#557 Free Wifi in Rideau Rockcliffe?

Connecting Ward 13: Why Free Public Wi-Fi is No Longer a Luxury, It’s a Basic Utility

For too long, Canada has been home to some of the highest cellular data and internet prices in the world. In 2026, internet access is no longer a luxury item or an optional perk—it is an absolute necessity.

Whether you are a student trying to complete your homework, an entrepreneur running a small business from a local café, a senior keeping in touch with family, or a resident simply trying to check transit schedules on your commute, you need to be connected.

That is why I am announcing my policy to roll out a Free Public Wi-Fi Network across Ward 13 (Rideau-Rockcliffe). It is time we stop treating internet access as a private commodity and start treating it for what it truly is: a vital civic utility, just like clean water and well-maintained roads.

The Problem: The Digital Divide in Our Community

Right now, our neighborhood relies on a fragmented, frustrating patchwork of internet access. If you aren't paying for an expensive mobile data plan, your connectivity drops the moment you step off an O-Train platform or walk out the door of a corporate coffee chain.

This creates a hidden tax on our most vulnerable residents. Low-income families, newcomers, and seniors are routinely priced out of the digital economy. If you cannot afford a premium data package, you are effectively locked out of modern civic life. I believe our municipal government can—and must—do better.

The Solution: A Smart, Scalable Wireless Grid for Rideau-Rockcliffe

We don’t need to dig up every sidewalk or spend millions of taxpayer dollars trying to build a massive legacy network from scratch. Instead, my policy focuses on a smart, modern, and financially responsible rollout built on three core pillars:

• Anchor Institution Hubs: We will leverage the high-speed fiber lines already running into our ward's public buildings. By installing high-powered, outdoor routers on properties like the Rideau-Rockcliffe Community Resource Centre (RRCRC), local community halls, and Ottawa Community Housing complexes, we can instantly radiate free, high-speed Wi-Fi into the surrounding parks, public squares, and residential blocks.
• Public-Private Main Street Partnerships: Taking inspiration from successful global models, we will look to establish zero-cost corporate partnerships to revitalize our commercial corridors. By deploying smart, ad-supported or sponsored digital kiosks along major thoroughfares like Beechwood Avenue, St. Laurent Boulevard, and Donald Street, we can provide seamless outdoor Wi-Fi to shoppers and pedestrians at absolutely no cost to local taxpayers.
• Targeted Density Subsidies: For pockets of our ward that suffer from poor traditional infrastructure or high architectural barriers—whether in Overbrook, Manor Park, or Rockcliffe Park—we will look to integrate cutting-edge local mesh network solutions to bridge the gap. No corner of our community should be left in a digital dead zone.

Improving Affordability and Boosting Local Business

This policy is about more than just convenience; it is an economic driver.

By providing free public Wi-Fi on our main streets, we encourage foot traffic, support local businesses, and give residents a reason to linger, shop, and gather in our community spaces. More importantly, it directly improves affordability for residents. It means a student can study in Lawson Park, a remote worker can take a meeting outside, and families can shave gigabytes off their monthly cell phone bills.

As I argued in my recent post on whether basic services are a need or a right, the City of Ottawa needs to start evaluating essential services based on what vulnerable and low-income households can actually afford before setting arbitrary rates and tax targets. We cannot continue to ignore how cumulative infrastructure choices impact daily cost-of-living pressures, a theme that also cuts right through the current mayoral budget and property tax debates.

Let’s Build a Connected Ward

A progressive, liveable city is one that breaks down barriers to accessibility and ensures every single resident has the tools they need to thrive. Digital equity is social equity.

I want to hear from you. Where in Ward 13 do you experience the worst connectivity? Which parks or public spaces would benefit the most from free public Wi-Fi?

Leave a comment below, share your thoughts, and let’s work together to build a more connected, affordable, and accessible community for everyone.

---

Disclaimer: AI tools are used for drafting, research assistance, charts, references, and music; facts and positions are mine.

#556 Career College Grant Fiasco

Fix the Bad Actors, Not the Students: Better Options Than Cutting Off Career Colleges

Queen's Park had a real problem to solve. The way it has chosen to solve it risks punishing the students who did nothing wrong.

