosing mandated requirements (d). Building homes is hard, building non-market homes is substantially harder. This has serious socio-economic consequences for certain members of society. With the exception of mandated requirements (or inclusionary zoning), which have a track record of acting like a tax and therefore a deterrent to new construction, a broad and flexible approach is needed to help non-market housing across the approval finish line.
Volker Dammann chose 7 of 9 options (up to 7 allowed) - HFL-11 6 / 6
The BC government set a housing target for Victoria at 4,902 homes over five years, which represents 75% of the estimated housing need for that period. Regardless of provincial requirements or penalties, do you believe the city should strive to build:
How this question is graded
6 points for too low, 1 for about right, 0 for too high. By definition, the provincial housing targets, being set as only 75% of estimated housing need is too low of a target to meet local housing needs.
Volker Dammann chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-10 7 / 7
If elected, what do you hope to have accomplished on the housing file at the end of your first year, and end of your four-year term?
How this question is graded
To receive full marks, candidates receive a point up to 7 for referencing impactful housing ideas in their answer including but not limited to: a rental vacancy rate target, a quantitative target regarding annual homes built, pre-zoning commitments / OCP alignment, non-profit by right commitment, commitment to tenant production aligned with platform, commitment to regulate and enforce Airbnb rules, delegate more rezoning / variance decisions to staff, a continuation of policies that have been working, developing a pre-approved catalog of housing designs, loosening design guidelines or other restrictive regulations, minimizing tenant displacement, increasing the regional housing fund, enhancing partnerships with other levels of government, the private sector, co-ops, and non-profit housing developers, streamlining regulations, and shorten requirements.
Volker Dammann's answerBy the end of my first year, I would work to;
Align zoning with the Official Community Plan so compliant housing can proceed without unnecessary rezoning.
Establish published approval targets of under 60 days for projects below six units and under one year for larger projects.
Identify municipal, non-profit and other suitable land for affordable housing partnerships.
Ensure View Royal’s Tenant Assistance Policy provides clear, consistent protection when rental buildings are redeveloped.
Publish a housing dashboard tracking approvals, completions, affordability, accessibility and bedroom mix.
By the end of the four-year term, I want View Royal to have met or exceeded its provincial target of 585 completed homes by 2029 while delivering a better mix of housing—not merely a larger number. That means more non-market and rental homes, accessible homes for older residents and people with disabilities, supportive housing, family-sized units, townhouses and attainable ownership options.
I would also aim to have at least one new non-market housing partnership secured and moving through construction, with long-term affordability protected through ownership, covenant or lease.
Housing growth must be coordinated with sidewalks, transit, utilities, parks, schools, healthcare and climate-resilient infrastructure. Success should be measured by whether people with different incomes, ages, abilities and household sizes can find a suitable home in View Royal—not simply by the number of applications approved.
Climate
A- 8% of this topic CLI-01 A
Would you support ending fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship on property, media and events controlled by your municipality, to the extent the law allows? And would you advocate for the same at the Victoria Regional Transit Commission for BC Transit vehicles and shelters?
Why this grade: Would stop the advertising and refuse the sponsorship money, and would argue for the same on the bus network. Full marks follow from answering both parts.
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.
Volker Dammann chose 1 of 6 options Follow-up: Volker Dammann chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-02 A
The Capital Regional District declared a climate emergency in 2019. How should your municipality treat climate action in its next four-year plan?
Why this grade: Climate becomes the test other choices are measured by. Nothing ranks ahead of it in this answer.
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.
Volker Dammann 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: Yes, with nothing held back. A standing refusal is more useful than judgement call by judgement call, because it removes the approach entirely.
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.
Volker Dammann 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: Backs the litigation so long as exposure is limited. The condition is reasonable and it still stops short of an unqualified yes.
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.
Volker Dammann chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-05 A
Will you support a zoning bylaw amendment that prohibits the approval of any new or expanded commercial gas stations within municipal boundaries?
Why this grade: Backs the prohibition without hedging. That is the strongest response the question offers.
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.
