Friday, 4 September 2026

Equity? Don't talk to me about equity

Seven Years, Two Parks and No Equity

There's a river that runs along the western edge of Rideau-Rockcliffe. On one bank, in New Edinburgh, you're in Ward 13. Riverain Park sits immediately adjacent, directly across the Rideau River — and once you cross, you're in Vanier, Ward 12, Rideau-Vanier.

Look at what's happened to two parks over the last five years, and "equity" starts to look like a word the City uses selectively.

Riverain Park (Vanier, Ward 12) — net gain

Riverain Park sits on federal land the NCC leases to the City. Starting in fall 2020, the City ran it through a two-phase modernization:

Phase 1 (2020–2021): a new splash pad, adult fitness equipment, an off-leash dog area, a new basketball court, a new horseshoe pitch, resurfaced tennis courts, added pickleball courts, pathway and lighting upgrades.

Phase 2 (2021–2022): a new skateboard park, a winterized fieldhouse, a seasonal boarded skating rink, a permanent canoe/kayak launch on the Rideau River, and a public art installation.

Today the park's amenity list runs to fitness and play equipment, a splash pad, a skatepark, a pump track, an off-leash dog area, an outdoor rink, cross-country ski trails, tennis and pickleball courts, baseball diamonds, and a basketball court.

Bathgate Park (Carson Grove, Ward 13) — net loss

Bathgate Park, in Carson Grove — part of Ward 13 — is getting a "restoration and reforestation" project this year. The City's own description of it: the basketball court is being removed. Not relocated, not rebuilt — removed, followed by soil rehabilitation, reseeding, and tree planting. A new entrance sign and two waste receptacles are being added. The central pathway isn't scheduled to be touched until summer 2027.

The project costs $120,000. Half of that — $60,000 — is coming out of Ward 13's own Cash-in-Lieu-of-Parkland fund: money generated by development in this ward, earmarked for parkland in this ward, being spent to take an active recreation amenity out of this ward.

Side by side

	Riverain Park (Vanier / Ward 12 — immediately adjacent, across the river)	Bathgate Park (Carson Grove / Ward 13)
Timeline	2020–2022, two phases	2026–2027
Funding	City capital program, NCC-leased land	$120,000 total; $60,000 from Ward 13's own parkland levy
Basketball court	Added (new court in Phase 1)	Removed (deteriorated court taken out, not replaced)
Active recreation added	Splash pad, skatepark, pump track, tennis/pickleball courts, off-leash dog area, outdoor rink, canoe/kayak launch, fieldhouse	None
Passive/green space added	Public art, landscaping	Reseeding, tree planting, naturalization
Net change in recreation infrastructure	Substantial net gain	Net loss

Why this is an equity story, not a NIMBY one

Nobody's against naturalization or tree planting — Bathgate's reforestation has real community support behind it, and more tree canopy is a legitimate public good. That's not the problem.

The problem is what "equity" is supposed to mean when a levy paid by Ward 13 residents, meant to fund Ward 13 parkland, ends up net-subtracting a recreation amenity from Ward 13 — while a park in a different ward entirely, gets a full modernization with new courts added, not removed.

If the City wants to naturalize part of Bathgate Park, fine. But naturalization and recreation aren't supposed to be a zero-sum trade in one ward while they're additive in the next one over. Ward 13 residents whose development fees funded this project lost a basketball court. Riverain Park visitors gained one, plus a skatepark, a pump track, and a boat launch.

That's not equity. That's just where you happen to live.

#489 ? Make that - 5 6,7,8 Gone, gone, gone-g-g-g-Gone yeah!!!

For greater clarity, if I did have money (in 2022 King spent over $20,000 on his campaign) for signs I still would not put up the GD signs.

Instead, I'd get the 5,6,7,8's to come to Ottawa and hold a free concert.

That way you'd have an election you'd never forget!

This will have to do. Vote for Peter Karwacki for Rideau Rockcliffe

US Then vs Now and Collapse Risk

United States: Then vs Now, and Collapse Likelihood

“Then” is the mid-20th century / pre-1971 Bretton Woods period. “Now” is 2025–2026. Figures are rounded official or near-official estimates.

1. Structural comparison

Metric	Then (1950s–1960s / pre-1971)	Now (2025–2026)
Net international investment position	Net creditor (until mid-1980s)	Net debtor: about −$21.3 trillion
Federal budget balance	Often near balance or small deficit (~0.5% of GDP in the 1950s)	Deficit about 5.8–6.0% of GDP
Federal spending	Typically 17–20% of GDP	About 23.3% of GDP
Trade balance (goods + services)	Persistent surpluses until 1975	Persistent deficit (~$900 billion in 2025)
Debt held by the public	Falling toward the mid-20s% of GDP by the mid-1970s	About 99–101% of GDP
Personal saving rate	Commonly 8–12%	About 3%
Monetary standard	Gold / Bretton Woods	Fiat currency since 1971
10-year Treasury yield	Often 3–4.5% in the early/mid-1960s	About 4.8%

2. What “collapse” would mean

Not slower growth, not a recession, and not losing some share of world GDP. Collapse here means a disorderly break in solvency or governing capacity: default or coercive restructuring of Treasuries, a run on the dollar that ends its core reserve role, high/uncontrolled inflation, or the federal government becoming unable to perform basic functions.

3. Likelihood under the current path

Outcome	Horizon	Likelihood if policy stays on the current path
Sudden sovereign collapse / chaotic default / dollar disintegration	Next 10 years	Low (roughly 5–15%). Reserve-currency status, deep Treasury markets, taxing capacity, and the Fed make a sudden break uncommon even at high debt.
Fiscal stress: higher real rates, inflation pressure, crowding out, forced tax/spending adjustment	Next 10–20 years	High (roughly 50–70%) if deficits stay near 6% of GDP and debt keeps rising toward 120%+ of GDP.
Relative decline (smaller share of world output and power)	Already underway / next 20–30 years	Very high as a share-of-world measure. That is decline, not collapse.
Long-run unsustainable debt path without reform	20–50 years	Very high under current law. CBO-style baselines show debt held by the public rising from ~100% toward 120% by 2036 and much higher later if nothing changes.
Political disintegration of the United States as a state	Next 20 years	Low. Polarization and institutional strain are real; state failure is a different and much rarer event.

