The propositions:

1. Support for a strong site alteration by-law, with emphasis on “strong.”
2. Renewed commitment to an annual allocation towards an environmental lands acquisition fund.
3. Standing firm in support of the prohibition against future country lot subdivisions.
4. The City’s Advisory Committees should be genuine bridges between the public and Council.

Jevone Nicholas: Full Response           Excerpts:

#1: “I am aware of recent “tree massacres” and if this particular legislation (or absence of) is related to such actions, then we need to fulfill the policy requirement.”

#2: “I would want to see the City form partnerships with the NCC and non-profit organizations to jointly acquire environmental lands.”

#3: “It is … important to regulate any growth in rural areas, as per the Official Plan, and I support of concentrating such growth in “clusters” as designated by the Plan.”

#4: “I want to see Council empower new “citizens’ commissions” to explore key topics worthy of study, such as bus routes remapping, ward boundaries or online voting. Citizens’ Commissions could generate ideas on select environmental issues…”

Penny Thompson: Full Response           Excerpts:

#1: “Yes I support for a strong site alteration by-law.”

#2: “Yes I support a renewed commitment to an annual allocation towards an environmental lands acquisition fund.”

#3: “Yes I support standing firm in support of the prohibition against future country lot subdivisions.”

#4: “I feel that the ESAC did provide a bridge between the public and Council.”

Cam Holmstrom:

#1: “I do strongly support a strong site alteration by-law for the city, especially given that going back to 2011 the OMB has already noted the city’s intent to do so. Let’s get on with it and get it done.”

#2: “I support this initiative and would work to protect against the raiding of this fund for other uses. The entire point of having a fund set aside for any use is to use it for that specific use and raiding it to fund other projects (no matter how worthy or noble) defeats the purpose of that fund if it does not further the goals of that fund.”

#3: “I do pledge that I will not support further compromises in regards to the prohibition against future country lot subdivisions. Offering exceptions to such prohibitions undercuts and weakens the city’s position when it comes to those kinds of policy decisions, and can ultimately come back to bite the city in the rear if it ever went to litigation. Council must be consistent and stick to their own policy decisions.”

#4: “To me, advisory committees can be great resources to council and the whole city if they are allowed to genuinely advise and participate. These committees can be a great venue to bring in community knowledge and expertise if the council lets it, and if elected to council, I will push to revamp the structure again to give the advisory committees a greater ability to help bring in that public input into the process.”

Sheila Perry: “I wholeheartedly support all 4 questions and will be happy to expand on rationale later.”

Peter D. Clark :

#1: “I am in total agreement with proposition.”

#2: “I can support all investments of this nature, however, would like to see the projected list of properties …whether or not the reserve is sufficient, depends on this established need, which I personally believe should be supported. … As you well know, when I was mayor of Cumberland, we purchased lands to be kept as forest, and I have wholeheartedly believed that if we don’t do it, who will?”

#3: “Absolutely!”

#4: “agree”

Tobi Nussbaum:

#1: “I support this proposition. If elected, I would work toward the introduction of such a by-law, as well as provisions regarding the impact on vegetation or trees.”

#2: “Yes, I support an annual allocation toward this fund. If elected, I would also work to making it a broad community fund that has financial support from a range of sectors.”

#3: “I am firmly in support of this prohibition. There can be serious detrimental effects from country lot subdivisions and the subsequent development in those areas. That kind of residential development contravenes Ottawa’s Official Plan and must not be undermined.”

#4: “I agree with this proposition. It would be important for advisory committees to develop opportunities for public input.”