Housing should be measured by whether people can actually get into a home they can afford on their income — not by how many announcements were made. I want the public to see what was approved, what was built, what is occupied, what kind of housing it actually is, what support is there and who is responsible for the gaps.
An approval is not a home. A construction start is not a home. A ribbon-cutting is not a stable housing outcome. Housing is part of the solution. Housing is not treatment. People should be matched to the level of housing, clinical care and support they actually need, and each stage should be tracked separately so we can see whether people are getting housed and staying housed.
Publish one clear housing scorecard showing approvals, permits, starts, completed homes, occupied homes, housing retention, people entering homelessness and people moving into stable housing. Where treatment or health care belongs to the Province, put the request in writing and publish the answer instead of pretending City Hall controls it.
The City controls municipal land, zoning, approvals and municipal contributions. The Province and health system control much of treatment, clinical care and related funding. Service providers operate programs. My job as councillor would be to use the City levers we actually have, put requests to the other responsible bodies in writing, and report what happened.
If City Hall announces 200 homes but only 40 are finished and occupied, residents should see 40 — not 200. And if a person is living with severe addiction or mental-health instability, handing over a key without the treatment or support they actually need is not a complete outcome. Count the home, the support and whether the person is still housed months later.
Residents should be able to see what is built, what is occupied, what support is actually operating, what is stalled and which level of government owns the next move.
30 days: request the Housing Delivery Breakdown. 60 days: publish that breakdown. 90 days: follow up on vacant-property conversions and publish what is moving and what is stalled.
That proposal remains under public review. The housing page does not depend on it moving forward.
London and Middlesex endorsed the 2026–2031 Housing Stability Action Plan in May 2026. The City’s own material says the next phase is a detailed implementation plan identifying priorities, timelines, responsibilities and progress reporting.
That distinction matters. A strategy tells us where we want to go. Residents still need to know who is responsible, what happens first, when it is due and how progress will be measured.
City of London & Middlesex · Housing Stability Action Plan 2026–2031
I would use the City’s plan as the starting point, not replace it with another strategy. Prevent the fall. Fix the gaps. Build what is missing. That is the delivery test: establish the baseline, identify who is responsible for each action, set measurable targets and timelines, and report whether homelessness is actually being reduced.
The point is not another slogan. It is one public answer to five questions: What are we trying to change? Who owns it? What happens next? When is it due? How will we know whether it worked?
I submitted written responses on the proposed Emergency Shelter Guidelines, interim bridge funding for outreach services, and the 2026–2027 winter response.
The principle was simple: help people, define the rules, show the cost and report what actually happened.
On bridge funding, I argued for a defined cap, end point, outcome reporting and reconciliation of outside funding. On shelter policy, I asked for neighbourhood safety, recovery options and public accountability to be considered alongside access and harm reduction. On winter response, I supported continuous nightly service while asking for confirmed sites, readiness gates, backup capacity and monthly reporting.
Approvals, permits, construction starts, completed units, occupied homes and housing retention are different stages. The same is true of homelessness, the community-housing waitlist and market rent: each measures a different part of the housing problem.
Those figures should stay separate because they answer different questions. My reporting standard would do the same: show the pressure, show what City Hall approved, show what actually opened, and show whether people remained housed.
Sources. Financial Accountability Office of Ontario, Sept. 10, 2026; City of London, Health & Homelessness Research & Evaluation Report; City of London, 2025 Housing Stability update; London & Middlesex Housing Stability Action Plan 2026–2031.
Housing delivery: request a stage-by-stage public breakdown. Supportive housing: track occupancy, staffing and retention where the information can lawfully be reported. Treatment and recovery: bring the City land and feasibility work to Council and put the operating request to the Province in writing. No site, provider or funding commitment gets described as decided before the required process.
House of Hope is exactly why the operating side has to be in the same file. Its published evaluation reported 83% fewer emergency-room visits, 61% fewer hospital stays and 58% fewer police interactions, yet ongoing funding remains unresolved and the current bridge runs toward March 2027.