4. Why the path is dangerous but not automatically fatal

Pressure points: persistent primary deficits, rising interest costs, entitlement growth, low household saving, and dependence on foreign buyers of Treasuries. A country that is both a large net debtor and a large fiscal deficit country is more exposed if investors demand a higher risk premium.

Offsets that still argue against imminent collapse: the dollar remains the main reserve and invoicing currency; U.S. capital markets are the deepest in the world; the federal government can tax a large, high-income economy; the Fed can act as lender of last resort in dollars; and high-debt advanced economies (Japan is the extreme case) have gone far longer than critics expected without default.

The honest bottom line: the current path is fiscally unsustainable and raises the odds of a painful adjustment. It does not make a 2020s–2030s “USA collapse” the base case. The more probable bad outcomes are higher interest burdens, weaker private investment, periodic inflation or dollar scares, and delayed but severe policy corrections—not overnight national failure.

US Fiscal Path: Economic Effects on Canada, Ottawa, and Rideau-Rockcliffe

What the U.S. fiscal path means for Canada, Ottawa, and Rideau-Rockcliffe

The relevant issue is not national collapse. It is how large U.S. deficits, high public debt, and elevated Treasury yields pass through to Canadian trade, interest rates, the dollar, federal employment in Ottawa, and local housing.

1. The U.S. backdrop that matters

Compared with the mid-20th century, the United States now runs large budget deficits, is a net international debtor, has public debt near 100% of GDP, a low household saving rate, and a persistent trade deficit. Ten-year Treasury yields are around 4.8%. Those conditions raise the odds of higher U.S. borrowing costs and periodic dollar or rate volatility. They do not, by themselves, imply a breakdown of the U.S. economy.

U.S. condition	Then (1950s–1960s)	Now (2025–2026)
Budget balance	Near balance or small deficit	Deficit about 6% of GDP
Debt held by the public	Falling toward the mid-20s% of GDP by the mid-1970s	About 99–101% of GDP
External position	Net creditor; trade surpluses	Net debtor (~−$21 trillion); trade deficit
Personal saving rate	Often 8–12%	About 3%
10-year Treasury yield	Often 3–4.5% in the early/mid-1960s	About 4.8%

2. Canada: the real transmission channels

Canada remains highly exposed to the United States, even after some export diversification. The U.S. still takes about two-thirds of Canadian exports. Bilateral goods-and-services trade was still in the high hundreds of billions of dollars in 2025. A U.S. slowdown, higher U.S. rates, or tariffs therefore show up in Canadian growth before they show up in any abstract “systemic” story.

Channel	Current picture	Practical effect in Canada
Trade	U.S. share of Canadian exports about 66–72% in 2025–26, down from the old 75%+ range	Weaker U.S. demand or tariffs hit energy, autos, steel, lumber, and machinery. Ontario and Alberta feel this first.
Interest rates	Bank of Canada overnight rate 2.25%; U.S. federal funds around 3.6–3.75%; U.S. 10-year near 4.8%	Canada can set a lower policy rate, but mortgage and corporate spreads still move with global bond yields. Higher U.S. term premiums make Canadian borrowing less cheap than the policy rate alone suggests.
Exchange rate	About C$1.38–1.39 per U.S. dollar (roughly 72 U.S. cents)	A firm USD supports Canadian export receipts in loonie terms and raises the cost of U.S. goods, travel, and some inputs. A U.S. rate spike that pulls capital south can weaken the CAD further.
Fiscal comparison	Canadian federal debt about 41% of GDP; deficit near 2% of GDP	Canada has more fiscal room than the U.S. That is a buffer, not insulation. A U.S. growth shock still reduces Canadian revenues.

Net effect for Canada: slower export growth if the U.S. economy cools; stickier borrowing costs if U.S. yields stay high; and a currency that moves with U.S. rate differentials and commodity prices. Canada’s own current-account deficit is modest (about 1.4% of GDP). The binding constraint is trade and financial linkage, not a parallel U.S.-style debt ratio.

3. Ottawa: a capital-city economy, not an export mill town

Ottawa-Gatineau is built around the federal public service, professional services, tech, and local housing. It is less exposed to auto and steel tariffs than Windsor or Hamilton, and less exposed to oil prices than Calgary. Its main U.S.-related risks are second-round: weaker national growth, higher rates, and any further federal restraint.

Federal employment in Ottawa-Gatineau: about 146,000 as of March 2026, down from about 154,000 a year earlier. Ottawa itself had about 111,200 federal workers.
The federal public service nationally fell by more than 12,000 positions in the latest fiscal year, to about 345,000, with further reductions planned.
Ottawa housing has cooled. August 2026 average sale price was about $688,000, with sales down and prices roughly flat year over year.

Ottawa channel	What changes if the U.S. stays on a high-deficit, high-yield path
Federal payroll	If weaker growth or higher debt-service costs push Ottawa to keep shrinking the public service, that is the city’s main demand shock. Retail, restaurants, and downtown office use follow the headcount.
Mortgage rates	Even with a lower Bank of Canada policy rate, five-year mortgage pricing tracks bond yields. Higher U.S. term rates keep a floor under Canadian fixed-mortgage costs.
Citywide housing	Softer sales and limited price growth are already visible. More rate persistence would extend that, especially for condos and outer suburbs.
Trade-exposed firms	Ottawa has some export and defence-tech exposure, but the citywide effect is smaller than the public-service effect.

