Lord, Give me a sign!

Why I Do It This Way

Every campaign has a platform. Fewer have a reason the platform is built the way it is. Here's mine.

I tell people the truth, not what they want to hear

"Constituent relations" in this city too often means managing how people feel about a decision, not telling them what it cost, who voted for it, and what it did or didn't fix. My assumption is the opposite: residents can handle the real numbers and the real gap between promise and delivery. They don't need protecting from it — they need it published.

An incumbent's livelihood depends on people feeling good about the last four years. Mine doesn't. That asymmetry is what lets me say the uncomfortable thing instead of the reassuring one.

Evidence first, conclusions second

Thirteen years at IBM and Cognos, then a PMP and a data analyst — that background shows up in how I work. I start with the data (311 tickets, audited financials, attendance records, Auditor General reports) and let it tell me the story, not the other way around.

Sometimes it surprises me. Pulling 311 data on flooding in West Rockcliffe didn't turn up a simple crisis narrative — it turned up 123,000 tickets bulk-closed in six days, a data-integrity problem bigger than any one flood. Not the story I went looking for. The one the evidence gave me.

Structures, not scapegoats

It would be easier to make this campaign about one councillor's failures. I've tried not to, and where I've slipped, the results told me why: pieces attacking individuals underperform pieces attacking the structure. Readers trust "this system produces bad outcomes regardless of who's in the seat" more than "this person is bad" — because it's usually true.

Urban wards get outvoted 16-9 by suburban ones. Incumbents win nearly every time; turnout hovers around 40%. Those are structural facts — true no matter who holds the seat. So my energy goes there: ward boundary reform, a consolidated liability statement, a funding source attached to every debt motion. Fixes outlast elections. Grievances don't.

Outcomes over outputs

Municipal politics runs on outputs — motions passed, statements made, committees struck. I care whether the thing the motion was supposed to fix actually got fixed. A councillor can call for transit oversight for years without sitting on the Transit Commission. A city can pass an Anti-Racism Strategy with no published way to measure it working. A safe-workplace program can lose 40% of its budget while the audit language stays just as vague.

None of it requires bad intentions — just someone willing to check output against outcome and publish the difference, even when it's inconvenient.

One term, said out loud

I've committed publicly to a single term, and I think it matters more than it sounds. Most of what's wrong with this council isn't corruption — it's the caution that comes from needing re-election. Committee seats skipped because they're exposed. Audits not pushed because you'll sit across from that department again next year. One term removes that gravity from my decisions. Not a virtue — a structural fact about my incentives, and I'd rather you know it now than discover its absence later.

What this looks like in practice

It's why a post from me is as likely to be a liability-management plan or an LRT bearing-failure timeline as a stump speech. Why I file records requests instead of press releases. Why, when criticized, I check if the criticism is right before deciding how to respond — which is also why early pushback on one piece settled, once people read the underlying facts, into roughly two-to-one support.

I don't expect agreement on every conclusion. I do think you should be able to see how I got there, check the numbers yourself, and hold me to the standard I'm applying to everyone else. That's the approach. Everything else is the platform built on top of it.

Gimmicks and Backslapping Endorsements

Ward 13 — AccountabilityRideau-Rockcliffe

Endorsements Aren't a Position. They're a Substitute for One.

Gimmicks and back-slapping fill the space where a debate should be. Policy is hard to formulate and hard to understand — which is exactly why it's so easy to trade it in for somebody's word for it.

Peter Karwacki · Candidate, Ward 13

Policy is hard. It's hard to formulate, hard to model the trade-offs of, and hard to explain in a way that doesn't put people to sleep. An endorsement, by contrast, is easy. It's a name, a photo, a quote about character. It costs the reader nothing to accept and the endorser nothing to give — and increasingly, that ease is doing the work that debate is supposed to do in this election.

There are two versions of this happening in Ottawa right now, and they're not the same problem, even though they produce the same emptiness.

The Challenger's Shortcut

The first is familiar: a candidate picks up a name-brand endorsement and lets it stand in for a platform. Vote for me, because someone you already trust says to. It's a real transaction — the endorser is putting something on the line for someone who hasn't held office yet — but it still isn't a substitute for a position on the St-Laurent tunnel, on OPS Board oversight, on where the city's off-balance-sheet liabilities are headed. An endorsement can open the door to a conversation. It's not the conversation.

