What we advocate: The STRH position column explains how Strong Richmond Hill applies Strong Towns principles locally. Use it as a reference when comparing candidates’ answers. It is not a candidate rating or endorsement. Priority indicates importance to a candidate, not agreement with our position.
| Issue | STRH position What we advocate | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gentle Density |
Allow more small housing options
Make better use of existing neighbourhoods and infrastructure. Why we support this: Gentle DensityWe support allowing homes such as duplexes, fourplexes and small apartment buildings in existing neighbourhoods. Incremental growth can add housing choices and broaden the tax base using infrastructure already in place. Changes should be assessed against local servicing capacity and long-term costs. |
No clear public position found |
Support case-by-case after neighbourhood review
Q
●●●○○
|
| Parking Mandates |
End minimum parking requirements
Let owners decide how much parking their property needs. Why we support this: Parking MandatesMandatory parking consumes valuable land and can make homes and small businesses more expensive to build. We support allowing owners to respond to actual demand, alongside accessible parking and sensible management of shared street parking. Removing a minimum does not prohibit parking. |
No clear public position found |
Support keeping current parking mandates
Q
●●●○○
|
| Transportation |
Make everyday trips possible without a car
Invest in practical walking, cycling and transit connections. Why we support this: TransportationResidents should have affordable, safe choices for reaching shops, schools, work and services. We support connected sidewalks, safe crossings, useful cycling routes and reliable transit, prioritizing improvements that solve everyday problems. Land use and transportation must work together so destinations are within reach. |
No clear public position found |
Strongly support reallocating space where needed
Q
●●●●○
|
| Public Safety |
Invest in prevention and effective response
Address local safety problems with evidence and accountability. Why we support this: Public SafetyWe support effective emergency response alongside prevention through active public places, well-maintained neighbourhoods and appropriate community services. Measures such as surveillance should have a clear purpose, evidence of effectiveness, privacy safeguards and an assessment of ongoing costs. Spending should respond to demonstrated local needs. |
Identifies safer school travel and stronger neighbourhoods to prevent crime as council focus areas.
P
Public statement or record
Priority not stated
|
Improve street lighting, public-space design, maintenance, and visibility in parks, plazas, and streets
Q
●●●●●
|
| Development Charges |
Match growth funding to long-term costs
Make incremental development feasible and account for infrastructure obligations. Why we support this: Development ChargesWe support a funding approach that makes small infill projects feasible while accounting for the infrastructure growth requires. New development should be evaluated for its long-term revenue and maintenance obligations. Broad fee cuts need a credible funding plan; higher charges alone do not guarantee that growth pays its way. |
No clear public position found |
Support targeted reductions for affordable/non-profit housing only
Q
●●●○○
|
| Street Safety Design |
Design streets to prevent serious injuries
Reduce dangerous speeds through street design. Why we support this: Street Safety DesignSafe streets should not depend on every road user behaving perfectly. We support designs that encourage appropriate speeds, shorten crossings and protect people walking and cycling. Start with observed hazards and practical improvements, then evaluate results and adjust. |
Supports traffic-calming measures and pedestrian crossovers and has advocated for intersection restrictions intended to improve safety.
P
Public statement or record
Priority not stated
|
Strongly support using street design as the main safety tool
Q
●●●●○
|
| Growth Corridors |
Build complete, financially productive places
Connect new homes to shops, services and safe everyday travel. Why we support this: Growth CorridorsWe support growth along corridors that creates connected places with homes, businesses and services. Height and unit counts alone do not establish success: safe street access, useful public space and infrastructure capacity matter. Evaluate projects for their long-term municipal revenues and costs, and enable incremental improvements beyond major corridors too. |
No clear public position found |
Somewhat oppose corridor-focused growth
Q
●●●●○
|
| Permit Reform |
Make small projects easier to approve
Use clear rules and predictable, timely approvals. Why we support this: Permit ReformComplex and uncertain approvals can shut out small builders and local entrepreneurs. We support clear requirements, simpler processes and prompt decisions for straightforward projects that meet the rules. Faster permitting should preserve necessary safety and servicing checks, with timelines matched to the complexity of the application. |
No clear public position found |
Support faster permits, but not a fixed one-week target
Q
●●●○○
|
Candidates may complete the STRH questionnaire or contact us to correct or clarify information derived from public sources.