4. Rideau-Rockcliffe: two markets in one ward

Ward 13 is not a single housing or income story. Rockcliffe Park is a thin, high-price market of estates and diplomatic residences. New Edinburgh and Lindenlea are expensive but more ordinary. Overbrook, parts of Vanier, and newer sites such as Wateridge trade closer to citywide Ottawa prices.

Area	Recent price context	Likely economic effect
Rockcliffe Park	House averages around $2.2–2.3 million; listings often near $2.4 million; few sales per year	Prices are sticky because inventory is scarce and buyers are high-income. Demand depends on senior public servants, executives, and diplomatic households—not on U.S. factory orders. A smaller federal senior ranks or slower professional hiring can lengthen selling times more than it crashes prices.
New Edinburgh / Lindenlea	Composite benchmark about $951,000 (mid-2026); detached stronger than condos	More rate-sensitive than Rockcliffe proper. Detached stock has held up; apartments and townhouses have been weaker. Higher mortgage costs matter here.
Overbrook, Vanier, Wateridge and similar	Closer to Ottawa’s $620,000–$700,000 range, with more rentals and new supply	Most exposed to construction cycles, immigration policy, and carrying costs. This is where a softer Ottawa labour market shows up first.

What helps the high end of the ward

Diplomatic and official residences do not disappear because U.S. fiscal accounts look worse.
Scarce land, NCC greenspace, and proximity to Rideau Hall keep a floor under prestige values.
A weaker Canadian dollar can make local real estate cheaper for foreign missions and some non-resident buyers, though local Canadian incomes still set most prices.

What pressures it

Federal downsizing reduces the number of households that can service a $2 million mortgage.
High carrying costs (tax, insurance, maintenance) stay high even if sale prices stall.
Thin sales mean one or two motivated listings can move the “average” more than the neighbourhood’s long-run character changes.

5. What this means in practice

Place	Most likely economic outcome	What to watch
Canada	Softer export growth and less cheap credit if U.S. yields stay high; not a replica of the U.S. debt ratio problem	U.S. import demand, tariffs, oil prices, CAD, and Canadian five-year bond yields
Ottawa	Growth tied more to federal staffing and local rates than to U.S. factory output	Treasury Board headcount, National Capital Region employment, and Ottawa sales-to-new-listings
Rideau-Rockcliffe	Rockcliffe Park remains a defensive high-end pocket; the rest of the ward follows the broader Ottawa housing and job cycle	Days on market and listing discounts in Rockcliffe; detached vs condo split in New Edinburgh; rental and new-supply conditions in Overbrook/Wateridge

The useful conclusion is narrow. A United States that borrows heavily and pays a higher term premium makes Canadian money less cheap and Canadian exporters more exposed. Ottawa feels that mainly through rates and any further public-service restraint. Rideau-Rockcliffe, especially Rockcliffe Park, is buffered by scarce housing and official demand, but it is not independent of federal payrolls or mortgage costs.

#488 Ottawa Police Services - My Greatest Hits

The Ottawa Police Service: My Greatest Hits

A civilian Police Services Board exists because Ontario law requires it. Every municipality with its own police force must have an independent civilian board that sets objectives and priorities after consulting the chief, hires and evaluates the chief, approves the budget, and establishes policies. It does not run day-to-day operations. The Ottawa board has seven members: three councillors, three provincial citizen appointees, and one council-appointed citizen. That structure is meant to keep politics at arm’s length while still representing the public.

In practice the arrangement has been tested and found wanting.

The convoy and the resignations

During the 2022 Freedom Convoy occupation, Chief Peter Sloly publicly expected the protest to clear after the first weekend, then requested roughly 1,800 extra officers. He resigned on day 19. Board chair Diane Deans declared the city “under siege,” pressed for an end plan, and moved to hire a replacement chief with limited transparency. Council voted 15-9 to remove her the next night. The two other councillors on the board, including Rawlson King, resigned in protest. King later described the removal of Deans as political interference and defended the board’s record on his way out.

The city’s own auditor later found the board did not receive timely operational information it needed to exercise oversight and that it violated its own procedural rules during emergency meetings. The pattern was reactive: institutions reorganized after the crisis peaked, not while it was unfolding. King has not returned to the board. The unglamorous work of oversight continued without him.

Workplace culture and the office that vanished

A 2021 review of workplace violence and harassment produced a cornerstone recommendation: an independent investigations office outside the chain of command. It was created in 2022. In October 2023 the service shut it down. Board members learned about the closure the day of their meeting. Public reports that month still described the office as operational and improving. The safe-workplace budget later dropped from $8.2 million to $5.4 million. Current and former members have said they do not believe meaningful change has occurred after a decade of reviews and millions spent.

The chief has authority over internal structure. The board has authority over policy and oversight. When the two do not talk before a major cultural-reform office disappears, the public is left with the same problem the office was created to fix.

Databases as dating apps

Multiple officers have been disciplined for unauthorized searches of restricted systems (MTO driver records and CPIC). One constable faced charges after 77 queries, including women he admitted he found attractive and colleagues. Another was demoted after 69 unauthorized searches of ex-partners, people he met at the gym, and members of the public. Chief Eric Stubbs later told members internally that officers were using databases “as their own way to meet women”—seeing someone at a coffee shop or gym, running the plate, and following up. The Auditor General found the service’s own auditing of database access “not robust.” Anomaly detection on access logs is standard technology. It is not being applied here as a first-line control.

Trust but verify: the Auditor General’s files

In May 2026 the Auditor General reported that project-management reporting to the board contained inaccuracies and outdated budgets (body-worn cameras were one example). Projects sometimes launched without formal approved budgets. Oversight information was “vague.” Separate audits found outdated staffing targets, incomplete training records, and heavy reliance on overtime. Body-camera reporting to the board has historically omitted key metrics. The board is supposed to receive reliable information so it can do its job. It has not always received it.