Volker Dammann chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-06 A
Extreme heat, wildfire smoke and wildfire risk all affect people living in existing homes. What would you have your municipality do to protect them? Select all you support.
Why this grade: A wide selection anchored by the measures that cost the municipality money. People living in hot or smoky homes are the ones who benefit.
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.
Volker Dammann chose 5 of 7 options (up to 5 allowed) - 8% of this topic CLI-07 A
Are you supportive of phasing out fossil fuel powered tools such as leaf blowers (following the lead of Oak Bay and other municipalities across the country)?
Why this grade: Yes, without hedging. The candidate treats the phase out as ordinary municipal work rather than a controversy.
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.
Volker Dammann chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-08 B
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 permit a facility on stated terms covering waste heat and water. The commitment is real and it is bounded, which is what a conditional yes looks like.
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.
Volker Dammann 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 climate risks relevant to View Royal and offers several practical examples of steps, rooted in their context, they support taking to mitigate these risks.
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.
Volker Dammann's answerView Royal’s most significant climate risks are coastal flooding and sea-level rise around Portage Inlet and the Gorge, more frequent extreme-heat and drought events, heavier rainfall that can overwhelm drainage systems, and wildfire and smoke—particularly near Thetis Lake and other forested areas.
I would support a practical, risk-based resilience plan that:
Uses updated flood mapping to guide land-use decisions, protect vulnerable infrastructure and complete the regional Gorge Flood Adaptation Strategy.
Upgrades drainage and stormwater systems while protecting wetlands, streams, tree canopy and other natural areas that absorb water and reduce heat.
Implements View Royal’s Community Heat Resilience and Wildfire Resiliency plans, including cooling spaces, outreach to vulnerable residents, FireSmart assessments and neighbourhood preparedness.
Applies climate-resilient standards when roads, buildings and utilities are constructed or renewed, avoiding more expensive emergency repairs later.
Strengthens emergency communications, evacuation planning and neighbourhood response capacity.
Works closely with neighbouring municipalities, the CRD, and the Songhees and Xʷsepsəm Nations to secure funding and coordinate action across boundaries.
Adaptation must also be equitable. Seniors, renters, people with disabilities and lower-income households are often least able to prepare for extreme weather, so resilience measures and emergency information must be accessible to everyone. My focus would be on measurable priorities, dedicated funding and regular public reporting so that climate preparedness becomes part of every major infrastructure and planning decision—not a separate exercise. - 8% of this topic CLI-10 A
Ensuring ecosystem connectivity is an important adaptation strategy for climate change. How do you plan to maintain or increase ecosystem features across the urban landscape?
Why this grade: Clearly outlines what we are protecting and why, with many specific examples rooted in the context of View Royal.
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.
Volker Dammann's answerEcosystem connectivity means treating parks, shorelines, streams, wetlands, street trees and private green space as one connected network—not as isolated pockets.
I would support the following actions:
Map View Royal’s ecological network and identify gaps between important areas such as Portage Inlet, Craigflower Creek, Millstream, Garry oak ecosystems, wetlands and forested parks.
Use the Official Community Plan, environmental development permits and subdivision requirements to protect sensitive areas, riparian buffers and wildlife corridors as the community grows.
Follow a “protect first” approach. Development should avoid habitat loss wherever possible; impacts that cannot be avoided should be minimized and restored, with replacement planting based on ecological value rather than simply the number of trees removed.
Fully implement the Town’s Urban Forest Strategy, including its 30% canopy target, protection of mature trees and planting of diverse, drought-tolerant native species.
Build nature into streets and public projects through connected tree canopy, rain gardens, bioswales, pollinator plantings and wildlife-friendly infrastructure.
Restore degraded shorelines, streams and wetlands, remove invasive species and improve fish and wildlife passage where roads or drainage systems create barriers.
Support residents, stratas and businesses with native-plant programs, tree-planting incentives and practical guidance for creating backyard habitat.
Partner with our First Nations neighbours, and neighbouring municipalities, the CRD, community volunteers and local stewardship organizations.
