“The target needs to be achievable, measurable and supported by a clear plan and policy that identifies the projects required, their costs, available funding and the expected emissions reductions. I also want to make sure we are not setting a target simply to meet a number without considering the impact on taxpayers or other important municipal priorities.

The details truly matter and are important to know before making a decision on a policy.”

“I would support a system that is practical, transparent and focused on meaningful decisions, without creating unnecessary administrative costs or delays. We should understand what the process would cost, how it would affect staff workload and how the information would actually be used by Council when making decisions.

I believe climate considerations should be part of responsible municipal planning, but the approach needs to be flexible, measurable and focused on achieving real reductions rather than simply adding another layer of process.”

“I support protecting tenants from excessive heat, but I would need to know the details of a 26 °C maximum-temperature bylaw. The devil is in the details.

I would want to understand how it would be enforced, how older buildings would be handled, what the costs would be, and how we would ensure those costs aren’t simply passed on to tenants.

I’m open to supporting measures that protect residents from extreme heat, but we need a practical approach that is fair to tenants, landlords and taxpayers and avoids unintended consequences.”

“My priority would be making sure the program reaches the people who need it most and provides meaningful protection from extreme heat, while remaining financially responsible for the City.”

“We need a compassionate approach that protects vulnerable residents while also considering safety, sanitation, surrounding neighbourhoods and the availability of appropriate housing and shelter options. I would support expanding services during extreme heat where there is a demonstrated need and a practical plan to deliver them effectively.”

“Yes. I think Better Homes Kingston has been a successful program that has delivered real results for residents.”

“Yes. I support Kingston developing a Green Development Standard, but I would want to see the details before determining exactly how it should be implemented.

I think new development should be built with energy efficiency, sustainability and long-term operating costs in mind. At the same time, the standard needs to be practical, achievable and consider the impact on housing costs and development timelines.

I’m supportive of the direction, but I want to make sure we get the details right and create a standard that delivers meaningful environmental benefits without creating unintended consequences.”

“I think we need to make better use of the space we already have within Kingston’s existing urban boundary. That means encouraging more gentle density, infill and redevelopment of underused and brownfield sites before looking at expanding into rural and agricultural lands.

We can add housing and grow our community while protecting farmland and green space. I also think density needs to be done thoughtfully, with the infrastructure, roads, transit and services needed to support it.

For me, it’s about building a smarter Kingston—using the land we already have more effectively while maintaining the character and quality of life of our neighbourhoods.

Within that, there are certain areas that are just off limits for further development, like waterways/watersheds like Butternut Creek as an example.”

“No comment as I would have to declare and not vote on this due to a conflict based on employment.”

“Yes. I believe the City should stand behind the planning decisions made by Council and City staff. If a developer appeals to the OLT, I would support instructing City legal staff to defend the decisions that were made through the proper planning process and public consultation. We need to have confidence in our Official Plan and the decisions we make as a Council.”

“Still have a lot to learn and understand about these so would need more details to make an educated decision here.”

Candidate indicated a “Yes” position without additional written comments.

Candidate indicated a “Yes” position without additional written comments.

“Yes. I support piloting fare-free transit for post-secondary students, seniors, and low-income residents. I’ve already moved a motion to explore the feasibility of no-cost transit in Kingston, because I think we need to look at practical ways to make transit more accessible while understanding the costs and benefits to the city.”

Candidate indicated a “Yes” position without additional written comments.

“The only trouble I see with this target is that globally we have established a history of ignoring emissions goals. I would want to see the target matched with a concrete plan of attainment.”

“Similarly, I would worry that these documents would follow the path of similar requirements and be given no teeth for enforcement. I would want us to learn from how effective intervention strategies have been implemented elsewhere.”

“We are approaching/have arrived at a situation where cooling in the summer is as essential as heating in the winter. Costs and protections should be comparable.”

“If this program is effective at meeting the need, then yes. Prevention is better than intervention where possible (e.g. cooling obligations as per the above question)”

“Unequivocally. All Kingston residents deserve protection from dangerous weather conditions.”

“Following review to ensure equitable access to the funding”

“We should have all the tools at our disposal to maximize local control over development outcomes”

“Pittsburgh district is strongly impacted by these decisions and our community is united against urban boundary expansion.”

“Critical public utilities should be kept under direct public management.”

“The principle of democratic local self-government is at stake and its defense is worth the expense.”

“Data centres should be treated as heavy industry in terms of community protection from negative externalities regulatory safeguards but without any tax or utility benefits since they do not create jobs or other community benefits.”

“A safe, separate, and connected bicycle network offers so many benefits that it should have been completed long ago.”

“Between rising fuel costs rising and approaching emissions targets, zero-emissions transit is a reasonable solution.”

“Yes, expanding transit ridership improves everyone’s ability to easily and reliably circulate through the city. I would, however, want to avoid means-testing as a part of program eligibility.”

“Seasonal traffic plans that allow for separation between pedestrians and vehicles would increase safety, vibrancy, and economic activity year-round.”

Candidate indicated a “Yes” position without additional written comments.

Candidate indicated a “Yes” position without additional written comments.

