Campaign Video

Https://youtu.be/zBxbnuPAazE

Friday, 9 October 2026

#554 Unsolicited Feedback from A voter

 


Mr. Karwacki,


I appreciate your quick reply, of course this is campaign time but I hope that your attention and dedication to your constituents continues if you were to be elected to city council. Your passion for the issues at hand is refreshing and I could see you being a force of change at City Hall. 

I agree with you on the use of AI drafting tools to make more efficient use of your time. I myself use AI tools in my own line of professional work and, like yourself, have found them to be extremely helpful. I also agree with you that one should not blindly use them without having an understanding of the material that the AI is being used for so that any of the hallucinations, mistakes, and confident oversights can be remedied or corrected. This is especially so when the public is impacted by decisions that are made with the use of these tools. 

As you say, city councillors have a very busy schedule and the efficient use of their time along with the taxpayer dollars that pay for it can only be a positive. I also very much appreciate your admission to the use of AI in your blog and respect your commitment to transparency by adding a disclaimer to your blog page. I look forward to seeing the website updated. 

I can tell that you put your own thoughts into the tools used to craft this response. It was obvious during your debate that you know your issues and have thought a great deal about how best to help Rideau-Rockcliffe ward and the city St large. The human touch can be so lacking in digital communications and I think that in this rapidly changing world, a little more humanity goes a long way. Quite honestly I had not been engaged in this election much at all before you stopped by our door. 

Best of luck in the upcoming election, I believe you can count on at least two votes your way. 

Sincerely,

#553 Ward Debate Views - Still Bloody Atrocious!!

Ottawa 2026 ward debates: weekly YouTube views

Rogers TV debate videos for the 22 contested wards, sorted by total views as of Oct 9, 2026. Each bar is split by the period in which the views arrived. Ward 13 (Rideau-Rockcliffe) is highlighted.
The ward xiii views are about 10% of the number od people who will actually vote...very sad indeed

Up to Sep 12 Sep 12–18 Sep 18–24 Sep 24–Oct 3/5 Oct 3/5–Oct 9

Click a bar or ward label to open its video.

6 Stittsville 6,088 1 Orléans East-Cumberland 5,882 14 Somerset 2,467 12 Rideau-Vanier 2,117 15 Kitchissippi 2,025 2 Orléans West-Innes 1,976 9 Knoxdale-Merivale 1,785 4 Kanata North 1,721 3 Barrhaven West 1,437 5 West Carleton-March 1,267 19 Orléans South-Navan 1,152 18 Alta Vista 1,151 11 Beacon Hill-Cyrville 1,147 24 Barrhaven East 1,038 13 Rideau-Rockcliffe 1,033 8 College 953 17 Capital 857 23 Kanata South 801 7 Bay 788 10 Gloucester-Southgate 650 22 Riverside South-Findlay Creek 488 20 Osgoode 439

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, and now Oct 9 for all wards). The Oct 3/5–Oct 9 period is 6 days for Wards 1–13 and 4 days for the rest; the Sep 24–Oct 3/5 period is 9 days for Wards 1–13 and 11 days for the rest.
  • 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 10 "29261009" as Oct 9.
  • 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 Sep 18–24 bar is likely overstated.
  • Ward 4 links to the full debate; the highlights clip is not included.

Debate videos

WardTotal views (Oct 9)Video
6 Stittsville6,088Watch
1 Orléans East-Cumberland5,882Watch
14 Somerset2,467Watch
12 Rideau-Vanier2,117Watch
15 Kitchissippi2,025Watch
2 Orléans West-Innes1,976Watch
9 Knoxdale-Merivale1,785Watch
4 Kanata North1,721Watch
3 Barrhaven West1,437Watch
5 West Carleton-March1,267Watch
19 Orléans South-Navan1,152Watch
18 Alta Vista1,151Watch
11 Beacon Hill-Cyrville1,147Watch
24 Barrhaven East1,038Watch
13 Rideau-Rockcliffe1,033Watch
8 College953Watch
17 Capital857Watch
23 Kanata South801Watch
7 Bay788Watch
10 Gloucester-Southgate650Watch
22 Riverside South-Findlay Creek488Watch
20 Osgoode439Watch

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.