The 1:130 split

The 2026 OPS net operating budget sits at $414.9 million. ANCHOR, the civilian mental-health and substance-use crisis response that resolved 92 percent of its calls without police in its first year, is funded at roughly $3.2 million. That is a 1:130 ratio. OPS receives 99.2 percent of the combined safety dollars; the alternative that demonstrably diverts non-violent calls receives 0.8 percent. Expanding ANCHOR to a city-wide 24/7 service on the scale of Toronto’s equivalent would still be a few percent of the police budget. The current allocation treats armed officers as the default response to social distress. Police themselves say that is not their core mandate.

Ward 13 numbers

In Rideau-Rockcliffe, overall crime rose 9 percent in 2025, driven by theft under $5,000 and fraud. The Crime Severity Index jumped 11 percent to 82.68. Robbery clearance fell from 42.4 percent to 20 percent even as volume dropped. Assault clearance also declined. Property-crime clearance remains in the single digits. Volume and seriousness are moving in the wrong direction while clearance on several categories is weakening. Those are the numbers residents live with.

What the record actually shows

The recurring themes are not isolated incidents. They are a pattern: recommendations without binding timelines or consequences, internal investigations that stay internal, reporting to the civilian board that is incomplete or inaccurate, a cultural-reform office closed without prior consultation, database controls that fail to stop obvious abuse, and a budget that pours almost everything into the most expensive response while starving the cheaper one that works for the majority of mental-health calls.

The board exists to prevent exactly this. Councillors who sit on it are there to stay through the unglamorous parts—the audits, the budget fights, the workplace-culture files—not to resign when the politics get hard. Oversight that only operates when the cameras are rolling is not oversight.

The public pays for the guns, the databases, the overtime, and the $414.9 million. It is entitled to verified results, not self-reported competence. Trust, but verify. The verification tools already exist: independent investigations reporting to the board, real-time audit logs with alerts, monthly public metrics on complaints and discipline, and a budget that matches the actual mix of problems the city faces. Using them is a choice.

Source Posts

#	Title	Date	Link
—	Police Services Board – Why does it exist? Why would a Councillor resign from the OPS?	15 Sep 2023	unpublished.ca
—	Issues and Stances (2022 OPS Board / Sloly section)	May 2022	peterkarwacki.blogspot.com
#229	OPS – What can be done?	23 Jun 2026	peterkarwacki.blogspot.com
—	Rideau-Rockcliffe Clearance is not tight and severity is up	26 Jul 2026	peterkarwacki.blogspot.com
#408	Pattern Recognition / Twenty days in winter	Aug 2026	peterkarwacki.blogspot.com
#412	ANCHOR vrs. Ottawa Police Service : we are not in balance	12 Aug 2026	peterkarwacki.blogspot.com
#416	Whistle blowers – do we support them enough?	Aug 2026	peterkarwacki.blogspot.com
#418	OPS – Trust but verify!	13 Aug 2026	peterkarwacki.blogspot.com
#427	For the “How” – I’m your man	16 Aug 2026	peterkarwacki.blogspot.com
#435	Recommendations to The OPS Board	18 Aug 2026	peterkarwacki.blogspot.com
#480	After seven years (Police Services Board section)	2 Sep 2026	peterkarwacki.blogspot.com

Compiled from the posts above. For the latest entries see peterkarwacki.blogspot.com.

#487 The Bridge: The King and I

It is a definitive difference in policies between the King and I

Head-to-Head: Rideau-Rockcliffe on the Eastern Bridge

Rideau-Rockcliffe Head-to-Head: The Eastern Bridge

A single-issue comparison of incumbent Councillor Rawlson King and challenger Peter Karwacki on the proposed Montée Paiement–Aviation Parkway (Kettle Island) crossing. Election day is 26 October 2026. Public comments on the federal Initial Project Description close 9 October 2026.

Issue	Rawlson King (Incumbent)	Peter Karwacki (Challenger)
Overall stance	Firm, consistent opposition. Has called the project fundamentally flawed and said Ottawa should say no.	Support. Argues the crossing is needed and that the ward should lead on design rather than block it.
Downtown truck problem	A 2021 NCC/IBI study showed only about 15% of King Edward truck traffic would be diverted even by 2050. Most heavy trucks would still use the Macdonald-Cartier / King Edward corridor. The core problem would remain unsolved.	3,500+ trucks cross the river daily; 72% use Macdonald-Cartier into Lowertown. Most trips start or end east of the Rideau/Gatineau rivers. Getting trucks off King Edward and Rideau is a city-wide safety, noise, and livability issue the ward should help solve.
Local neighbourhood impact	Would shift traffic, noise, pollution, and safety risks onto Aviation Parkway and nearby streets in Manor Park, Rockcliffe Park, and Vanier. Risks to Montfort Hospital access and quality of life for seniors and residents. “1950s solution to a 2026 problem.”	Acknowledges local impacts but says outright opposition is NIMBYism. The ward sits closest to the corridor and therefore has the most leverage to demand mitigations (routing, noise, hospital access, connections) if it engages early instead of saying no.
Induced demand & capacity	New capacity will generate additional traffic. Building the bridge does not solve congestion; it relocates and potentially increases it.	Existing five crossings are clustered in a short stretch and at or near capacity. Population in the National Capital Region has doubled since the last new road bridge (Portage, 1973). Extra capacity is required.
Cost and priorities	Estimated $3–4 billion is a misallocation. Federal and municipal money should go to transit, housing affordability, homelessness, and the opioid crisis. Project is not a City of Ottawa priority.	The project is federally led and funded. Opposition does not stop the money; it only reduces the ward’s ability to shape how the money is spent on the Ottawa side.
Role of Rideau-Rockcliffe	Councillor’s job is to protect the communities that would absorb the new traffic. Local residents and community associations have opposed this corridor for more than a decade.	Ward 13 must show leadership. “The bridge is coming whether you like it or not.” Council as a whole can and likely willoverrule ward-level resistance (16-9). Better to negotiate design now than be left with whatever is built later.
Preferred path forward	Stop or significantly rethink the project. Invest in transit and other solutions that do not dump traffic on east-end neighbourhoods.	Accept the preferred corridor, participate in the impact assessment, and extract the strongest possible local protections and connections (417 links, truck restrictions where possible, active-transportation elements, hospital access).
Tone toward the other side	Frames opposition as evidence-based representation of residents who would live with the consequences.	Calls the incumbent’s position “wrong-headed” and “pandering.” Contrasts city-wide benefit with ward-level obstruction.

