Anasory, Hasti

As a real estate broker, I understand both the urgent need for more housing and the financial realities of building it. I support gentle density where servicing, safety and neighbourhood compatibility can be demonstrated. Duplexes and additional residential units can create more housing choices, help families stay close and allow seniors to remain in their communities.
However, approvals should follow clear and consistent standards, including infrastructure capacity, traffic, parking, stormwater management and emergency access. Housing must remain financially viable for builders and property owners, while the City works collaboratively with the development community and other levels of government to ensure that roads, services, parks and community facilities keep pace with growth. Development and infrastructure must move forward together.

Small and large developers should have equal access to a fair, transparent and predictable approval process. However, equal treatment does not mean requiring every project to go through the same level of review. The process should be proportionate to the size and potential impact of the development.
A modest project adding three or four homes should meet clear requirements for safety, servicing, parking and neighbourhood compatibility without facing the same complexity and delays as a major development or master-planned community. Larger projects may require new roads, parks and other infrastructure, and can significantly affect traffic, schools, healthcare and municipal services. Those projects require a more comprehensive review and coordination with York Region, school boards and the Province.
As a real estate broker, I understand the importance of making housing projects financially viable. My goal is to remove unnecessary barriers for smaller builders while ensuring that every development receives the level of review its actual impact requires.

Growth should not be concentrated entirely in high-rise corridors, nor should it be spread across established neighbourhoods without careful planning. I support a balanced approach: directing larger developments toward major corridors and centres while allowing appropriate small-scale housing choices elsewhere. In every case, growth must be supported by adequate roads, transit, schools, parks, healthcare services and other infrastructure so it does not come at the expense of residents’ quality of life.

I strongly support removing unnecessary red tape for straightforward, code-compliant projects. Wherever possible, the process should be fully digital, easy to navigate and transparent, allowing applicants to track their application and understand exactly what is still required.
Every unnecessary day spent waiting for a basic approval costs homeowners and businesses money. More complex developments still require careful review, but simple projects should not face the same process as major developments. The City should be a collaborative partner that protects public standards while helping good projects move forward efficiently.

As a real estate broker whose work has focused largely on new development projects, I understand how significantly underground parking can increase construction costs and, in some cases, affect whether a project is financially viable. However, Richmond Hill’s public transportation system is not yet strong enough to eliminate parking requirements across the city.
I support a balanced, location-based approach. Outside major transit areas, new residential developments should generally provide at least one parking space for one-bedroom and larger units, with additional parking options for larger units where feasible. Businesses must also have adequate customer, employee, accessible and delivery parking based on their location and type of operation.
Within Major Transit Station Areas, Ontario’s **Bill 185, the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024**, prevents municipalities from imposing minimum parking requirements. In those locations, I would still encourage developers to respond to actual market demand and ensure that reduced parking does not simply push vehicles onto surrounding streets. Parking rules should reduce unnecessary construction costs without ignoring how Richmond Hill residents and businesses currently move around the city.

Transportation decisions should be based on the needs of the city as a whole—not on prioritizing one way of travelling over another. I support improving transit connections, sidewalks, cycling routes and first- and last-mile access where studies show they will improve safety, mobility and quality of life.
Reallocating road space or parking may be appropriate in selected corridors, but only after considering traffic flow, accessibility, emergency access, nearby businesses and the needs of residents who still depend on their vehicles. Each project should demonstrate a clear overall benefit and be coordinated with York Region and YRT where applicable. The goal should be a transportation network that works better for everyone.

Everyone deserves to feel safe travelling through their neighbourhood, whether they are walking, cycling or driving. I support practical street-design improvements where evidence shows an ongoing safety concern, particularly near schools, parks, seniors’ residences and busy pedestrian areas.
New developments should be designed to prevent foreseeable safety problems from the beginning. Retrofitting existing streets, however, can be costly and may require traffic studies, public consultation and Council approval. These projects should therefore be prioritized based on urgency, safety data, community needs and the City’s overall budget. Not every street can be redesigned at once, but dangerous locations should not be ignored.