Finally, I would require measurable public reporting on canopy cover, habitat restored, native species planted and connectivity gaps closed. Protecting ecosystem connectivity is not only about wildlife: connected natural systems reduce flooding, cool neighbourhoods, store carbon and make View Royal more resilient for everyone.
This builds on View Royal’s adopted Urban Forest Strategy, environmental development-permit protections and planned update to its Parks and Trails Master Plan. - 8% of this topic CLI-11 A
Do you see development as an opportunity to increase resilience to climate-related events, and if so, how?
Why this grade: Provides several concrete examples of how and why new development can support climate resilience.
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.
Volker Dammann's answerYes. Development is an opportunity to add homes while making View Royal safer and more resilient—provided climate resilience is built in from the beginning rather than added later at public expense.
I would support development policies that:
Direct growth away from areas exposed to coastal flooding, sea-level rise, wildfire and other hazards, using current risk mapping and future climate projections.
Require new buildings to manage extreme heat through passive cooling, exterior shading, efficient heat pumps, cool roofs and adequate tree canopy.
Reduce flood risk through permeable surfaces, rain gardens, bioswales, on-site stormwater retention and protection of wetlands and natural drainage systems.
Preserve mature trees and connected habitat wherever possible, while requiring meaningful ecological restoration and climate-appropriate native planting when impacts cannot be avoided.
Apply FireSmart design, construction and landscaping standards in areas near forested lands.
Locate more housing near services and frequent transit so residents have practical alternatives to driving, while ensuring safe walking, cycling and emergency access.
Use development contributions and senior-government funding to upgrade drainage, water, transportation and emergency infrastructure affected by growth.
Establish clear, predictable resilience standards so developers know what is expected and the community can measure the results.
Existing neighbourhoods must also benefit. New development should help improve surrounding infrastructure and public space rather than shifting additional risk or costs onto current residents.
Done well, development can replace vulnerable infrastructure, expand the urban forest, restore natural systems and create healthier, more energy-efficient homes. The goal should be growth that leaves View Royal better prepared for extreme heat, storms, flooding and wildfire than it was before. - 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.
Volker Dammann 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: Defines a clear municipal role in creating conditions for arts and culture to flourish, including space, planning, events, partnerships and Indigenous cultural collaboration.
How this question is graded
Volker Dammann chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: The municipality’s role should be to create the conditions for arts and culture to flourish. That includes incorporating public art and cultural spaces into planning, supporting community events and local cultural organizations, reducing unnecessary barriers to performances and creative uses, and seeking partnerships and grants that extend local resources.
View Royal should also work respectfully with the Songhees and Xʷsepsəm Nations to ensure Indigenous art, culture and history are represented through genuine collaboration. When considering new civic facilities, parks and major developments, the Town should look for practical opportunities to include performance, gathering, exhibition and creative spaces.
For a municipality of View Royal’s size, the most effective approach is collaboration—with artists, residents, businesses, schools, neighbouring municipalities and regional organizations—supported by clear policies and transparent, sustainable funding. - 16.67% of this topic ART-02 3 / 3
If elected, what specific action will you commit to in your first year to strengthen your municipality's arts and cultural sector, and what measurable outcome should residents expect by the end of your four-year term?
Why this score: Provides a concrete first-year action and multiple specific four-year outcomes, including an adopted action plan, public reporting, permanent projects and recurring programming.
How this question is graded
Volker Dammann's answerIn my first year, I work with councillors to bring forward a motion to develop a practical Arts and Culture Action Plan for View Royal, beginning with a roundtable of local artists, cultural organizations, businesses, schools, residents, and the First Nations neighbors, should they choose to engage. The process would inventory existing cultural assets, identify barriers and opportunities, and establish priorities that are realistic for a municipality of our size.
By the end of the four-year term, the plan would be for:
An adopted Arts and Culture Action Plan with dedicated responsibilities and annual public reporting.
A municipal public-art policy for civic projects and appropriate major developments.
With council approval and funding: At least one new permanent public-art or cultural placemaking project created through an open and transparent process.
With council approval and funding: At least one recurring community arts or cultural program delivered annually through regional or local partnerships.