Sources: King’s June 2025 newsletter and March 2025 Manor Park Chronicle column; Karwacki’s August 2026 campaign posts and earlier 2019–2026 blog entries on the file; NCC/PSPC project materials and 2021 IBI Group study as cited by both sides. Positions summarized from public statements only. The project remains a federal undertaking; a city councillor cannot approve or cancel it.

https://peterkarwacki.blogspot.com/p/peter-karwacki-for-rideau-rockcliffe.html?m=1

#486 Parking Tickets 1 - Lawson 0

With your free pass you could celebrate your good fortune

Reading the Meter — An Analysis of the Free-Parking Pledge

WARD FILE — POLICY READING

The free-parking pledge, read against the city's own numbers

Alex Lawson's platform would end paid on-street parking across Ottawa's 4,337 metered spaces. Below is the policy broken into its parts, set beside the figures the campaign and the city have each put on the record.

$9.78M

ON-STREET PARKING REVENUE, 2025

$7.42M

ON-STREET OPERATING COST, 2025

+$2.36M

NET SURPLUS THE ON-STREET SYSTEM CURRENTLY RUNS

4,337

SPACES THE PLEDGE WOULD MAKE FREE

Policy element	What's promised	Figures on the record	Reading it closely
Free parking	All 4,337 paid on-street spaces revert to free, starting with Westboro and Wellington West.	2025 revenue: $9.78M 2025 cost: $7.42M	GAP IN THE PITCH The savings pitch only counts the cost side. The on-street system isn't a drain — it already nets about $2.36M a year. Removing it doesn't just cut $7.42M in spending, it forgoes $9.78M in revenue. The honest framing is a swing of roughly $2.36M against the budget, not a straightforward saving.
Two-hour floor	No posted time limit anywhere in the city shorter than two hours.	City's own rule: paid parking triggers above 85% occupancy	CUTS AGAINST STATED RATIONALE The city's turnover logic — the same logic used to justify meters in Westboro — assumes shorter windows free up spots faster in high-demand strips. A universal two-hour minimum works against that on the busiest streets, right where free parking is also expected to draw more cars. The policy removes the price lever and loosens the time lever in the same stretch of road.
Exemptions held	Fire routes, school zones, loading zones, accessible spaces, rush-hour restrictions and winter overnight bans all stay in force.	— no figures cited —	HOLDS UP This is the least contestable part of the plan. None of these categories generate meter revenue today, so keeping them changes nothing about the fiscal picture — it mainly reassures that safety and access rules aren't being touched.
Enforcement savings	Ending meters removes pay stations, collection contracts, enforcement runs and the parking study; officers redeployed to safety enforcement.	Meter operation: $7.4M Parking study: $710K	PARTIALLY SUPPORTED The $7.4M and $710K are real, cited line items, so there is a genuine cost to unwind. But "most of that spending goes with them" overstates it: officers still have to patrol for the two-hour limit itself, which is its own enforcement burden — just an unpriced one. The savings are real but smaller than the pitch implies.
Ticket revenue	Fewer tickets under the new regime, framed as ending "gotcha revenue" while still writing hydrant and accessible-space tickets.	476,000 tickets issued, 2025 33,950 for exceeding posted limits 41,277 for exceeding 3 hours 126,286 on private property	MISLEADING BY OMISSION Time-limit tickets (about 75,000 combined) are a small slice of the 476,000 total, and the largest single category — 126,286 tickets — is illegal parking on private property, which has nothing to do with on-street meters and won't change under this policy. The "fewer tickets" claim leans on a category that isn't actually where most tickets come from.
Garages & lots	City-owned parking garages and surface lots keep charging as before.	Combined on/off-street revenue: $19.62M Combined cost: $17.13M	HOLDS UP Consistent with the numbers: off-street parking is left untouched, so its share of the $19.62M revenue and $17.13M cost picture is unaffected. It does mean the net citywide parking surplus — about $2.49M today — drops closer to the roughly $130K the off-street side earns alone, once on-street parking goes free.

Reading the Meter — And Testing a Card of My Own

WARD FILE — POLICY LEDGER

Reading the meter, then holding my own card to the same light

A rival's platform would end paid on-street parking across Ottawa. Below, the pledge is broken down against the city's own figures — and then I run my own parking idea through the identical test, because a promise should survive scrutiny whether it's someone else's or mine.

Parking meters are an easy thing to hate and a hard thing to budget without. That tension is the whole story here. One candidate has proposed making all 4,337 on-street paid spaces in Ottawa free again. It's a popular idea. It is also, on the numbers the city itself publishes, not the free lunch it's being sold as.

I hold every policy — including my own — to the same standard: does it survive contact with the actual figures, or does it only survive contact with a press release. Below is the ledger.