The Incumbent's Closed Loop

The second version is quieter and, I'd argue, worse: incumbents endorsing incumbents. Colleague-to-colleague, council-to-council, the congratulatory back-slap dressed up as civic guidance. A great partner on council. Always fights for the ward. Proud to support. It's the political equivalent of "I'm OK, you're OK" — mutual validation between two people who already hold power, asking for four more years of the same.

What a challenger endorsement risks

The endorser is backing an unproven outcome. There's no guaranteed return — if the challenger loses, the endorser gets nothing back.

It's a bet, which means it's at least a claim. Someone is saying: I looked at this person and I think they're right for the job.

What an incumbent-incumbent endorsement risks

Nothing. Both parties already hold office. The "risk" is reciprocal and self-insuring — you back me this cycle, the goodwill compounds for next time.

It requires no engagement with either record. It's not a claim about performance at all. It's a relationship being described as a reason.

Ask what an incumbent-incumbent endorsement actually cites. Not in the abstract — read the next one you see. Does it name a vote? A motion? An outcome delivered versus one promised? Or does it stop at "great colleague" and "always in the community"? My prediction, based on everything I've read through King's own newsletters this cycle, is that you'll come up close to empty. That's not a coincidence. Content engineered to generate zero friction is content engineered to never be checked.

The tone you trust isn't the record you're voting on.

That's the mechanism underneath all of this, and it isn't limited to politics — it's a well-documented failure mode in how people extend trust to anything that stays consistently pleasant in tone, regardless of whether the underlying claims hold up. A newsletter that never mentions the tunnel closure sitting in its own ward reads exactly as trustworthy as one that does, if tone is the only thing being evaluated. Back-slapping endorsements work the same way: they borrow the warmth of an existing relationship and let it stand in for scrutiny nobody actually performed.

Where I Sit on This, Plainly

Disclosure

I have one endorsement — maybe two — and both were unsolicited. That's a thin list next to the reciprocal networks incumbents build over multiple terms in office, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

But thin and real is a better foundation than thick and free. Nobody backing a first-time or long-shot challenger is doing it to protect a future favour. There's nothing in it for them except agreeing with the argument. That's a higher bar than incumbents clear for each other by default, and it's worth saying plainly instead of padding the comparison to look symmetrical. It isn't.

What Would Actually Move This

Not fewer endorsements — better ones. An endorsement that means something says what it's actually backing:

• Which specific votes, motions, or delivered outcomes the endorsement is based on — not just "a great colleague."
• Whether the endorser has anything to gain from the relationship continuing, stated openly rather than left implicit.
• What the endorser would point to if asked to defend the claim on the merits, not the friendship.

Held to that standard, most of what currently passes for endorsement in this race — mine included — would have to either get specific or go quiet. I'd take that trade. The alternative is an election decided by who has the warmest network, which is just incumbency with a friendlier name.

Rideau-Rockcliffe residents can find the full record — capital project oversight, OPS Board findings, transit accountability, and the rest — on this blog and on Unpublished.ca.

Ward 13 · October 2026

#441 Future LRT Oriented rule mismatch - how ai could have helped

Orléans Parking Schlmozzle: Policy Ambition Meets the LRT That Still Isn’t There

August 20, 2026

In Orléans, the gap between what Ottawa’s new zoning rules promise and what daily life actually delivers is widening in real time. The city’s 2026 zoning overhaul eliminated minimum resident parking requirements for new multi-unit buildings, banking hard on transit-oriented development. The theory is clean: build dense housing near future rapid transit, let the market and the train sort the rest, and free up land and construction costs for more homes. The practice, right now, looks messier.

The clearest example sits at 530 Brisebois Crescent and 265 Centrum Boulevard. Forum Asset Management’s proposal for roughly 1,500 units across five buildings (nine to 40 storeys) offers 136 visitor parking spaces and zero dedicated resident spots. It leans entirely on proximity to the planned Place d’Orléans station on the O-Train Line 1 East Extension. On August 19, the Planning and Housing Committee sent the application back to staff for further review after Councillor Matthew Luloff and local businesses flagged the obvious problem: Orléans is still a car-dependent suburban community, and the LRT that is supposed to change that equation is not yet running.

That LRT delay is not a minor footnote. The East Extension (Blair to Trim, five new stations including Place d’Orléans) reached substantial completion in early March 2026. Stations are finished, systems are largely commissioned, and informal testing has occurred. Yet formal 21-day trial running has not started. The bottleneck is train availability. Ongoing cartridge-bearing “spalling” issues have kept large parts of the fleet offline; officials need roughly 46–54 vehicles available before trial running can begin. As of mid-August, OC Transpo was still “ramping up final readiness activities,” targeting enough vehicles by the end of the month, with no firm public opening date announced. The extension will miss the August 30 fall service change. What began as a 2022 target, then 2024, then early or mid-2026, is now sliding later into 2026 at best—if the latest recovery holds.

