Campaign Video

Https://youtu.be/zBxbnuPAazE

Thursday, 8 October 2026

$ #552 Lawson's 0 means 0 under the microscope

 I asked Grok


A 0% property-tax freeze in the first year of the next Ottawa council (2027) is the pledge just released by mayoral candidate Alex Lawson. 

His campaign says it requires roughly $85–105 million in year-one fiscal room after accounting for normal cost pressures plus two of his own promises. 

He frames the solution as efficiency and revenue leakage fixes rather than service cuts; critics say the scale makes service or capital reductions likely if the savings do not appear.


 Scale of the gap

Ottawa’s 2026 operating budget is about $5.2 billion (plus ~$1.9 billion capital). The approved 2026 tax increase was 3.75%, which raised roughly $117 million. Recent years have seen 2.5% (2023–24), 3.9% (2025) and 3.75% (2026).


Lawson’s “Back to Basics Budget” estimates ongoing annual pressure (inflation, wages, fuel, etc.) of about $65–85 million after roughly $35 million of assessment growth from new homes and businesses in 2027. 


Adding his own first-year costs—replacing the ~$12.5 million in affordable-housing funding tied to the vacant-unit tax he wants to scrap, and the ~$8.4 million cost of raising the small-business property-tax discount from 15% to 25%—produces the $85–105 million figure. 


He says his measures identify $77–148 million a year (midpoint ~$112 million). He excludes new OC Transpo funding until service reliability is fixed and does not count transit route cuts.


Incumbent Mark Sutcliffe has pledged a 2–2.5% cap for 2027–28 and $250 million in savings over four years (~$63 million a year). 

Other candidates (Jeff Leiper, Neil Saravanamuttoo) have not offered a freeze.


 What Lawson says would cover the freeze

His published list (ranges are annual at full run-rate; 2027 would be partial-year) treats these as “leaks,” not service reductions:


- Open, competitive procurement and a live public contract list (city signs >$2 billion a year in contracts): largest item, cited in news as $20–40 million and in the campaign document as roughly $29–62 million.

-

#551 The Future Includes Artificial Intelligence Tools

 



Read my opinion piece on UNPUBLISHED.CA


"No mere mortal city councillor is up to the challenge of absorbing every brief nor every delegation. Nor can they sit through every mind numbing meeting. Lately we have seen how councillors are crushed by the weight of material. And, the result? Bad decisions are made. They need help."

For the record, AI tools are used for drafting, research assistance, charts, references, and music - ; facts and positions are mine

#550 What about Cumulative Effects and Infrastructure?

Recommended at 30 storeys: who checked the pipes?

Recommended at 30 storeys: who checked the pipes?

The debate over the St. Laurent tower was about height and traffic. The staff report that committee approved answers the infrastructure question in a single paragraph.

On Oct. 7, Ottawa's planning and housing committee recommended a 30-storey tower with 401 units at 1052, 1060 and 1064 St. Laurent Boulevard in Overbrook.[1] The recommendation was sent to Council for Oct. 8.[2] As of the morning of that meeting, no Council vote had been posted.[3] Coverage focused on height, parking and traffic safety near Queen Mary Street Public School. The staff report that committee actually voted on is almost silent on water, sewers, parks and schools.

What committee was asked to approve

File ACS2026-PDB-PSX-0038 asks for two amendments. The Inner East Lines 1 and 3 Stations Secondary Plan currently caps this site at 20 storeys and a minimum density of 250 units per net hectare. Staff recommend moving it to a 30-storey designation and raising the minimum density to 350 units per net hectare. The zoning amendment would permit the 30-storey mixed-use building, with a tower setback of at least 20 metres from the rear lot line, no west-facing balconies above the ninth storey inside that setback, and step-downs to nine storeys and then four storeys toward the houses on Alesther Street.[2]

The concept is 29 studios, 167 one-bedrooms, 80 one-bedroom-plus-den units and 125 two-bedrooms. There are no three-bedroom units. At least 20 units would be 80 square metres or larger, which is the Official Plan's five-per-cent large-unit minimum. Staff say that, to their knowledge, none of the units are affordable. Parking is 201 residential spaces plus 30 visitor spaces, six of them at grade. Bicycle parking in the report is 447 spaces in the concept summary, and a later commitment of 440 long-term spaces plus 11 short-term spaces.[2] The Citizen's figure of 337 bicycle spaces does not match the report committee had in front of it.[1]

The buildings to be demolished are the Shore St. Automotive garage, the Golden BBQ Grill, and a two-storey commercial building that houses a pawn shop.[1] The applicant is 1001182489 Ontario Inc. Fotenn is the planner. Novatech prepared the servicing study.