01 — THE FREE-PARKING PLEDGE

$9.78M

ON-STREET PARKING REVENUE, 2025

$7.42M

ON-STREET OPERATING COST, 2025

+$2.36M

NET SURPLUS THE ON-STREET SYSTEM RUNS TODAY

4,337

SPACES THE PLEDGE WOULD MAKE FREE

Policy element	What's promised	Figures on the record	Reading it closely
Free parking	All 4,337 paid on-street spaces revert to free, starting with Westboro and Wellington West.	2025 revenue: $9.78M 2025 cost: $7.42M	GAP IN THE PITCH The pitch counts only the cost side. The on-street system already nets about $2.36M a year — removing it forgoes that revenue, it doesn't just cut spending. In a city already short on cash, trading a reliable surplus for break-even is a real fiscal choice, not a free saving.
Two-hour floor	No posted time limit anywhere in the city shorter than two hours.	City's own rule: paid parking triggers above 85% occupancy	CUTS AGAINST STATED RATIONALE A universal two-hour minimum works against the city's own turnover logic on the busiest streets — right where free parking is also expected to draw more cars. The price lever comes out and the time lever loosens on the same block.
Ticket revenue	Fewer tickets, framed as ending "gotcha revenue."	476,000 tickets, 2025 75,227 tied to time limits 126,286 on private property	MISLEADING BY OMISSION Time-limit tickets are a small slice of the total. The largest single category — parking on private property — has nothing to do with on-street meters and won't change under this policy.
Garages & lots	City-owned garages and surface lots keep charging as before.	Combined on/off-street revenue: $19.62M Combined cost: $17.13M	HOLDS UP Consistent with the numbers. But it also means the citywide parking surplus — about $2.49M today — collapses to roughly what the off-street side earns alone once on-street parking goes free: close to break-even.

02 — APPLYING THE SAME TEST TO ONE OF MY OWN

Here's my idea, stated the way a platform usually states it: every Ottawa resident gets one Get-Out-of-a-Parking-Fine card, free, to use once against any parking ticket they receive. It's the kind of line that plays well on a doorstep. It's also the kind of line I'd flag immediately if someone else's campaign put it out unexamined — so I'm not going to spare mine.

Policy element	What's promised	Figures on the record	Reading it closely
The card, as pitched	One free pass per resident, redeemable against any parking ticket, once.	City population: ~1.15M (2024 est.) Tickets issued: 476,000/yr Time-limit fine: $70, $50 early	DOESN'T SURVIVE THE NUMBERS AS WRITTEN If even one in ten residents used it in a year — a modest redemption rate for a free pass — that's roughly 115,000 forgiven tickets. At $50–$70 each, that's $6M–$8M in foregone revenue, well past the entire on-street parking system's current $2.36M surplus. As a blanket, population-wide promise, this is fiscally bigger than the problem it's meant to fix.
A version that holds	A one-time first-offence forgiveness, tied to a licence plate rather than a person, excluded from safety-critical categories, capped and reported publicly each year.	Excludes: hydrants, fire routes, school zones, accessible spaces Applies only on redemption of an actual ticket	SURVIVES CONTACT WITH THE BUDGET This version doesn't hand out a pass to a million people who'll never use it — it forgives one honest first mistake per plate, on the low-stakes tickets, never on the ones that protect someone's safety. It's smaller, it's targeted, and it can be costed and capped before it's promised, not after.

WHY BOTHER SHOWING THE FAILED VERSION

Because the discipline is the point. Almost any policy sounds good stated as a headline — free parking, a free pass, a floor on how long you can stay. The test isn't whether it sounds good. It's whether it still sounds good once you've run it against the city's own numbers. That's the standard I'm applying to a rival's platform in the first half of this post, and it's the standard I owe my own ideas in the second half.

Citizens don't need to track every line item in a parking budget to have a right to expect that the person asking for their vote already has. That's the job. Not the headline — the ledger behind it.

Thursday, 3 September 2026

#485 Two candidates - two different approaches

Different Skills, Different People, Different Approach: A Vision for Rideau-Rockcliffe

Different Skills, Different People, Different Approach

A fresh look at what Rideau-Rockcliffe needs to move forward.

When looking at the landscape of Ward 13 (Rideau-Rockcliffe), one thing is clear: anyone putting their name on a ballot cares about this community. Both Rawlson King and I want what is best for Rideau-Rockcliffe. We both want safe neighborhoods, reliable infrastructure, strong community services, and a ward that reflects the rich diversity of its residents, from Manor Park and Rockcliffe Park to Overbrook, Carson Grove, and Wateridge.

However, agreeing on the destination doesn't mean taking the same road. How we address civic challenges, measure progress, and deliver results depends heavily on our perspective, background, and strategy. It comes down to a fundamental reality: Different Skills, Different People, Different Approach.

The Core Choice: Wanting good outcomes for Ward 13 is universal. Delivering them requires the right analytical toolkit, active problem-solving, and a pragmatic focus on critical regional infrastructure.

Comparing the Perspectives & Key Policies

To help illustrate how our styles, policies, and strategies differ, here is a breakdown of what each of us brings to the table for Ward 13:

Focus Area	Incumbent Approach (Rawlson King)	My Approach (Peter Karwacki)
Proposed East End Crossing (Kettle Island Bridge)	Opposes the project due to concerns over localized neighborhood traffic impacts, shifting heavy transit load onto eastern roads, and environmental disruption.	Strongly supports the project as a fundamentally necessary piece of regional infrastructure that will more safely and permanently divert heavy industrial truck traffic off downtown streets like King Edward.
Background & Skill Set	Governance, policy communication, and traditional municipal administration.	Skilled CEO, project manager and Technical analysis, structured problem-solving, and operational scrutiny.
Public Transit & Infrastructure	Managing existing service lines and broad municipal policy directives.	Granular route analysis (e.g., OC Transpo Routes 12, 19, 6/7 reliability), flood mitigation, and active transit design.
Local Economy & Safety	Policy frameworks and high-level initiative oversight.	Data-driven economic tracking, practical support for local corridors, and direct community safety solutions.
Problem-Solving Philosophy	Process-oriented, incremental policy adjustments through municipal committee systems.	Results-driven, transparent metrics, actionable timelines, and direct accountable engagement.