What the province did

In February, Ontario announced it would flip OSAP from mostly grants to mostly loans: starting this fall, grants can be at most 25% of a student's aid, down from up to 85%. Students at private career colleges lose grants altogether and can only borrow. In July, the ministry went further and cut off OSAP loans entirely for students at five career college locations: four Academy of Learning franchises and Citi College of Canadian Careers.

The government's stated reason was that OSAP had become unsustainable. The data shows where the growth actually was.

7 career colleges$385M

All public colleges$385M

3 Academy of Learning sites$219M

Provincial OSAP grants, 2024-25, from freedom-of-information data reported by The Canadian Press. The three Academy of Learning sites are part of the seven.

Seven career colleges received as much in grants as every publicly funded college in Ontario combined. Nearly all the recent growth in OSAP grants was at career colleges. Career Colleges Ontario, the sector's own association, flagged ten locations to the ministry in January 2025 because their OSAP applications had jumped 500 to 600 per cent in two years while the rest of the sector was flat. The ministry told five schools on May 1, 2026 they were out. That is roughly 16 months after the warning.

Allegations, not findings. Inspection reports filed in court say third parties completed coursework, sometimes entire courses in a day, at three Academy of Learning locations (Toronto, Brampton and a North York branch). The schools deny most of the allegations and are challenging the decision in court. None of it has been proven.

Is anyone in Rideau-Rockcliffe affected?

Not directly by the five cutoffs, as far as I can tell. The three locations named in court records are in Toronto, Brampton and North York, and I could not find any of the five identified as being in Ottawa. I could not confirm locations for the other two, so a student who enrolled at one of them from here would be affected through online programs.

The wider changes reach Ward 13 much more broadly:

• Public college students. Algonquin and La Cité students, including those at La Cité's Aviation Parkway campus, face the 25% grant cap this fall. Students pay for food, rent and transit out of those grants.
• University students. The same cap applies to Carleton and uOttawa students who live here, and the uOttawa student union has called it devastating for students who depend on grants.
• Anyone at a career college. Any Ottawa resident in a private career college program is now loan-only, whether or not their school is one of the five.

A councillor does not set OSAP policy. That belongs to Queen's Park. But the debt, the housing pressure and the dropouts all land in our neighbourhoods, and a ward representative can at least ask the right questions and push the province to answer them.

The problem with the blunt tool

Cutting grants for every career college student treats a small cluster of suspect schools as if they were the whole sector. Cutting an institution off mid-year leaves enrolled students with a program they cannot pay for and a school that may close. The students in the middle did what they were told: they enrolled in a registered program and applied for the aid the province offered.

There is also an oversight question. A warning arrived in January 2025 and the response came well over a year later, after hundreds of millions of dollars had gone out. A ban that arrives late and lands on everyone is not a substitute for monitoring that works.

Better options

Approach	What it does	Who it protects
Outcome-based eligibility	Tie OSAP access to published graduation, default and employment results, and to tuition compared with the public-college equivalent.	Students at good schools; taxpayers
Early-warning triggers	Flag any school whose OSAP volume jumps sharply and audit it automatically, including its recruiting agents and attendance records.	Everyone, before the money goes out
Participation verification	Require proof of active participation in asynchronous programs before disbursement, which is the exact gap the inspectors describe.	Honest online students and the system
Teach-out and student protection	If a school loses eligibility, guarantee credit transfer to a public college and relief or refunds for students who cannot finish.	Enrolled students
Tuition ceiling on OSAP	Cap eligible tuition at the public-college equivalent for the same credential.	Taxpayers and borrowers
Targeted support in shortage fields	Keep grants for vetted programs in areas like personal support work, paramedic training, trades and IT, with a sunset as public seats expand.	Students and local employers
Grandfathering and notice	Let current students keep their aid terms to completion and give a year of notice before rules change.	Students who planned around the old rules

The province has already promised 70,000 more seats in in-demand public programs. These options could run alongside that expansion, so students would have somewhere to go.

What I would measure

The province tells us how many dollars went out. It should also tell us who finished, who defaulted, who found work, and which schools produced which results. That is the same test I apply everywhere else at City Hall: outputs are not outcomes. A cheque issued is an output. A graduate with a job is an outcome.