What staff and the councillor said

Staff call the height generally appropriate for the Hub and Mainstreet Corridor designations, where high-rises of up to 40 storeys can be permitted if the right-of-way is wide enough and the building transitions. St. Laurent's protected right-of-way is 44.5 metres, above the 30-metre threshold in those policies. The developer removed the west-facing balconies and shifted the tower to meet the 20-metre setback guideline.[1][2]

That is a change from March 2025, when City policy planners said a building of up to 20 storeys might be appropriate and called a taller building unfavourable under the transition policies, given the site's distance from St-Laurent station and the difficult walk to it.[4] The committee report does not revisit that comment. It treats the Official Plan corridor policies as the reason to amend the secondary plan that still says 20.

The distance figures are less contradictory than they look. The staff report uses both: the site is "around 650 metres" from St-Laurent station, "or approximately 900 metre walking distance."[2] The Citizen used the walking distance.[1] The community association has used about 800 metres.[4] The secondary plan's 20-storey cap is tied to that distance. The amendment would lift the cap without moving the station closer.

Councillor Rawlson King backed growth on the corridor. "Big buildings belong on big, priority transit corridors," he said, and he called this "a site where growth makes sense."[1] His written comments in the staff report are more specific. He supports the rear setback, the narrower floorplate and the loss of the rear balconies. His outstanding concern is traffic: U-turns and irregular turns at Queen Mary Street and Alesther Street, and cut-through traffic on Alesther and Wolffdale, movements the applicant's own area traffic review identified. He asks staff to keep a particular focus on cumulative impacts on those streets, on Donald Street, on construction traffic, on the St. Laurent transit-priority environmental assessment, and on pedestrian and cycling safety near the schools. He also asks that permanent traffic calming be in place before residents arrive.[1][2]

None of that is a condition of the recommendation. The Transportation Impact Assessment, which staff accepted, concludes the network can take the new trips and that no roadway modifications are required.[2]

What the staff report says about the pipes

Residents did raise sewer capacity. It is Theme 4 in the consultation summary. Staff's entire response is this:

An Assessment of Adequacy of Public Services study was submitted and reviewed as part of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment application. This study concluded that the existing city services should ( not does) have adequate capacity to service this development, and that a complete servicing, grading and SWM design will be included as part of the subsequent Site Plan Control submission.[2]

That study is the applicant's, prepared by Novatech and revised Aug. 24, 2026. Its conclusion is that the existing watermain and the sanitary and storm sewers should have adequate capacity, with detailed design deferred to site plan.[4] The staff report does not attach modelling, does not state spare capacity in the 225 mm sewer, and does not mention the downstream constraint that City staff had already flagged to the applicant.

That constraint is in the application file, not in the report committee voted on. The tower's peak sewage flow is about 7.1 L/s. Staff directed the connection away from the south-flowing sewer because of potential downstream constraints related to other applications on Coventry Road, and asked for the north-flowing sewer to be extended instead.[4] The City's pre-consultation comments say its modelling group can model sewer capacity on request. No such results appear in the file or in the staff report.

Water pressure checks in the Novatech report pass, under a City disclaimer that the figures reflect current operation and can change. The same report finds no municipal hydrants within 150 metres that the Fire Department will accept on the east side of St. Laurent, so fire protection depends on two new private hydrants, and the upper floors need booster pumps. A 1961 backbone watermain runs under St. Laurent. The City is requiring vibration and settlement monitoring and $25 million in liability insurance during construction.[4] None of that is in the staff report.

On stormwater, peak runoff would fall compared with today's paved site, using an on-site tank, pumps and a backflow preventer. The report's headline figure is about 83 cubic metres of storage for a 100-year storm. Its own calculation sheets, dated October 2025, show about 108 cubic metres when rainfall intensity is increased by 20 percent.[4] Which standard the site-plan design will meet is not settled in the approval going to Council.

Parks, schools and unit mix

Parks. The staff report does not mention parkland dedication or cash-in-lieu. At pre-consultation the City said it would take cash instead of land, with a preliminary calculation of about 356 square metres.[4] On a site of 0.356 hectares, that is 10 percent of the land, which matches the cap in the pre-consultation wording. The standard rate of one hectare per 1,000 units would be about 0.4 hectares for 401 units. The unit count has grown since pre-consultation. The cap would not. The file does not say where the money would be spent.