This is the lived-experience side of the ledger. Residents of Orléans still transfer by bus to reach Blair or other Line 1 stations. Commutes remain among the city’s longest and most crowded. Meanwhile, the zoning framework treats the station as if it is already delivering reliable, high-frequency rail service. Visitor parking is retained and capped (0.1 spaces per unit after modest exemptions, with per-building limits). Loading spaces are not required for residential uses. Accessible, EV, and bicycle requirements remain. Only the general-purpose resident stall minimum was zeroed out. The policy is coherent on paper if the LRT opens on schedule and mode share shifts quickly. It is far less coherent when the train is still months away and car ownership patterns in the east end have not magically changed.

The consequences are predictable. Move-ins, trades, deliveries, overnight guests, and the many households that still need a vehicle for childcare, groceries, medical appointments, or shift work will compete for the limited visitor supply and surrounding streets. Existing residents and businesses already report pressure. Future occupants of these towers—who may have chosen the address partly because parking was never promised—will discover the friction only after they move in. That is the classic sequencing failure: housing policy races ahead of the infrastructure it depends on.

None of this means the long-term direction is wrong. Dense housing near rapid transit is sound urban policy, and underground parking is expensive. The By-law’s more granular approach (keeping visitor, loading for non-residential, bike, EV, and accessible rules while dropping the blanket resident minimum) shows deliberate design rather than pure ideology. Staff studied visitor spillover and chose not to weaken those requirements further. But ambition without delivery creates exactly the schmozzle now visible in Orléans. The LRT’s repeated delays—construction, then fleet reliability—have turned a future-oriented rule into a present-day mismatch.

The committee’s referral of the Forum application is a small, useful pause. It forces a second look at whether a 1,500-unit project with zero resident parking can function in today’s Orléans rather than the Orléans that exists only on the transit map. Residents who end up cursing the lack of foresight will not be wrong if the gap between policy and reality continues to grow while the trains stay in the yard. The ambition is clear. The lived experience, today and for the foreseeable tomorrow, is still waiting for the train.

How AI Could Have Been a Game Changer in Orléans

Catching the parking–LRT mismatch before it reached committee

The August 2026 referral of the 1,500-unit Forum proposal at Brisebois Crescent and Centrum Boulevard was predictable. Ottawa’s new zoning rules allowed zero resident parking on the assumption that the Place d’Orléans LRT station would deliver reliable service. Reality lagged: the East Extension reached substantial completion in March 2026 but still lacked a firm opening date by mid-August because of ongoing fleet issues. The result was last-minute political friction, staff rework, and uncertainty for the developer and future residents.

A properly deployed AI system could have surfaced this exact mismatch months earlier — turning a reactive crisis into a managed risk. Here’s how.

1. Continuous Reality Checking

AI excels at reconciling multiple live data streams that humans review only periodically:

• OC Transpo progress memos, independent certifier reports, and fleet-availability numbers
• Original versus revised LRT timelines (2022 → 2024 → early 2026 → sliding later)
• Zoning assumptions embedded in By-law 2026-50 and the Secondary Plan
• Current car-ownership and modal-split data for Orléans

When the probability of timely LRT revenue service dropped below a defined threshold while a zero-parking application was under review, the system would have generated an automatic, high-priority alert. No one would have needed to “notice” the gap in a committee report.

2. Forward-Looking Scenario Modeling

Instead of a single optimistic assumption, AI can run dozens of realistic futures in seconds:

• “LRT opens Q4 2026 with full frequency”
• “LRT opens mid-2027 with reduced initial service”
• “Further fleet delays push reliable service into 2027”

For each scenario it would forecast on-street parking demand, visitor-stall overflow, trades and move-in pressure, and spillover onto neighbouring streets. Decision-makers would have seen quantified risk ranges rather than a binary “transit is coming” narrative.

The practical difference: Staff and the applicant could have adjusted parking ratios, phased requirements, or added temporary measures while the application was still in early review — avoiding the public referral and redesign cycle that is now underway.