Source. House of Hope Evaluation Report (PDF) — London Cares, published February 2026, covering October 1, 2024 to September 30, 2025. Verified August 13, 2026. London Cares announced in May 2026 that House of Hope would close “following unsuccessful efforts to secure ongoing funding”; a July 2026 update extended the lease to the end of March 2027, with operations until January. London Cares update.
I would put the City pieces — land, zoning, approvals, municipal dollars and a public clock — on the table, then put the treatment, detox and operating-capacity request to the Province in writing and publish the response.
The result is not another campus rendering. It is a public land shortlist, a provincial answer, treatment and stabilization capacity people can actually reach, supportive housing people remain in, and a clear record of what is occupied versus what was merely announced.
Residents should be able to see House of Hope status, bed-to-staff ratios, housing retention, occupied supportive units and the provincial response on beds and operating dollars — all in one public file.
London is preparing a new comprehensive zoning by-law through ReThink Zoning. I support modernizing the system, removing outdated barriers and making approvals clearer. I do not support simply carrying old restrictions into a new rulebook without a clear public comparison.
Before adoption, I would push City Hall to publish a before-and-after matrix showing the current rule, the proposed rule, whether the change is more or less restrictive, whether it is required by the Province or is a discretionary City choice, and the expected effect on housing capacity, cost and approvals.
The review should also identify which old site-specific restrictions and recurring variance problems are actually being eliminated. One current example is the site-specific zoning at 571 Oxford Street East, where the existing by-law permits a dwelling unit with a maximum of one bedroom.
If the same type of rule repeatedly sends property owners to the Committee of Adjustment, that should be a signal to review the rule itself.
ReThink Zoning should be an opportunity to simplify the regulatory pile — not just rename it.
City of London · ReThink Zoning · New Comprehensive Zoning By-law · Existing R2 zoning provisions
Ward 13 is home to significant concentrations of supportive housing and social services. The question is not whether this housing exists — it is whether it is properly resourced, managed, and delivering results.
Placement without staffing is not a solution. The public questions should focus on operator compliance, service ratios and neighbourhood impacts where that information can lawfully be reported.
Ward 13 needs housing connected to services, transit, and community — not just units on an approval.Questions I would put on the public recordHousing and homelessness data is being reviewed from City of London housing reports, CMHC data, and supportive housing operator records. Every figure on this page carries its source and the date it was last verified.
Downtown London should be the beating heart of this city — not a place where valuable buildings sit vacant, boarded up, or underused while everyone waits for something to change. Speculation has a public cost. Long-term emptiness means lost housing, lost business activity, lost safety, and lost community space.
Direct Civic Administration to prepare a report on downtown ownership concentration, long-term vacancy, enforcement tools for neglected properties, and possible commercial vacancy-tax options, subject to legal authority.
Public downtown ownership and vacancy audit. Identify who owns what, which properties are long-term vacant, and how much assessed value and public value is tied up in empty buildings.
Vacancy-tax options for long-term empty properties. Bring forward options with stronger penalties for willful dereliction and clear exemptions for legitimate redevelopment transitions.
Tie public incentives to real results. Time-bound occupancy or construction milestones, clearly defined housing commitments, public space, nonprofit leases, storefront activation, and clear community benefit.
Faster route to acquire and reuse problem properties. Explore how derelict heritage and strategic downtown sites can be transferred to nonprofits or accountable developers when owners fail to redevelop.
Property standards enforcement and quarterly public report. Publish vacancy, occupancy change, storefront activation, enforcement action, and economic impact so Londoners can see whether progress is actually happening.
Council should publicly release downtown ownership and vacancy information where legally possible and bring forward a serious plan to address long-term vacancy.
Commitments I would request at CouncilHousing: what was announced, started and finished. Request that announcements, approvals, permits, starts, completions, occupancy, supportive units, and permanent housing results be reported separately — not combined into a single number.
Vacant-Property and Conversion Status. Request a lawful public status report on long-term vacancy, approved conversions, active enforcement orders where public, redevelopment status, and municipal tools available.