What the councillor asked for is a different tool. In the staff report he urges staff and the applicant to treat Lawson Park as a priority for Community Benefits Charge funding: improved amenities, expanded green space, or upgraded recreational facilities.[2] That is a request, not a condition, and the Community Benefits Charge is not the same payment as cash-in-lieu of parkland. The Overbrook Community Association had asked for a parkette on adjacent Ottawa Community Housing land.[4] Neither request is secured by the recommendation.

Schools. The staff report does not mention school capacity. Public comments raised pedestrian safety and school-area traffic, and King asked staff to focus on that.[2] Queen Mary Street Public School, about a block west, says it has about 180 students.[5] Enrolment against capacity is not in the file. The school board is a separate body, and nothing in the report shows it was asked.

Unit mix. The engineer's population estimate assumes 276 one-bedroom, studio or den units and 125 two-bedroom units, which matches the mix in the staff report, and no three-bedroom units.[2][4] Staff's answer to residents who asked for family-sized homes is that the project meets the five-per-cent large-unit rule and supports a range and mix of housing. The community association had asked for two- and three-bedroom homes.[4]

The neighbourhood is already counting towers

Francine Landry, who lives on Alesther Street behind the site, told committee that 14 high-rises had been built in recent years within about 1.5 kilometres. "This would be the 15th high-rise," she said. "We feel that is excessive."[1] Staff's answer on precedent is that each application is considered on its own merit.[2] That is also how the sewers are being handled: the City is already routing this building's sewage away from a pipe strained by other applications, one file at a time.

A site-plan comment in the application file requires tenants to acknowledge that on-street parking and resident permits are not guaranteed.[4]

Questions for staff and council

  • The staff report accepts the applicant's servicing study in one paragraph. Did the City's modelling group run sewer capacity for this application, and can the results be released?
  • Does that acceptance cover this site only, or the 14 other high-rises residents count within about 1.5 km, plus buildings approved and not yet built?
  • Who pays for the north sanitary sewer extension, and how do development charges cover the downstream upgrades the City is routing around on Coventry Road?
  • The report is silent on parkland cash-in-lieu. Where will that money be spent, and will any of it land in Overbrook?
  • King asked that Lawson Park be a Community Benefits Charge priority. Is that a commitment, or a request with no recipient and no amount?
  • Has the school board been asked about capacity at Queen Mary Street Public School and nearby secondary schools?
  • Who owns the traffic-calming measures King wants before residents arrive, and what is the deadline? The recommendation does not include one.

None of this shows the tower is unsafe or that staff were negligent. It shows that the recommendation going to Council rests on a preliminary report from the applicant's consultants, accepted in a paragraph, and that the City is already working around limits created by neighbouring projects. Residents should be able to see the neighbourhood-wide picture before the next tower is approved, not after.