3. Early Intervention During Policy Design

The same monitoring layer could have operated while By-law 2026-50 was being finalized. It would have tested the new zero-minimum parking rules against actual Stage 2 delivery risk across every major station area. Orléans would have been flagged as higher-risk than stations already in service, prompting either tighter interim rules or explicit contingency language. Preventing the mismatch at the policy stage is far cheaper than correcting it project by project.

4. What AI Would Not Have Done

AI does not replace political judgment. It cannot force council to slow housing targets or compel the LRT to open on schedule. What it does is remove plausible deniability. Once the mismatch is quantified, transparent, and repeatedly surfaced, the cost of ignoring it becomes visible to everyone — staff, councillors, the developer, and the public.

Bottom Line

The data needed to spot this sequencing failure was already public. An AI system focused on “policy assumptions versus infrastructure reality” would have made the gap impossible to overlook. The result would have been earlier course correction, less wasted staff time, lower redesign costs, and reduced risk of future resident frustration. That is the concrete, near-term value of AI in municipal decision-making: turning foreseeable mismatches into manageable ones before they reach the committee floor.

Prepared 20 August 2026 — based on publicly available timelines, committee actions, and the structure of Zoning By-law 2026-50.

#440 And the library board?

Municipal Accountability & Governance

In the Room, but Out of Sight: OPL, Ādisōke, and Rawlson King’s Oversight Question

Published: June 2026 • Analysis & Commentary • City Hall Watch

When scrutinizing municipal governance, the standard critique usually focuses on absence—councillors missing critical committee votes or skipping sessions. But true accountability isn't just about attendance; it’s about what happens when a representative is sitting directly at the decision-making table.

Consider the ongoing saga surrounding Ottawa’s flagship joint facility, Ādisōke—the landmark central library and Library and Archives Canada build. While city transit debates often center on whether representatives are present for key oversight meetings, the Ādisōke project presents a fundamentally different and sharper accountability question.

Rideau-Rockcliffe Councillor Rawlson King has served as an Ottawa Public Library (OPL) Board trustee since 2021. Critically, he does not occupy a passive observer seat. King sits on the Finance and Facilities Ad hoc Committee—the specific body tasked with direct fiscal oversight and capital monitoring of the project.

The Escalating Budget Trajectory

What began as a visionary municipal project has seen its budget expand significantly over successive estimates and approvals. The financial trajectory tells a clear story:

Ādisōke Cost Expansion Timeline

2018 Estimate

$175 Million initial scope

2021 Revision

Budget adjusted to $306 Million

Approved Plan

Formal allocation set at $334 Million

May 2026

Council approves an additional $18.5M top-up as the project reaches funding limits

June 2026

Total projected cost reaches $352M+; completion targeted for Dec 2026 (a full year behind schedule)

By May 2026, city staff reports explicitly noted that the facility had reached the limits of its approved funding, requiring council to vote on an additional $18.5 million injection. Furthermore, the city has indicated it is not ruling out legal action against the contractor, highlighting growing contractual and delivery friction.

The "Culture of Silence" and Legal Privilege

The public discourse surrounding these delays and budget expansions reached a boiling point in May 2026. Columnist Brigitte Pellerin highlighted what she characterized as a "culture of silence" at City Hall, pointing out that detailed briefings regarding the project’s delay were restricted to closed-door sessions for a select group of councillors under the umbrella of "reasonable prospect of litigation."

"When major public infrastructure projects face soaring costs and multi-year delays, privilege shields technical details—but it shouldn't shield trustees from basic public accountancy."

City Governance Commentary

When pressed, OPL Board Chair Matt Luloff declined to comment publicly, citing legal sensitivities surrounding potential litigation. It is vital to acknowledge this nuance: legal privilege genuinely limits what any trustee or councillor can disclose regarding confidential vendor negotiations or pending court matters. Fairness dictates acknowledging that King or any other trustee cannot unilaterally broadcast privileged legal advice.

The Core Accountability Ask

However, legal privilege over litigation details does not erase the broader obligation of fiscal oversight. The seat King occupies exists precisely to track early warning indicators, query cost escalations before they require emergency top-ups, and ensure value for taxpayers.

The key accountability distinction here is critical:

• Absenteeism Framing: "No committee seat, so no direct mechanism for accountability."
• Presence Framing: "The seat exists, the red flags fall squarely within the committee's mandate, yet there is little public record of what oversight questions were pressed."

The concrete ask is simple and fair: Councillor King should clarify for his constituents and Ottawa taxpayers what structural oversight questions, risk assessments, or budget warnings he raised at the Finance and Facilities Committee level during Ādisōke's expansion—even if the underlying legal specifics remain confidential behind closed doors.