A Strategy Built on Rigor and Decisive Infrastructure Action

Rideau-Rockcliffe faces unique, complex infrastructure and social demands. From managing major arterial corridors like St. Laurent and Montreal Road to ensuring our stormwater resilience keeps pace with changing weather, we cannot rely solely on standard administrative processes or avoid tough decisions on major projects.

Our contrast on the proposed East End Interprovincial Crossing is a prime example. Opposition to an east end bridge ignores the broader regional reality—we cannot fix downtown congestion, improve pedestrian safety, or remove heavy diesel trucks from urban cores without building the necessary physical bypass route. Building a 6th bridge crossing, paired with long-term network planning like a southern connector, is essential for Ottawa's future growth and safety.

My approach is rooted in direct, hands-on analysis. Whether it is advocating for vital infrastructure like the Kettle Island crossing, auditing local bus reliability, evaluating low-speed feeder transit options, or tackling neighborhood-level drainage issues, I look at municipal challenges through a lens of functionality and practical engineering. It isn't just about initiating studies or delaying hard decisions; it's about delivering real, lasting infrastructure that serves Rideau-Rockcliffe and the city as a whole.

Respecting your representative doesn't mean settling for the status quo. As we look ahead to October, the decision for Ward 13 isn't about intent—it's about execution. We need different skills, a different perspective, and a fresh approach to build a stronger, more resilient community.

Let's keep the conversation going. Where do you stand on the east end bridge, and what infrastructure fixes do you want to see prioritized in Ward 13?

Different Skills, Different People, Different Approach: A Vision for Rideau-Rockcliffe

Different Skills, Different People, Different Approach

A fresh look at what Rideau-Rockcliffe needs to move forward.

The Core Choice: Wanting good outcomes for Ward 13 is universal. Delivering them requires the right analytical toolkit, active problem-solving, and a pragmatic focus on infrastructure and service delivery.

Comparing the Perspectives

To help illustrate how our styles and strategies differ, here is a breakdown of what each of us brings to the table for Ward 13:

Focus Area	Incumbent Approach (Rawlson King)	My Approach (Peter Karwacki)
Background & Skill Set	Governance, policy communication, and traditional municipal administration.	The same plus Technical analysis, structured problem-solving, and operational scrutiny.
Public Transit & Infrastructure	Managing existing service lines and broad municipal policy directives.	Granular route analysis (e.g., OC Transpo Routes 12, 19, 6/7 reliability), flood mitigation, and active transit design.
Local Economy & Safety	Policy frameworks and high-level initiative oversight.	Data-driven economic tracking, practical support for local corridors, and direct community safety solutions.
Problem-Solving Philosophy	Process-oriented, incremental policy adjustments through municipal committee systems.	Results-driven, transparent metrics, actionable timelines, and direct accountable engagement.

A Strategy Built on Rigor and Action

Rideau-Rockcliffe faces unique, complex infrastructure and social demands. From managing arterial corridors like St. Laurent and Montreal Road to ensuring our stormwater resilience keeps pace with changing weather, we cannot rely solely on standard administrative processes.

My approach is rooted in direct, hands-on analysis. Whether it is auditing local bus reliability, evaluating low-speed feeder transit options, or tackling neighborhood-level drainage issues, I look at municipal challenges through a lens of functionality and practical engineering. It isn't just about initiating studies or passing motions; it's about making sure the end product works for the resident waiting at the bus stop or dealing with local traffic bottlenecking.

Let's keep the conversation going. What infrastructure or service fixes do you want to see prioritized in Ward 13?

#484 Housing- Boardwalk or Baltic Avenue?

Housing, Homelessness, and Intensification: Where I Stand

Peter Karwacki · Ward 13 candidate · Rideau-Rockcliffe

Every candidate says housing is a priority. That's not a position, it's a mood. Here's the actual record, the actual numbers, and what I'd do with them.

Homelessness: What's the plan?

The City already has a plan — the 10-Year Housing and Homelessness Plan (2020–2030), targeting 5,700 to 8,500 affordable and supportive units.

Three years in, roughly 466 had been completed. That's a plan quietly failing in public, with nobody at the council table treating the shortfall as the emergency it is.

I'm interested in why the existing one is underperforming and what gets fixed:

Publish the gap, not just the goal. A quarterly public dashboard comparing units promised, units funded, and units actually delivered — the same discipline I've pushed on LRT oversight and on the City's liabilities. If staff can track a $9.5-million tunnel repair timeline, it can track this.
Treat supportive housing as infrastructure, not a social file. Fast-track approvals for supportive and transitional housing the way the City fast-tracks projects it actually wants built. Right now the process timeline for supportive housing is indistinguishable from a market condo — that's a choice.
Stop treating shelter beds as the finish line. Emergency shelter capacity is a symptom response. The actual fix is permanent supportive housing with wraparound services, and the City's own numbers show we're building it at a fraction of the rate we said we would.
Find the money the way I've found it elsewhere. The City has shown it can locate hundreds of millions for cost overruns — Lansdowne 2.0's $419-million vote, the landfill purchased at $95 million against a $23-million estimate. A council that can find that kind of money for a stadium redevelopment can find a fraction of it for supportive housing, if the priority is real.

Affordable Housing: Construction and timeline

The Auditor General has already done the math nobody wants to say out loud: reaching the City's own 5,000-unit affordable housing goal requires an estimated $188.4 million in City investment and $376.7 million in federal and provincial funding still to be secured.

The federal Housing Accelerator Fund brought $176.3 million to the table. That's real money, but on the AG's own numbers it still leaves a gap in the hundreds of millions.