References

  1. Aedan Helmer, "Planning committee OK's 30-storey tower despite Overbrook residents' concerns," Ottawa Citizen, Oct. 7, 2026. ottawacitizen.com/news/committee-oks-30-storey-tower-overbrook
  2. City of Ottawa, Planning and Housing Committee, Oct. 7, 2026, item ACS2026-PDB-PSX-0038, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment, 1052, 1060, 1064 St-Laurent Boulevard. Staff report: pub-ottawa.escribemeetings.com, DocumentId=336275. Agenda via OttWatch: ottwatch.ca/meeting/a2a6d56d-ffb8-4b1c-90a1-555352106242
  3. OttWatch, City Council meeting listing, Oct. 8, 2026. No vote posted as of the morning of the meeting. ottwatch.ca/meeting/f282702d-17f6-4d5c-9aed-2c251ef14ef9
  4. Novatech, Assessment of Adequacy of Public Services Report, 1052, 1060 & 1064 St. Laurent Boulevard, revised Aug. 24, 2026. Appendices include the City's pre-consultation feedback (Mar. 28, 2025), City emails on sewer and watermain servicing (Aug.–Sept. 2025), and stormwater calculations (Oct. 2025). Application file D02-02-26-0008 / D01-01-26-0003: ottwatch.ca/devapp/D02-02-26-0008. Direct PDF: webcast.ottawa.ca (Aug. 26, 2026 submission)
  5. Queen Mary Street Public School, "About Us," Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. queenmarystreetps.ocdsb.ca/our-school-landing/about-us
```

Wednesday, 7 October 2026

#549 Hemlock Wateridge Fiasco Revisted


7 years has been too long to wait. Do not wait another four.

Vote wisely -  vote differently

Vote for Peter Karwacki for Wateridge and for Rideau Rockcliffe! Meanwhile the empty 25's keep on rolling by.


 


Hey Rawlley, How's that for being grounded in the community?

Tuesday, 6 October 2026

#548 - Lessons from PQ


 When voters sentiment swings, it swings hard, it swings real hard.

While this is unlikely in RideauRockcliffe the fact that there are only two candidates, there is a defining issue, there is general dissatisfaction and frustration with the status quo, there are two very different candidates with very difference skill sets and experience gives voters a clear choice.

Should the incumbent win again it will not be because they were not given a good alternative.

The setup in Rideau-Rockcliffe (Ward 13) is a classic two-candidate municipal race, and the structural points  listed are accurate and on the public record.

Rawlson King has held the seat since the 2019 by-election and was re-elected in 2022 with roughly 80–83 percent of the vote against a field that included Peter J. Karwacki. In 2026 the ballot is again only those two: King seeking a third term, Karwacki (project manager / hospital administrator / data analyst background) running again. Election day is 26 October. 2022 turnout in the ward was about 40 percent.

I have framed the Eastern Bridge / East End Crossing (the federally driven interprovincial proposal along the Aviation Parkway–Kettle Island corridor) as the defining local file. My argument is that a flat municipal “no” surrenders leverage on design protections—truck routing, noise, transit lanes, hospital access—because the project is federal, already has pre-construction spending attached, and a city councillor cannot veto it. King has a longer record of opposition or delay motions on the crossing, citing limited diversion of truck traffic from King Edward and community impacts; his campaign materials emphasize housing, ward infrastructure investment, and equity across a socio-economically mixed ward (Overbrook through Rockcliffe Park and Wateridge).

That produces the contrast: different professional skill sets, a binary choice, and one high-visibility infrastructure disagreement that is hard to blur. Whether “general dissatisfaction with the status quo” is broad enough to move the needle is the open variable. 

Incumbency advantages in low-turnout municipal races are usually sticky; the 2022 margin was large, and nothing in the public coverage so far shows a polling swing of the scale that would overturn it. Hard swings do happen when a single issue crystallizes and turnout shifts, but they are the exception, not the baseline, especially against an incumbent who already cleared 80 percent.

If King wins again, the mechanical claim holds: voters were offered a different candidate with a different stance on the bridge file and a different résumé. 

The size of any margin will indicate how many of them treated that as a sufficient reason to switch.

Personally, this calculus is irrelevant. Winning was never the sole objective. The point was to provide the public space for debating municipal issues in the ward. There was no acclamation as there was in two other Ottawa wards. The incumbent has had to work for his victory.

Rideau Rockcliffe will truly deserve the councillor they get and the results they have been promised for which they have voted.

Monday, 5 October 2026

#547 - You actually want more of the same?

Ottawa Keeps Making the Same Mistake. The Mistake Is How We Decide.

Ottawa Keeps Making the Same Mistake. The Mistake Is How We Decide.

From the last streetcar to the LRT inquiry, the pattern is the same: the people who could catch a bad decision are the ones kept from seeing it.

  1. 1891 Electric streetcars begin running in Ottawa.
  2. 1948 The city buys the Ottawa Electric Railway and creates the Ottawa Transportation Commission.
  3. May 1959 The last streetcar runs. The tracks are dismantled within a year.
  4. 1967 The city considers rapid transit on the corridor it just cleared.
  5. 2019 The Confederation Line opens, after a 16-month delay.
  6. 2021 Two serious derailments. The province calls a public inquiry.
  7. Nov 2022 The inquiry reports: “egregious violations of the public trust.”
  8. Nov 2025 Former mayor Jim Watson receives the Order of Ottawa.
  9. Jul 2026 The legal deadline for freedom of information requests moves from 30 calendar days to 45 business days.

In May 1959, 25,000 people lined the streets to watch Ottawa’s last streetcars parade downtown. Within a year the tracks were gone. The city had no concrete plan for the right-of-way it had just cleared. In 1967, it considered building rapid transit on the very corridor it had pulled up.

Sixty years later, we are still paying for that cycle.

The 1950s: expert consensus, no challenge