Candidate indicated a “Yes” position without additional written comments.

Candidate indicated a “Yes” position without additional written comments.

Candidate indicated a “Yes” position without additional written comments.

Candidate indicated a “Yes” position without additional written comments.

Candidate indicated a “Yes” position without additional written comments.

Candidate indicated a “Conditional / Undecided” position without additional written comments.

Candidate indicated a “Conditional / Undecided” position without additional written comments.

Candidate indicated a “Yes” position without additional written comments.

Candidate indicated a “Yes” position without additional written comments.

Candidate indicated a “Yes” position without additional written comments.

Candidate indicated a “Yes” position without additional written comments.

Candidate indicated a “Conditional / Undecided” position without additional written comments.

Candidate indicated a “Yes” position without additional written comments.

“Yes. I would support the 45% reduction target.

If we’re asking residents and businesses to reduce emissions, the City should be willing to hold itself to a clear target too. But I want that target backed by a real plan, regular reporting, and a clear picture of what it will cost.

I’d focus on practical changes that can also save taxpayers money, like making City buildings more energy efficient, reducing fuel use and improving municipal operations. If we can cut emissions while lowering operating costs and making City services more resilient, that’s something I can support.

The important part is making sure 45% doesn’t just become a number in a report. Council should be able to show residents what has been done, what still needs to be done, and whether we’re actually on track for 2030.”

“Yes, with some common sense around how it’s applied.

I support looking at the climate impact of major policy, planning and purchasing decisions before Council votes on them. But I don’t want a complicated process where every routine purchase or minor decision gets buried in paperwork.

For bigger decisions, Council should know the potential emissions, long-term costs and climate risks involved. That information should be presented clearly alongside the financial and community impacts so councillors and residents can make an informed decision.

If a cheaper option today creates higher energy, maintenance or climate-related costs down the road, taxpayers deserve to know that before we approve it. The goal should be better decisions, not more bureaucracy.”

“Yes. I would vote for a 26°C maximum temperature standard for rental housing, with protections to make sure the cost doesn’t simply get pushed onto tenants.

If landlords are required to keep units warm enough in the winter, I think renters should have a similar protection during extreme summer heat. No one should be stuck in an unsafe apartment because their landlord doesn’t want to provide adequate cooling.

I’d also want the bylaw to address who pays for compliance. Tenants shouldn’t suddenly face higher utility costs or rent increases because a landlord has to make upgrades. The City should look at reasonable timelines, enforcement, and support for landlords where upgrades are needed.

Keeping rental housing at a safe temperature should be a basic housing standard.”

“Yes. I would vote to maintain and expand the program.

Extreme heat can be dangerous, especially for seniors and people who are already vulnerable. Having air conditioning shouldn’t be treated as a luxury when someone’s health is at risk because they can’t afford it.

I’d like to see the program expanded so that fewer people fall through the cracks, with a simple application process and clear eligibility rules. I’d also look at whether there are other ways the City can help reduce cooling costs, since giving someone an air conditioner doesn’t help much if they’re afraid to turn it on because of the electricity bill.

This is a relatively straightforward way for the City to protect residents during extreme heat, and I think it’s money well spent.”

“Yes. I would vote to end encampment displacements and make sure people have access to cooling centres and clean drinking water during extreme heat.

I don’t think moving people from one part of the city to another solves homelessness. It costs money, disrupts outreach and often leaves people right back where they started. If an encampment has to be addressed because of safety or other concerns, there should be a real alternative available rather than simply telling people to leave.

During extreme heat, the priority should be basic safety: access to water, cooling spaces, washrooms and clear information about where people can go. That’s not a partisan issue to me. It’s about treating people with basic dignity and preventing avoidable emergencies.

At the same time, I want the City focused on getting people into permanent housing and connecting them with the supports they need. We can be compassionate while still expecting practical solutions and accountability from the systems responsible for delivering them.”

“Yes. I would support multi-year funding to expand Better Homes Kingston.

The program gives homeowners a practical way to improve their homes, lower energy costs and reduce emissions. Multi-year funding would also give residents more certainty and let the City plan the program properly instead of relying on short-term funding.

I’d want the program to be accessible to people who may not have the money upfront to make these improvements. That means looking at financing and other ways to help lower-income households take part.

If we’re putting public money into the program, I also want to see clear reporting on how many homes are being upgraded, how much energy is being saved and what the program is costing taxpayers.”

“Yes. I would support Kingston developing a mandatory Green Development Standard, provided it’s practical and doesn’t make housing unnecessarily expensive.

If we’re building homes and buildings that will be here for decades, it makes sense to make them more efficient from the start. Better insulation, efficient heating and cooling, water conservation and designs that can handle extreme weather can lower costs for the people who live and work in them.

I’d also want Council to be honest about the costs. Kingston needs more housing, and we shouldn’t create rules that make it harder or more expensive to build without a clear benefit. The standard should focus on measures that provide real savings over the life of a building, not requirements for the sake of having requirements.

We can build more housing while also building it better. That’s the balance I’d be looking for.”

“Yes. I would vote to keep Kingston’s urban boundary where it is and focus on building within the city we already have.