The aim should be to remove the schools gaming the system and keep the ones doing honest work for newcomers and career-changers. Cutting everyone's grants and a few schools' loans does the first only crudely and the second not at all.

Ottawa career colleges: which of the province's registered career colleges operate in the city, and what share of their enrolment is OSAP-funded? The province's public registry is the place to start.

Our MPPs: have they raised the grant cut, the late response to the 2025 warning, or the treatment of enrolled students with the minister? A written question gets an on-record answer, or an on-record silence.

Sources

Ontario announcement of OSAP changes and funding: CTV/Canadian Press, Feb. 12, 2026.
Five schools cut off from loans: CBC News and CP24.
$385M grants to seven career colleges: CTV/Canadian Press, Aug. 2026.
Inspection reports, court challenge and the January 2025 warning: CBC News, Oct. 2026; TorontoToday.
Student reaction: CTV/Canadian Press, Feb. 16, 2026.

#555 Lead Free Water? A need or a right

Mayoral Candidates who can answer those four questions have a plan. Candidates who can only name a number have a slogan, whatever the number is.

Water Was Called a Need, Not a Right. Ottawa Still Votes on the Rate Increase Before the List of Needs.

The next council has to debate what Ottawa must do, what it can defer, and what it can afford, before it picks a tax number.

In March 2000, ministers met in The Hague for the Second World Water Forum. Their declaration described access to safe water and sanitation as "basic human needs." It did not call them rights. That was a deliberate choice, and it still shapes how cities talk about water today.

If water is a need

It can be priced, metered and rationed. The question becomes who can pay. A household that can't is a customer problem.

If water is a right

Government carries a duty to ensure access. Affordability, shut-offs and minimum service become obligations someone has to answer for.

How the question was settled, and not settled

• 2000, The Hague. The ministerial declaration frames water and sanitation as basic human needs.
• 2009, Istanbul. A group of countries formally challenged that framing at the next forum. Canada was reported among the governments backing "need" over "right."
• July 28, 2010, United Nations. The General Assembly recognized access to clean water and sanitation as a human right, 122 to 0. About 41 countries abstained, Canada among them. Canada's representative said the move was premature and left the scope of the right undefined.
• 2012. Canada reversed course and declared support for the right.

So Canada has moved, in about a decade, from resisting the language to accepting it. The harder question is whether the budgets that fund water have moved with it.

Ottawa prices water as a utility

The City of Ottawa states that water, wastewater and stormwater services are fully funded through charges on the water bill. That is the model: user rates, set by council, covering the full cost. Council approved a 4.3 per cent overall increase in 2024. In the 2026 budget, water rates rise by an average of $47.30 per household.

Behind those rates is a long-term plan. Council approved a strategy to maintain aging water infrastructure through new debt and higher water rates. Staff called it prudent. Some councillors and advocates called it short-sighted. That plan covers water only. The matching plan for infrastructure paid through property taxes, such as roads, facilities and parks, came later, and neither plan had been updated since 2017.

The bigger bill sitting behind the water bill

Ottawa's 2025 asset management plans identified a $10.8 billion funding gap over ten years, across a roughly $90 billion portfolio of assets. The long-range financial plan projects a $169 million funding gap through 2035, which would add $1.7 billion in new debt on top of an existing base of $3 billion.

Ottawa property tax increases, by budget year

2023

2.5%

2024

2.5%

2025

3.9%

2026

3.75%

The 2026 increase adds $166 to the average property tax bill.

Now compare that with the campaign. The mayoral candidates are pledging tax increases from zero to roughly two and a half per cent, and several also promise to deal with the infrastructure gap. Those promises can only both hold if something else gives: more debt, more deferral, higher user fees, or fewer services. Water shows what "user fees" means in practice: the households with the least room carry the same rate increase as everyone else.

What a council should have to answer

Treating water as a right, not just a need, gives council a test it can actually run. Before the next water rate is set, members should be able to answer in public:

1. What does the water and sewer bill cost a low-income household as a share of its income, and how has that share changed?
2. What affordability support exists, how many households use it, and who is not reaching it?
3. What is the shut-off policy, and what does each shut-off and turn-on cost the household?
4. What does deferring the work cost later, in dollars and in failures?
5. Who decided, and where is that decision recorded?