A simple, accessible directory connecting residents with local artists, events, organizations and cultural spaces.
Success should be measured not only by spending, but by participation, partnerships, opportunities created for local artists and the visibility of arts and culture throughout View Royal. - 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 long-term affordability/stability tools, measurable targets/timelines and public reporting.
How this question is graded
Volker Dammann chose 3 of 11 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-04 3 / 3
Arts organizations and event producers identify permitting, zoning and regulatory requirements as barriers to cultural activity. What would you commit to? Select all that apply.
Why this score: Supports a comprehensive package of consequential permitting, event, coordination, zoning and disproportionate-cost reforms.
How this question is graded
Volker Dammann chose 8 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - 16.67% of this topic ART-05 3 / 3
If preserving and securing long-term cultural space requires additional municipal support, which approaches would you support? Select up to five.
Why this score: Supports regional funding, development/amenity contributions, leveraging outside capital, nonprofit acquisition and long-term leases.
How this question is graded
Volker Dammann 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
Volker Dammann chose 1 of 5 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-07 3 / 3
When a major development project affects an existing cultural space, what should your municipality prioritize?
Why this score: Supports preserving existing cultural space where feasible, a meaningful but qualified protection.
How this question is graded
Volker Dammann 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 both forms of property-tax support, including nonprofit property-tax relief.
How this question is graded
Volker Dammann chose 4 of 7 options (up to 5 allowed)
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded ART-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to the arts in your municipality or the region as a whole, feel free to share your thoughts below.
View Royal is a small municipality within a highly connected region, so our most effective cultural policy will combine meaningful local action with strong regional partnerships.
Arts and culture contribute to economic vitality, belonging, reconciliation and community well-being.
I would support a practical approach: remove unnecessary regulatory barriers, protect vulnerable cultural spaces, include arts and culture in community planning, and use municipal resources to leverage regional, provincial, federal and private funding. Collaboration with artists, non-profits, neighboring municipalities, the CRD, and our First Nation neighbors should be central to this work.
Most importantly, commitments must be followed by timelines, measurable outcomes and public reporting. Arts and culture should be treated as an enduring part of building a vibrant, inclusive and resilient community.
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 Admirals Road connection from Island Highway to Hallowell Road, the highest ranked critical corridor in the municipality's network plan, with the next two priorities named behind it. Adds early design work, coordination with adjacent governments and the Songhees and Xʷsepsəm Nations, and cost sharing so it can be finished inside four years.
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.
Volker Dammann chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: I would prioritize the Admirals Road connection from Island Highway to Hallowell Road— the highest-ranked critical corridor in View Royal’s Active Transportation Network Plan.
Second and third priorities as per the Active Transportation Plan are:
2. Island Highway, from the E&N Rail Trail to Admirals Road
3. Helmcken Interchange, from Vickery Road to Watkiss Way
Completing this missing link with all-ages-and-abilities facilities would improve access to the regional trail network, transit, local destinations and neighbouring communities while addressing a corridor residents have identified as unsafe.
I would support advancing design work early in the term, coordinating with adjacent governments and the Songhees and Xʷsepsəm Nations, and pursuing provincial, federal and regional cost-sharing so the project can be funded and completed within four years. - 15% of this topic ROL-02 A
Will you commit (or continue to commit) to physical protection (not paint alone) as the standard for all new and upgraded cycling infrastructure on busy streets in your municipality?
Why this grade: Accepts physical protection, not paint alone, as the standard for new and upgraded cycling infrastructure on busy streets. Given without qualification.
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.
Volker Dammann 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 efforts to remove, narrow or downgrade existing protected bike lanes and all ages and abilities infrastructure. The commitment carries no conditions.
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.
Volker Dammann chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic ROL-04 A
What is the most important active transportation project in the municipality that you will be focused on progressing? Please provide your reasoning.
Why this grade: Names the Admirals Road connection from Island Highway to Hallowell Road, the highest ranked critical corridor in the network plan, and sets out the traffic volumes, speeds and missing separated facilities that residents have raised. Commits to moving it from planning to construction through design work, coordination with adjacent governments and First Nation neighbours, and cost sharing, measured against milestones.