I do not believe one development model should automatically take priority over the other. Richmond Hill can benefit from vibrant, walkable main streets as well as larger destination projects that create jobs, attract investment and serve the wider community. Each proposal should be evaluated on its economic benefit, location, infrastructure requirements and overall value to the city.

Public safety requires cooperation between the City, York Regional Police and residents. While policing is a regional responsibility, the City must be an active partner by sharing community concerns, advocating for targeted patrols in identified problem areas and improving lighting, visibility and the design of public spaces.
I also support neighbourhood education and easier community reporting. Technologies such as cameras or licence-plate readers should only be considered where evidence demonstrates a clear need, with proper oversight, privacy safeguards and responsible use of public funds. Residents should not only be told they are safe—they should be able to see and feel the difference in their neighbourhoods.

CCTV may help provide evidence, but cameras alone do not prevent crime or make a community safer. Expanding the system would only make sense if the City works collaboratively with York Regional Police to establish how footage will be monitored, shared, investigated and acted upon.
Before committing public funds, I would require evidence that cameras are effective in the proposed locations, along with clear response procedures, measurable results, privacy protections, limited data-retention periods and independent oversight. I support targeted use where there is a demonstrated need—not installing cameras simply to create the appearance of action.

Growth must contribute its fair share toward the infrastructure and services it requires, but funding must remain balanced and transparent. Richmond Hill uses both parkland dedication—or cash-in-lieu of parkland—and separate development charges, including charges for parks and recreation.
Where provincial legislation reduces or limits these municipal revenues, parks, recreation facilities, roads and other essential infrastructure must still be incorporated into the broader growth plan, with clear timelines and identified funding before development proceeds. The City should work with developers and senior governments rather than shifting the entire cost onto existing taxpayers.
Development must remain financially viable, but new housing cannot be planned separately from the parks, roads, water systems and community facilities its residents will need.

Reducing development charges may lower a project’s construction costs, but the cost of growth does not disappear. New residents still require roads, water and wastewater systems, parks, recreation facilities, fire services and libraries. If that revenue is removed without replacement funding, the City must either raise property and business taxes, delay essential infrastructure or reduce services.
I would support targeted reductions where they produce clearly defined and enforceable public benefits, such as genuinely affordable or non-profit housing—but only with a transparent plan to replace the lost revenue. The Province and federal government must also contribute when their policies increase growth pressures or limit municipal funding tools.
Housing affordability matters, but existing residents and businesses should not quietly inherit the full cost. Ultimately, someone pays; responsible leadership must be honest about who, how much and what may be delayed as a result.

Parks, libraries and community spaces are essential to a healthy, connected city—not simply “nice-to-have” amenities. They should be planned alongside growth and prioritized according to community needs, available funding and the condition of existing facilities. Partnerships and sponsorships can help expand what the City provides, but they should complement—not replace—responsible long-term municipal planning.

I support practical environmental measures where they address a demonstrated need and provide clear long-term value. Stormwater management and flood prevention can protect homes, infrastructure and taxpayers from much greater future costs, while trees and shade improve neighbourhoods and public spaces.
However, stronger action must be weighed against other City priorities and available funding. New developments should incorporate appropriate stormwater, tree-canopy and climate-resilience measures from the planning stage. For improvements to existing areas, the City should prioritize the highest-risk locations and actively pursue provincial, federal and other external funding wherever possible.

Residents should not need a law degree—or hours of free time—to understand what their Council is deciding. Council votes, major project decisions and key trade-offs should be available through a clear, searchable online system, with plain-language summaries explaining what was proposed, how each member voted and what the decision means for residents.
Transparency must still respect privacy, legal requirements and confidential negotiations, but those exceptions should not become an excuse for making ordinary public information difficult to find or understand.