A council that only votes on the rate is choosing the answer before asking the question.

Necessary versus affordable

Water is the cleanest example, but the same logic applies to the whole budget. Some things are necessary and non-negotiable. Some are necessary but get more expensive each year they are deferred. Some are choices. Today's budget process blends all three into one number and then asks whether residents can afford it.

The next council should reverse the order. Sort the list first: what must be done, what must be maintained, what is a choice. Attach a real cost and a named decision-maker to each item. Then set the rate. "Affordable" is not a fact that arrives from outside. It is the result of choices council makes, and residents are entitled to see them being made.

Sources

• World Water Council, The Hague 2000 forum summary: ministers recognized water and sanitation as basic human needs.
• Environment News Service report via Environment Information Center, "Access to Water: A Human Right or a Human Need?": counter-declaration and the governments supporting "need." Verify which forum and the number of countries before quoting; accounts differ (about 20 to 24).
• Canadian Consulting Engineer, UN votes on access to water and sanitation as human right, Aug. 16, 2010: 122 in favour, none against, 41 abstentions including Canada; Canada's statement that the resolution was premature. Other sources count 42 abstentions.
• Water Canada, Exercising the Human Right to Water and Sanitation (drawing on Karen Busby, Canadian Journal of Human Rights, 2016): Canada changed position in 2012.
• City of Ottawa, Water utility rates and fees: fully funded through water bill charges; 4.3 per cent increase in 2024. Check the current fee schedule before citing shut-off and turn-on charges.
• CTV News Ottawa, 11 things that will cost more in the 2026 draft budget: 3.75 per cent tax increase, $166 on the average bill, water rates up an average of $47.30.
• CTV News Ottawa, Lawson promises 0% tax hike in 2027: tax increases by year (2.5, 2.5, 3.9, 3.75) and the mayoral candidates' tax pledges.
• CBC News, City plans to take on debt to cover billions in infrastructure repairs, June 4, 2025: $10.8 billion gap; water plan funded by debt and rate increases; plans not updated since 2017.
• Capital Current, City begins grappling with projected $10.8-billion infrastructure gap: $90 billion portfolio, $169 million funding gap, $1.7 billion in new debt on a $3 billion base.

Set the Tax Number After the Spending Review, Not Before

By Peter Karwacki, candidate for Ward 13 (Rideau-Rockcliffe). Posted October 10, 2026.

Ottawa’s mayoral candidates are now trading property tax numbers. One promises a freeze, one promises a cap, one promises a new levy, and one declines to name a figure at all. Before treating any of those numbers as a plan, it is worth asking what a number set in advance actually tells a voter.

What the last pledge delivered

In 2022, Mark Sutcliffe pledged to hold property tax increases to between 2 and 2.5 per cent in the first two years of the term.^[5] Council capped increases at 2.5 per cent in 2023 and 2024, then raised them 3.9 per cent in 2025 and 3.75 per cent in 2026.^[2] The 2026 increase added $166 to the average property tax bill, alongside higher OC Transpo fares, water and wastewater rates and recreation fees.^[1]

Figure 1. Ottawa property tax increases by budget year

Sources: CTV News Ottawa [2][5]. The 2022 pledge covered the first two years of the term only, so 2025 and 2026 sit outside its stated scope.

To be fair to the incumbent, the pledge held for the years it covered. The point is that a two-year number says little about years three and four. Compounded, the four budgets add up to roughly 13.3 per cent (my arithmetic: 1.025 × 1.025 × 1.039 × 1.0375).

What is on offer this time

Candidate	Property tax position	What the coverage does not say
Mark Sutcliffe	Cap increases at 2–2.5% in the first two years, find another $250 million in savings, and add a one-year deferral for residents hit by a major disruption.[2]	Years three and four of the term.
Alex Lawson	0% in 2027, 1% in 2028, then at or below 2% in each of the next two years. His campaign says this saves the average homeowner $759 over the term compared with Sutcliffe’s promise.[1]	The specific spending changes that pay for it. The $759 figure is a campaign claim.
Jeff Leiper	A one per cent infrastructure levy on tax bills, with increases to be “affordable, reasonable and predictable,” but no base target.[3]	The base increase the levy would sit on top of.
Neil Saravanamuttoo	No target. A comprehensive spending review first, ending programs that no longer serve residents.[4]	When the review would report, and who would run it.