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.
Volker Dammann's answerMy priority would be advancing the Admirals Road connection from Island Highway to Hallowell Road, the highest-ranked critical corridor in View Royal’s Active Transportation Network Plan.
This corridor is important because it would close a significant gap between neighbourhoods, transit, local destinations and the wider regional trail network. Residents have identified Admirals Road as unsafe for walking and cycling due to traffic volumes, speeds and the lack of high-quality separated facilities. Completing it to an all-ages-and-abilities standard would make active transportation safer and more practical for children, older adults, commuters and people using mobility devices.
I would focus on moving the project from planning to implementation by advancing design work, coordinating with adjacent governments and our First Nation neighbours, and securing provincial, federal and regional cost-sharing. Progress should be measured through clear design, funding and construction milestones, with the goal of completing the connection within the four-year term. - 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: States only that there was no previous term in local government. The question also asks what in a record outside council shows the same commitment, and nothing is given.
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.
Volker Dammann's answernever served in local government before
Walking
A- 10% of this topic WLK-01 A
Municipalities, the CRD and the Province have all adopted targets to shift trips away from driving. Do you support meeting your municipality's adopted mode-shift targets, and would you vote for the necessary street-space and budgetary changes?
Why this grade: Shows a commitment to multimodal transportation and TDM.
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.
Volker Dammann chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-02 A
Which pedestrian safety problem in your municipality concerns you most, and what is the one change you would commit to in your first term to make walking safer and more attractive than driving for short trips?
Why this grade: Names walking routes that break off and force people onto narrow shoulders, and commits to a motion for one continuous accessible route along Admirals Road from Island Highway to Hallowell Road. A specific corridor, a specific mechanism, and the route the municipality's own plan ranks highest.
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.
Volker Dammann's answerThe pedestrian-safety problem that concerns me most is the lack of continuous, protected walking routes along - busy - roads. Sidewalks and safe crossings can end abruptly, forcing people onto narrow shoulders or into uncomfortable detours—especially affecting children, older adults and people using mobility devices.
My first-term commitment would be to motion for a continuous, accessible pedestrian route along Admirals Road from Island Highway to Hallowell Road. That means protected sidewalks, safer crossings, appropriate lighting and accessibility features designed as one connected route.
This corridor is the highest-ranked critical priority in View Royal’s Active Transportation Network Plan. Improving it would connect residents more safely to transit, neighbourhood destinations and the regional trail network, making walking a realistic and attractive choice for short trips. - 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: Supports a substantial increase in the budget share for sidewalks and crossings, more than doubling today's spending. A clear commitment to fund the network rather than only plan it.
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.
Volker Dammann chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-04 A
Do you support expanding pedestrian-priority and car-free streets in your municipality's downtown, main street or village centre?
Why this grade: Supports permanent expansion of pedestrian priority and car free streets in the town centre. The answer commits to keeping the space rather than borrowing it for a season.
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.
Volker Dammann 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 thoughtful, informed recommendations/strategies are inclusive and should garner community support. Annual reporting on hazards that have been addressed, along with openness to feedback from parents and teachers with lived experience, demonstrate serious commitment to safety improvements.
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.
Volker Dammann's answerI would forward motions for council to approve a regular Safe Routes to School process involving parent groups, students, school staff, municipal engineering staff, the school district and road-safety partners.
Together, we would conduct walking and rolling audits around each school, identify hazards and near misses, and publish a prioritized action list with timelines.
I would support quick, practical improvements—such as raised crossings, curb extensions, protected cycling connections, lower speeds, better lighting and restrictions on unsafe stopping—while advancing larger capital projects where needed.
When safety conflicts with vehicle convenience, children’s safety must come first.
Decisions should be based on safe-system principles: streets around schools should be designed so that an ordinary human mistake does not result in death or serious injury.