Kingston needs more housing, but expanding into rural and agricultural land shouldn’t be our first answer. We have opportunities for infill, gentle density and redevelopment of underused and brownfield sites. Duplexes, triplexes, townhomes and small apartment buildings can add housing without changing the character of every neighbourhood.

I also think we need to get the infrastructure right before we even consider expanding the urban boundary. Roads, water, wastewater, transit and other services need to be able to support the growth we’ve already approved. Expanding first and trying to catch up on infrastructure later puts the cost on taxpayers.

I’d rather make better use of the land and infrastructure we already have before building farther out and losing more rural and agricultural land.”

“Yes. I would vote to keep water and wastewater under direct City Council oversight.

These are essential services, and residents should know who is making the decisions and who they can hold accountable. I’m not convinced creating a separate corporation makes that accountability stronger. If anything, it could make it harder for residents to understand who is responsible when decisions about rates, infrastructure or service levels are made.

Kingston also has major infrastructure needs. Before we keep approving more growth, we need to make sure our water and wastewater systems can handle the growth we already have. Those decisions affect household bills, development costs and the long-term financial health of the city, so Council should have a direct say.

I want these decisions made openly, with councillors able to explain their votes directly to residents.”

“Yes. I would vote to have City legal staff defend Council’s and City staff’s planning decisions at the OLT.

If Council has gone through the planning process, reviewed the evidence and decided where Kingston should grow, we should stand behind that decision when it’s challenged. I don’t think developers should be able to change Kingston’s growth plans simply by taking an appeal to the OLT.

That doesn’t mean every development appeal should automatically be opposed. If the evidence changes or there’s a good reason to reconsider a decision, Council should be willing to do that. But when it comes to expanding the urban boundary, protecting agricultural land and making sure infrastructure is in place before we expand, I think Council needs to defend the plan it approved.

If we’re going to spend the time and money developing an Official Plan, it should actually mean something.”

“Yes. I would support a moratorium on new resource intensive data centres until Kingston has clear rules around their impact on electricity, water, infrastructure and taxpayers.

I’m not against new technology or investment, but we shouldn’t approve projects before we know what they will require from the city. If a data centre needs major upgrades to the electrical grid, water system or other infrastructure, we need to know who is paying for those upgrades and what that means for everyone else.

A moratorium would give Kingston time to set those rules before we make long-term commitments. Any future proposal should clearly show its electricity and water use, infrastructure requirements, expected jobs and economic benefits, and the costs to the City.

If a project can meet those standards and makes sense for Kingston, Council can consider it. But I don’t think we should rush into something that could put pressure on services residents already depend on.”

“Yes. I support building protected bike lanes faster and doing a better job maintaining them in the winter.

If we want cycling to be a real option for getting around Kingston, people need to feel safe using the network and be able to rely on it year-round. That means connecting the gaps in the current network, protecting riders on busier roads, and making sure bike lanes are actually cleared and maintained in the winter.

I also think we should focus on routes people will actually use to get to work, school, shopping and other parts of the city, rather than building disconnected sections just to hit a target.

And if we’re going to build bike infrastructure, winter maintenance needs to be part of the budget from day one. A bike lane that’s unusable for months isn’t a complete transportation option.”

“Yes, but I’d approach it based on what makes sense for Kingston rather than setting a number and working backwards.

As buses need to be replaced, I support adding zero-emission buses where they are reliable, practical and make financial sense over their lifespan. We should look at the full cost, including the purchase price, charging infrastructure, maintenance and energy costs, and make sure we have the money and infrastructure in place before committing.

I also don’t want transit riders paying the price for a rushed transition. Kingston needs reliable service first, and we should make sure new buses actually improve that service.

If a zero-emission bus saves money to operate, reduces pollution and does the job reliably, I’m in favour of buying it. That’s a decision I think people on both sides of the political spectrum can get behind: spend taxpayer money carefully, improve transit, and adopt cleaner technology when it makes sense.”

“Yes. I’d like to pilot fare-free transit on the 701/702 route first and use the results to decide whether it makes sense to expand the program.

Starting with one route gives us a chance to see what happens to ridership, service reliability and the City’s costs without immediately committing to a city-wide program. It would also give us real numbers to work with instead of guessing about the impact.

If the pilot gets more people using transit, helps students, seniors and low-income residents get around, and can be done without cutting service elsewhere, I’d support looking at expanding it.

I think that’s a reasonable middle ground: try it, measure it, be honest about the cost, and expand it if it works.”

“I’d support seasonal pedestrian friendly street conversions where they make practical sense, but I’d want to do it in a way that respects both residents and businesses.

I don’t think every street needs to be closed to cars, and I don’t support making permanent changes without knowing whether they actually work. A seasonal pilot gives us a chance to see the real impact on local businesses, traffic, parking, accessibility and emergency access.

If a busy street can safely accommodate more pedestrians during peak periods, I’m open to giving people that space. At the same time, businesses still need deliveries, residents need access to their homes, and people with mobility issues need to be considered.

Try it, measure it, listen to the people affected, and keep it if it works.”