Figure 2. Stated increases for the first two budgets of the next term

Sources: CTV News Ottawa [1][2]. Leiper (one per cent levy, no base target) and Saravanamuttoo (no target) are not charted because neither has stated a base increase. Sutcliffe’s cap covers only the first two years.

Over four years, Lawson’s stated path (0, 1, then at or below 2 and 2), would compound to no more than about 5.1 per cent (my arithmetic). That is a very large difference from the last term. It is also the number with the least public explanation of how it is reached.

Why the order matters

A number set without the books is a guess. Saravanamuttoo’s stated reason for declining to name a figure is that there is not enough information today to say what it should be.^[4] That is a defensible position, and it is the one that starts in the right place. A freeze or a cap is a promise about the outcome, made before anyone has shown what has to move to deliver it.

The easy savings may already be spent. The city manager told council during the 2026 budget debate that efficiency measures had realized more than $252 million in savings this term.^[4] Sutcliffe’s campaign now promises another $250 million.^[2] Any review worth the name has to say what is left to find, and where.

Holding the rate moves the cost somewhere else. The 2026 budget raised property taxes together with transit fares, water and wastewater rates and recreation fees.^[1] A lower property tax number can coexist with a higher total bill, or with deferred maintenance. Leiper’s infrastructure levy makes the opposite argument, that catching up on repairs costs less than replacing later.^[3] A voter comparing candidates should see the base increase and the levy added together as one figure.

The real question is necessary versus affordable. Which services is the city obliged to provide, what can residents afford to pay for them, and who gets to decide? Water is the clearest example: it is not optional, so the debate is about how it is paid for, not whether. A tax rate is the answer to that debate. It should not be the opening bid.

What I would ask every mayoral candidate to commit to

• Name who runs the review. It should be someone outside the departments being reviewed, with access to the real numbers.
• Set a scope and a deadline. The results should be public before the first budget of the term is tabled, not after it is passed.
• Show the trade-off for any target. For every property tax figure, list the consequences for services, user fees and capital spending, including liabilities that sit outside the headline operating budget.
• Report against the promise every year. One page: what was promised, what council passed, and what fees moved alongside the property tax rate.

Candidates who can answer those four questions have a plan. Candidates who can only name a number have a slogan, whatever the number is.

Notes on the numbers.

Pledge details are as reported by CTV News Ottawa and the Sutcliffe campaign as of October 10, 2026. Campaign savings figures, including the $759 and the $250 million, are the campaigns’ own claims and have not been independently verified. The compounded totals of 13.3 per cent and 5.1 per cent are my own arithmetic from the annual percentages. The 5.1 per cent figure treats Lawson’s “at or below two per cent” years as exactly two per cent, so it is an upper bound.

References

1. CTV News Ottawa. “Lawson promises 0% tax hike in 2027 if elected Ottawa mayor.” ctvnews.ca
2. CTV News Ottawa. “Sutcliffe pledges to cap tax increases at 2–2.5% if re-elected Ottawa mayor.” ctvnews.ca
3. CTV News Ottawa. “Leiper pledges to add 1% infrastructure levy to property tax increases if elected Ottawa mayor.” ctvnews.ca
4. CTV News Ottawa. “Saravanamuttoo promises spending review at Ottawa City Hall if elected mayor.” ctvnews.ca
5. CTV News Ottawa. “Sutcliffe pledging to keep to a 2 to 2.5 per cent property tax cap if elected mayor of Ottawa” (2022 campaign). ottawa.ctvnews.ca

Disclosure: I am a candidate for councillor in Ward 13 and I endorse Neil Saravanamuttoo for mayor.

#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

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

$ #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?

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

```

#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?

#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.

#547 - You actually want more of the same?

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

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

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

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

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

The 1950s: expert consensus, no challenge

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

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

The LRT: the same pattern, with better paperwork

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

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

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

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

And then, a medal

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

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

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

Asking questions shouldn’t take months

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

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

The pattern

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

How to break out

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

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

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

What I’m asking for

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

Vote Differently, Vote Wisely, Vote for Peter Karwacki for Rideau Rockcliffe.