The experts of the day were not fools. The streetcar system had fallen into financial trouble and had an aging fleet. A consultant survey recommended buses, and planning ideas of the era, including the Gréber Plan, favoured removing rail from downtown. Cities across North America were making the same call.

That is the point. When every expert agrees and nobody inside the system has a reason to dissent, a bad idea can spread across a whole continent. The failure wasn’t stupidity. It was the absence of a mechanism to challenge the consensus.

The LRT: the same pattern, with better paperwork

The Ottawa LRT Public Inquiry gave us the most detailed public record we will ever get. Justice Hourigan found that both the city and Rideau Transit Group lost sight of the public interest amid political pressure to rush the $2.1-billion project. He called the timelines “entirely unrealistic.”

Then he turned to what the city did with the information. Council wasn’t told that the testing criteria had been lowered to let the line pass its final testing phase. Critical information about trial running went only to the mayor’s office and the chair of the transit commission. The commissioner concluded that the conduct of senior staff and the mayor “irreparably compromised” council’s oversight.

The people responsible for catching the problem were the people kept from seeing it.

That is a design flaw, and it didn’t go away when the individuals did.

And then, a medal

In November 2025, former mayor Jim Watson received the Order of Ottawa, an award created in 2012 under his own tenure. Its selection committee is made up of senior city officials and the mayor or deputy mayor. Mayor Sutcliffe said he does not endorse everything Watson did. Watson himself apologized after the inquiry and said he took “full responsibility.”

I’m not arguing that Watson didn’t earn recognition for a long career. I’m asking what a city is telling itself when the person at the centre of a “persistent failures in leadership” finding and egregious betrayal of the public trust is honoured by the same institution, with no public conversation about what the honour means.

And what about the rest of council? The inquiry did not blame council as a whole. It found council was kept in the dark. Yet council also voted against a judicial inquiry in 2021, and it was the province that called one. Responsibility is shared, and I haven’t heard a councillor say plainly what theirs was.

Asking questions shouldn’t take months

Here is what finding out looks like. I filed a freedom of information request. As of today, months later, I have no decision / not even a a partial response]. In Ontario, the legal timeline was 30 calendar days. As of July 1, 2026, it is 45 business days. By any count, I am well past it.

I don’t know why. It could be a backlog, a complex search, or something else, and I won’t pretend to know. But a records process only helps if you already know what to ask for. It cannot compel disclosure of information that was kept off the record to begin with. That is exactly what the inquiry found happened with the LRT.

The pattern

  • A small circle controls the information.
  • Deadlines are set by politics, not readiness.
  • Nobody independent checks the technical claims.
  • Consequences are rare and recognition is common.
  • Reforms follow crises instead of preventing them.

How to break out

The inquiry made 103 recommendations. I’d start with these:

  1. An independent overseer for major projects, reporting directly to council or the transit commission, which is what the report recommended.
  2. Acceptance and testing criteria written into contracts, so they can’t be quietly lowered.
  3. Publish by default. Contracts, test results, and reliability data should be public without a request.
  4. Equal information for all councillors. No decision-relevant report should go to the mayor and a committee chair first.
  5. Published post-project reviews that name who was responsible and what changed.
  6. Automatic escalation of overdue access requests, so a missed deadline triggers action instead of silence.

Credit where it’s due: the city says the Trillium Line testing will run longer and be more transparent than the Confederation Line’s. That’s a step. But it is a promise, not a structure, and promises don’t survive the next deadline.

What I’m asking for

I’m not asking you to believe Ottawa is run by incompetent people. I’m asking you to look at a system that sorts good information away from the people who need it, and that has done it more than once. Fix the structure, and the people inside it can do better work. Leave it, and we will be writing this post again in 2060.

#546 Attrocious Civic Disengagement -Rogers Debate Videos

Rogers Debates and views - all 24

Rogers Debates and views - all 24 Ottawa 2026 ward debates: weekly YouTube views

Ottawa 2026 ward debates: weekly YouTube views

Rogers TV debate videos for the 22 contested wards, sorted by total views. Each bar is split by the period in which the views arrived. Ward 13 (Rideau-Rockcliffe) is highlighted.

Up to Sep 12 Sep 12–18 Sep 18–24 Sep 24–Oct 3/5 Click a bar or ward label to open its video
Weekly views by ward debate. See the table below for totals and links.

Notes on the data

  • Weekly figures are differences between the snapshots recorded on the blog post (Sep 12, 18, 24, then Oct 3 for Wards 1–13 and Oct 5 for Wards 14 onward). The last period is 9 days for Wards 1–13 and 11 days for the rest, so those last segments run slightly long.
  • Wards 18–24 were posted after Sep 12, so they have no grey segment.
  • Wards 16 (River) and 21 (Rideau-Jock) were acclaimed, so there is no debate.
  • Date typos in the source were read as: Ward 5 "Sep 19" as Sep 18, Ward 14 "2036" as 2026, Ward 12 "20260013" as Sep 13, Ward 20 "20260824" as Sep 24.
  • Ward 23 is recorded as 481 views on Sep 15 and 133 on Sep 18. Cumulative views cannot fall, so one figure is probably a typo; it is plotted as recorded and its second-period bar is likely overstated.
  • Ward 4 links to the full debate; the 118-view highlights clip is not included.

Debate videos

i An approximation of the number of eligible voters by ward and the expected turnout at 40%