For further information on municipal governance and city council proceedings, consult official records published on the City of Ottawa portal or review library governance updates via the Ottawa Public Library. For broader media context and commentary, refer to coverage by the Ottawa Citizen.

Ward 13 Parks & Infrastructure

Managing Expectations at Bathgate Park: Remediate Now, Upgrade Later?

Published: August 2026 • Community Analysis • Rideau-Rockcliffe Notes

When residents in Carson Grove attend public consultations for Bathgate Park asking for modernized amenities, the official response often lands on a familiar reality: capital budgets are tightly constrained, and broader facility upgrades are deferred to future planning cycles.

Recent public consultations conducted via Engage Ottawa and community drop-ins hosted by Ward 13 representatives highlight a distinct gap between resident desires for upgraded park features and the actual funded scope of city work.

The Approved Scope: Removal and Naturalization

The primary project planned for Bathgate Park involves removing the end-of-life basketball court, which features cracked, uneven surfacing and shifted posts. Because the court sits deep in a low-lying, poorly visible section of the park, the city’s funded design focuses on:

• Infrastructure Removal: Demolishing the old basketball court surfacing and structural elements.
• Reforestation: Importing new soil, grading, and planting native species (such as Red Mulberry, Tulip Trees, and Swamp White Oak) to restore the natural canopy.
• Basic Amenities: Refreshing park signage, repaving central pathways, and adding two new waste receptacles.

Bathgate Park Project Scope

Active Phase (2026/2027): Basketball court removal, soil grading, native tree planting, pathway renewal, and new waste bins.

Deferred Requests: Improved lighting, broader seating additions, and replacement sports/recreational facilities marked strictly as "follow-on projects" pending future funding allocation.

The Capital Funding Divide

During community feedback sessions, residents consistently raise broader priorities—such as improved lighting, enhanced seating, waste management upgrades, or replacement active-sports infrastructure. City engagement summaries explicitly categorize these expanded requests as items "to be addressed as follow-on projects," meaning they do not fit within the current capital allocation.

"When park remediation focuses on decommission-and-naturalize due to budget constraints, communities are left asking when true facility investments will arrive."

While programs like the Community Partnership Minor Capital Program offer partial matching grants (up to $15,000 or 50% of costs) for community-led park enhancements, larger structural projects depend entirely on competitive municipal capital cycles. For residents looking for full-scale amenity upgrades, the official message remains one of phased patience until funding opens up.

To review community engagement summaries or track updates on ward projects, visit the Engage Ottawa Bathgate Park Portal or consult the Rideau-Rockcliffe Ward Office.

#439 Tomorrow Nominations Close

The Truth, Once Every Four Years

Nominations close tomorrow. Here's why that moment matters more than the paperwork.

I tell people the truth, for their own good. Incumbents tell people what they want to hear, for their own good. That's not a slogan — it's a description of the incentives built into the system we vote in. And tomorrow, August 21, is Nomination Day: the last day anyone can file to run for council, mayor, or school board trustee in this October's election^[1]. Whether or not you're one of those people, tomorrow marks the start of the only window Rideau-Rockcliffe gets, once every four years, to actually debate civics out loud.

My livelihood or popularity does not hinge on the outcome of this election. That's what makes it possible for me to say things an incumbent structurally cannot — and it's why I'd rather spend this window telling you what I actually found than managing how it sounds.

1. Incumbents in Ottawa Win. Basically All the Time.

In the 2022 municipal election, every single incumbent Ottawa city councillor who ran for re-election won^[2]. Thirteen incumbents ran. Thirteen incumbents kept their seats. The only turnover on council came from the nine councillors who chose not to run again, and the mayor's chair, which was open.

Source: CBC News, "Ottawa voters send new faces to city hall, don't boot any incumbents" (Oct. 2022); Horizon Ottawa, cited by CBC News (Jan. 2026)

Heading into 2026, that pattern is why advocacy groups like Horizon Ottawa have shifted strategy entirely — from backing individual challengers to publishing incumbents' voting records directly, because unseating a sitting councillor is, in their own words, a much greater challenge than an open-seat race^[2].

If the incumbent's seat is effectively guaranteed regardless of performance, there is no electoral cost to telling residents what they want to hear instead of what's actually happening.