Show how people move from shelter to permanent housing. Report emergency shelter spaces, transitional and supportive housing, people entering homelessness, moves into permanent housing, housing retention and outreach placements as separate numbers.
What would be tracked: a quarterly Housing Delivery record — showing what moved from announcement to occupancy and where the pipeline stalled, with separate counts for each stage. Source: Municipal Housing Division, City Planning and Building Services. Current reporting often mixes announcements with actual delivery; no single public tracker separates each pipeline stage.
The first step is separating those categories publicly so residents can track the actual delivery record.
30 days — Request the Housing Delivery BreakdownRequest the breakdown of announced vs. approved vs. started vs. completed housing units in Ward 13 — specifically separated, not combined into one number.
60 days — Publish that breakdownPublish the housing delivery breakdown publicly so residents can see exactly where each promised unit actually stands in the pipeline.
90 days — Follow up on vacant-property conversionsFollow up specifically on vacant-property conversion status with a formal request and publish a public update on what is moving and what is stalled.
Council decisions require support. My responsibility is to bring the action forward, build the case, vote, track the decision, and report back. If something stalls, it will be named publicly.
London does not have one housing problem. It has a housing delivery problem.
People need more than one kind of home: starter homes, townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, rowhouses, small apartment buildings, accessible homes, supportive housing, and family-sized units. More choice can increase supply and create more pathways into housing, but supply alone does not guarantee affordability. London must track what gets approved, what gets built, what it costs, and who can actually afford it.
London should stop forcing every repeatable small and mid-scale housing idea to begin from zero. Canada now has a federal Housing Design Catalogue with standardized, regionally tailored designs. The practical municipal question is not whether London should invent another catalogue from scratch. It is how London can assess, adapt, and use proven designs within local zoning, servicing, building-code, accessibility, fire-safety, heritage, and neighbourhood conditions.
My plan is to bring forward a Catalogue Housing and Fast-Build Plan for London.The goal is not automatic approval and it is not lower standards. The goal is a clearer path for complete, code-compliant, repeatable housing proposals that meet established rules — so staff, builders, non-profits, co-ops, landowners, and residents know what is required before time and money are wasted. We already know how to design many of the homes London needs. The question is whether City Hall is organized to move good, complete proposals through a clear process — or whether every project is forced to rediscover the same requirements.
Public land should not be treated like an ordinary asset when it could help meet a serious public need.
London already has a formal land-disposition policy. That policy requires the Municipal Housing Division to have an opportunity to advise Council before potentially developable surplus land is disposed of, so Council can consider whether the land should be retained for affordable housing. The City also reports that it has developed a process, feasibility criteria, and competitive selection approach for City-owned land intended for affordable housing.
The campaign position is not that nothing exists. The position is that residents should be able to see the pipeline, the public-value test, the affordability terms, the delivery model, the deadlines, and the final result.
If public land can serve a clear current or future municipal need, protect it. If it can responsibly support housing, make the public case, set the conditions, and track whether homes are actually delivered.
What "surplus" actually meansNot every parking lot, remnant parcel, park, road allowance, industrial property, or municipal facility should become housing.
What the program would doAnnual Housing-First Land Review. Request an annual cross-department review led by Realty Services and Municipal Housing, with Planning, Finance, Engineering, Environment, Parks, Accessibility, Legal, Indigenous Relations expertise where applicable, and the service areas that currently use or may need the land. Properties classified internally across seven categories — from current municipal use through potential housing candidates to disposition for other public purposes. No sensitive operational details published before due diligence.
Public list of possible housing sites. After due diligence and Council authorization, publish candidate sites with: site name, disclosed location, land status, responsible service area, planning and zoning status, servicing status, known constraints (environmental, heritage, archaeological, access, flood, tree), proposed way to build or operate it, public benefit, next public decision, and last verified date. No exact public map of sites that have not been officially disclosed.
Document what kind of housing the land is meant to deliver. For every potentially developable property moving toward disposition, publish the Municipal Housing recommendation once it is part of the public Council record: retain for rent-geared-to-income, community, supportive, below-market or mixed-income housing; study further; use for another public purpose; or dispose at market with reasons. No privileged or closed-session material published.