Progress should be reported publicly each year, including which hazards were addressed, what remains outstanding and when the next improvements will be completed. - 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: A plan like yours is what is needed to get results. It's exciting to visualize the improvements. Residents are reassured when they see on-the-street action rather than long term plans that are aspirational but never actualized.
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.
Volker Dammann's answer1st year: I would support a community-wide accessibility audit of sidewalks, crossings, curb ramps, bus-stop connections and routes to essential services. Older residents and people with disabilities must be directly involved through accessible walk-and-roll audits, not consulted only after designs are complete.
The audit would produce a public accessibility-gap map and rank improvements using clear criteria: safety risk, proximity to transit and essential services, the number of people affected, and barriers that prevent independent travel.
I would then vote to incorporate the highest-priority projects into a funded four-year pedestrian capital plan with:
Specific design and construction timelines.
Universal-accessibility standards for all new and renewed infrastructure.
A dedicated annual budget for curb ramps, sidewalk gaps, crossings and surface repairs.
Coordination with road, utility and development projects so accessibility upgrades are completed efficiently.
Annual public reporting on projects completed, delayed and still outstanding.
With council's support , by the end of the term, residents should expect:
- a complete accessibility inventory,
- a transparent priority list,
- measurable completion of the highest-risk barriers—not another plan without funding or deadlines.
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.
Volker Dammann 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: Said yes to a regional service that would design, build and maintain the local infrastructure Capital Region municipalities share. The answer carries no conditions.
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.
Volker Dammann 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").
Volker Dammann's answer1.). Fund infrastructure over its full life cycle. I would strengthen asset-management planning, publish infrastructure condition and replacement costs, and build adequate reserves through a transparent long-term capital plan.
2.). Ensure growth pays its fair share. I would regularly update development charges, coordinate infrastructure with approved growth, and pursue provincial, federal and regional funding. Existing residents should not carry costs created by new development, while charges must remain predictable and protect housing affordability.
3.). Expand regional cooperation and value for money. I would pursue shared services, joint procurement and coordinated projects with neighbouring municipalities and the CRD to improve service and reduce duplication. Regular service reviews and public reporting would show residents what their taxes achieve. - 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 )
Volker Dammann chose 1 of 3 options - 17% of this topic REC-01 A
Do you support ensuring that local First Nations are represented in transit governance, such as on the Victoria Regional Transit Commission and the CRD Transportation Commission?
Why this grade: Backs local First Nations representation on the commissions that set transit direction in the Capital Region. The support is given without conditions.
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.
Volker Dammann chose 1 of 3 options - 17% of this topic REC-02 A
Concerning our municipal government’s First Nations’ reconciliation and consultation practices, I support:
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.
Volker Dammann 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.
View Royal is part of an interconnected region. Residents cross municipal boundaries daily, and transportation, housing, watersheds, emergencies and climate risks do not stop at those boundaries.
I support shared services and regional infrastructure where they improve outcomes, reduce duplication, or give smaller municipalities access to expertise and purchasing power. Regional delivery must include transparent costs, clear standards, equitable representation and public accountability.
Locally, infrastructure decisions should reflect life-cycle costs, climate resilience, accessibility and future growth. Municipalities should publish priorities, timelines, funding sources and progress.
Regional cooperation is not about giving up View Royal’s voice. It is about using that voice effectively to solve shared problems while maintaining local accountability. - 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.
First Nations must be treated as governments and rights holders—not simply as another stakeholder group consulted after key decisions have already been made.
View Royal should work with its First Nations neighbors from the beginning of transportation planning, particularly where routes, exchanges, roads and active-transportation connections affect Nation lands, citizens or cultural sites. That means jointly identifying priorities, establishing clear government-to-government protocols, respecting each Nation’s decision-making processes and providing adequate time and resources for meaningful participation.
I would also support formal First Nations representation within regional transit-governance and planning structures, developed with the Nations themselves. Consultation should lead to visible outcomes: safer and more convenient connections, reliable service to community destinations, accessible stops, and transportation investments that reflect Indigenous priorities and support economic and community development.
Reconciliation requires ongoing relationships, shared decision-making and accountability—not one-time engagement.
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).