2. Most Eligible Voters Don't Vote — Which Locks the Pattern In

In the 2022 election, 316,254 of 722,227 eligible Ottawa electors cast a ballot — a turnout of 43.79%, the highest since 2010^[3]. That means well over half of eligible voters didn't vote at all. Historically, Ottawa municipal turnout has often sat closer to the 40% range or lower — in 1988, for example, lack of competition dropped turnout to about one third of the electorate^[4].

Source: City of Ottawa, "2022 Report on the Elections Office"

Low, inconsistent turnout means the incumbent doesn't need to persuade a broad electorate — they need to hold onto a small, reliable base while avoiding anything that might mobilize opposition. Comfortable messaging does exactly that. Uncomfortable truths risk stirring up the very engagement an incumbent doesn't need and doesn't want.

3. Urban Priorities Get Structurally Outvoted at the Council Table

This isn't just about who wins wards — it's about what happens once councillors get to the table. Ottawa's council has long had a documented urban-suburban/rural split, sometimes called the "Watson club," where a mostly-suburban bloc has repeatedly outvoted urban-core priorities on committees and at council^[5]. On the planning committee specifically, Capital Ward Coun. Shawn Menard has pointed out that the ten-member committee is dominated nine-to-one by councillors from Ottawa's suburbs and rural areas, leaving urban-core concerns consistently outnumbered^[6]. The same dynamic shows up in full council votes — Ottawa council voted 15–6 to expand the suburban boundary in 2020^[7], and in 2022, the five dissenting votes against the $95M Taggart landfill purchase all came from rural or east-end wards, illustrating how consistently a suburban/rural majority carries council decisions.

Source: CBC News, "Is it time to split up Ottawa's planning committee?"

Ward 13 sits in the urban core. When our priorities — transit oversight, aging infrastructure, safety at the St-Laurent LRT tunnel — reach council, they're being decided by a table that structurally leans away from us. An incumbent who wants to stay comfortable with that table has every incentive to minimize how loudly they raise those priorities. I don't answer to that table. I answer to Ward 13.

Tomorrow Is the Moment This Window Opens

Put together, the pattern is simple: incumbents almost never lose, most residents don't vote, and even the residents who do vote in the urban core get structurally outvoted once decisions reach the council table. None of that rewards telling people uncomfortable truths. All of it rewards telling people what keeps them calm and disengaged.

But the window to push back against that pattern is real, and it's short. Rideau-Rockcliffe only gets a moment like this once every four years — a stretch of weeks where the ward's actual priorities are, briefly, up for open debate instead of buried in a newsletter or a committee agenda nobody read. Tomorrow's nomination deadline is the start of it.

That doesn't have to mean knocking on doors or filing paperwork. It can mean showing up to an all-candidates debate and asking a real question instead of a polite one. It can mean reading past the newsletter and checking a councillor's actual voting record. It can mean posting your own take publicly instead of keeping it to a group chat. It can mean telling a neighbour why you're voting the way you are, and asking them why they're voting theirs.

However you're able to engage, engage. Run, if you were considering it — nominations close tomorrow. If you're not running, show up to a debate, ask a hard question, read a voting record, talk to a neighbour. My livelihood or popularity doesn't depend on the outcome of this election, which is exactly why I'm telling you this instead of something more comfortable: this window closes fast, and Rideau-Rockcliffe doesn't get another shot at it until 2030.

References

1. City of Ottawa, "Key dates for the 2026 Municipal Elections" — Nomination Day is August 21, 2026
2. CBC News, "Ottawa voters send new faces to city hall, don't boot any incumbents" (Oct. 25, 2022); CBC News, "Sea of incumbent Ottawa councillors planning to seek re-election in 2026" (Jan. 13, 2026)
3. City of Ottawa, "2022 Report on the Elections Office" — 316,254 of 722,227 eligible electors voted, 43.79% turnout
4. Wikipedia, "1988 Ottawa municipal election"
5. Wikipedia, "2022 Ottawa municipal election" — background on the "Watson club" urban/suburban council split
6. CBC News, "Is it time to split up Ottawa's planning committee?"
7. CBC News, "Council approves major expansion of city's suburbs" (2020) — 15–6 council vote

>

#438 LRT and OCTranspo, no easy fixes at this point and "Scrap it" is not an option

Are we doomed? History Shows Cancellation Is a Disaster Ottawa has done this before. In 2006, Larry O'Brien's zero means zero city council cancelled the proposed North-South LRT project, overturning 55 prior votes to do so. That decision set transit back by over a decade and cost taxpayers millions in penalties and wasted planning. Repeating that mistake would be catastrophic.
No choice but to stay the course.
But... no more secrecy!!!!
class=