Choose the right way to use the land. Ask staff to compare City-retained ownership with a long-term ground lease, lease to a non-profit, co-operative, Indigenous-led, or community housing provider, competitive request for proposals, sale with registered affordability and development conditions, mixed-income partnership, City-led or City-supported development, federal or provincial partnership, and land contribution combined with financing or grants. Sale is not always better than lease. No free-land promises. No private campaign arrangements.
Say exactly who the housing is affordable for. Every housing-land proposal must state exactly what kind of housing is being promised: rent-geared-to-income, supportive, below-market, mixed-income or market. It should show the target household or income range, rent or price benchmark, how long the commitment lasts, accessibility and family-sized objectives where relevant, and how the promise will be checked and enforced. The current Dollars to Doors program uses rents at or below 80% of CMHC average market rent and a minimum 25-year affordability period; that is a program definition, not the same thing as rent geared to a household’s actual income. Staff should also assess longer-term affordability, community land trusts and ground-lease structures where they can realistically work.
Show the public subsidy. Publish where legally permitted: appraised land value, sale or lease consideration, estimated land-value contribution, grants, fee waivers, tax incentives, infrastructure contributions, total public-value package, and affordability and delivery received in return. A below-market transfer must be visible, not hidden. A subsidy is not described as "free."
Use competitive public-value selection. Evaluation criteria should include total unit count; the number of rent-geared-to-income, below-market, supportive and family-sized units where relevant; the rent or income benchmark; how long that commitment lasts; accessibility; proponent experience and financial capacity; operating model; delivery speed and realism; design and neighbourhood fit; infrastructure readiness; climate and lifecycle performance; community benefit; public subsidy requested; and risk and deliverability. Lowest land price alone is not the only measure. Highest unit count alone is not the only measure.
Set milestones and reversion protection. Agreements should identify: due-diligence deadline, planning and application deadline, financing deadline, construction-start deadline, completion and occupancy target, affordability reporting, remedies for missed milestones, and repurchase, reversion, termination, or other protection where legally appropriate. Public land must not be transferred and held indefinitely without measurable delivery conditions.
Connect to existing and new funding. Require staff to assess: London affordable-housing development programs, Additional Residential Unit incentives where relevant, CMHC and federal financing, Build Canada Homes, federal Public Lands for Homes tools, provincial housing and infrastructure programs, and community-housing, co-operative, non-profit, Indigenous-led, philanthropic, and private financing. Funding is not described as confirmed before an approval or agreement exists.
Publish the result. Create a public City Land for Housing Tracker showing only verified, publicly disclosed information: candidate project, land status, delivery model, total units proposed, rent-geared-to-income / below-market / supportive units by category where applicable, the rent or income benchmark, how long the commitment lasts, public land or value contribution, current milestone, next decision, source, last verified date, units permitted, units started, and units completed and occupied. An RFP is not housing. A selected proponent is not a completed project. A planning approval is not an occupied home.
Guardrails — always visibleSale and Other Disposition of Land Policy — City of London, Current. The policy defines surplus land, requires public Council declaration and notice, and gives Municipal Housing an opportunity to advise whether potentially developable land should be retained for affordable housing.
Leasing and Licencing of City-Owned Land — City of London, Current. The policy describes circumstances in which City-owned land may be leased or licensed to support affordable housing without requiring a sale.
More Homes — City of London, Ongoing. The City reports that it has developed a process, feasibility criteria, and competitive selection approach for City-owned land intended for affordable housing.
Affordable Housing Development Programs — City of London, Ongoing. Explains current City affordability definitions and incentive programs, including the Dollars to Doors program (rents at or below 80% CMHC average market rent, minimum 25-year affordability period).
Build Canada Homes — Government of Canada, 2024–ongoing. The federal agency states it will use public lands, financing, partnerships, and modern construction methods to deliver affordable housing — a program London can study and access.
Public Lands for Homes — Government of Canada, 2024–ongoing. Demonstrates a public-land inventory and housing-development approach that London can study without copying blindly. Confirms federal tools are available for municipal partnerships.