My approach:

Itemize the gap publicly, the way I've itemized "What Ottawa Owes" on liabilities. Residents deserve to see the funding shortfall broken down by source — City capital, federal, provincial, private non-profit — not buried in a budget line that says "housing" and moves on.
Timeline: within the first year, push for a revised, honest public target tied to capital actually committed, not the aspirational number from 2020 that the City is currently missing by an order of magnitude. A target nobody is on pace to hit isn't a plan, it's a talking point.
Use the leverage a councillor actually has — site-plan approvals, surplus City land disposition, and the Housing Accelerator Fund conditions — to require non-profit and co-op partners get priority access to City-owned land, rather than land sitting as a line item while the waitlist (roughly 12,000 households) grows.
Tie it to what I already know about capital delivery. I've spent this campaign asking why infrastructure gets approved without the servicing capacity behind it actually confirmed (see: Blair Road). Affordable housing has the mirror problem — funding gets announced without a delivery mechanism that's actually been stress-tested. Same discipline, same fix: don't announce the number until you can show the path to it.

Intensification: Is 60% realistic?

The City's Official Plan sets a 60-per-cent intensification target for growth in established areas by 2046, alongside a 1,281-hectare urban boundary expansion approved back in 2021. Is it realistic? On the numbers, it's aggressive but not fantasy — Ottawa needs to accommodate roughly 400,000 more people and close to 195,000 new homes over the plan horizon, and every serious housing economist will tell you sprawl-only growth is the more fiscally reckless option, not the safer one. Every kilometre of new pipe, road, and hydro line built outward is a long-term liability the City is signing residents up for without a matching revenue plan — which is exactly the kind of unfunded commitment I've spent this campaign flagging on other files.

So: realistic as a direction, yes. Realistic as currently resourced, no — because a target is not a delivery mechanism. The gap isn't the number, it's what's supposed to make the number happen: transit capacity, servicing capacity, and community infrastructure keeping pace with the density being approved. I've already documented what happens when growth outruns infrastructure — two federal science hubs landing on Blair Road with no public capacity study, a data-centre queue at 86 percent of the city's average electrical load with no allocation rule. Intensification without the same rigour is the same mistake in a residential jacket.

What I'd push for: every intensification approval in Ward 13 should come with a public capacity check — water, sewer, hydro, transit, school space — not as a bureaucratic afterthought, but as a condition published alongside the approval, the same way I've asked the City to do it for Blair Road and the Aviation Parkway corridor.

Zoning: Would you push for more changes?

The January 2026 zoning overhaul — four units as-of-right on every serviced lot, three-storey height permissions nearly everywhere, parking minimums eliminated — was overdue and I supported the direction. Council got that one right, unanimously, for once.

But "as-of-right" density only works if the "right" part is backed by actual capacity, and that's where I'd push next:

Pair further zoning liberalization with infrastructure disclosure, not silence. If a neighbourhood is being opened up to fourplexes, residents deserve to know whether the water and sewer mains under their street were sized for that load, the same way I've asked for Blair Road.
Push to extend as-of-right permissions closer to transit corridors and along main streets, where the City's own 15-minute-neighbourhood goals depend on it — the January bylaw was a floor, not a ceiling.
Fix the missing middle between fourplex and highrise. Ottawa still makes it hard to build the six-to-twelve-unit low-rise apartment building that used to be normal in neighbourhoods like this one before 2008-era zoning locked it out. That's the next zoning fight, and it's a quieter one than height limits but probably a bigger lever on actual supply.
Track it. Council passed a sweeping bylaw and then, true to form, hasn't built a public way to see whether it's actually producing units faster. I'd ask for that dashboard the same way I've asked for one on affordable housing.

Official Plan changes: Should the City use the province's new power?

The province, through Bill 60, has expanded ministerial authority and started delegating certain official-plan-amendment approvals to municipalities ahead of the standard review cycle — particularly around transit station areas. The question isn't whether the City can use that power before the mandatory five-year review. It's whether it uses it as a shortcut around scrutiny or as a tool applied with the same discipline it's supposed to have anyway.

My position: yes, use it — but only with the same conditions I've argued for on every other file where speed and oversight are in tension. An early amendment that unlocks housing near a transit station without a servicing capacity fight and a multi-year appeal process is a genuine win. An early amendment used to wave through a project that hasn't been checked against water, sewer, and hydro capacity is the Blair Road problem wearing a housing hat.

The condition I'd attach: any use of the early-amendment power gets a public capacity and infrastructure disclosure attached to it, the same standard I want applied to zoning and intensification approvals generally. Speed without disclosure isn't efficiency. It's just moving the accountability gap further from public view.

Other: What else is in the platform?

Preserve what already exists. Every new unit announcement gets attention; losses to renoviction, deconversion, or aging co-op stock falling out of affordability don't. A councillor's job includes protecting the affordable units the City already has, not just chasing ribbon-cuttings for new ones.
Federal-municipal coordination on land. Rideau-Rockcliffe sits next to significant federal landholdings — NCC parkway lands, the NRC Montreal Road campus, CMHC's own headquarters. CMHC is the national housing agency; if there's federal surplus land in this ward that could support affordable or supportive housing, I want that question asked publicly, the same way I've asked what's actually under Blair Road.
Ward 13-specific renter data drives the ask. In Overbrook alone, roughly 26 percent of renters are in core housing need. That's not an abstract citywide statistic — it's a number that should be attached directly to how Ward 13's council vote gets used at the table, including on projects like Lansdowne where hundreds of millions moved through council without that comparison being made explicit.
Data-centre and large-load electrical capacity ties directly into housing delivery. If Hydro Ottawa's queue is already at 86 percent of average system load with no allocation rule for who pays for network upgrades, that's not a side issue — it's a direct constraint on whether new housing intensification actually gets the electrical capacity it needs, on a timeline that matches the zoning permissions already granted.

This time around, inform yourselves. Vote differently. Vote wisely.

Vote Peter Karwacki for Rideau-Rockcliffe.

peterkarwacki.blogspot.com

Campaign Video