Richmond Hill needs more housing. However, building more housing is not the same as planning responsible growth. Every development decision affects traffic, infrastructure, municipal finances, public services and the types of homes available to residents.

The real question is not simply how many units Richmond Hill can approve.

How much development can Richmond Hill responsibly support, where should it be located, what infrastructure will it require and who will ultimately pay for it?

Density can reduce some infrastructure costs.

Building infrastructure across a large, low-density area can be expensive. More roads, watermains, sewers and other infrastructure may be required to serve fewer households.

Compact development can use land more efficiently. It can place more residents near existing services, local businesses and public transit while spreading certain infrastructure costs across more homes.

That is an important argument in favour of appropriate density.

However, density is not unlimited and height alone is not a housing strategy.

When too much development is concentrated in one area without sufficient supporting infrastructure, existing roads, intersections, water and wastewater systems, parks, fire and emergency services, transit and community facilities can come under increasing pressure.

The right question is not whether Richmond Hill should choose high-rise or low-rise development.

It is whether we are approving the right amount and form of housing, in the right locations, at the right time, with the necessary infrastructure properly funded and ready.

Residents experience cumulative traffic.

Each development application may include its own traffic study. A study may conclude that one particular project can be accommodated.

But residents do not experience developments one at a time.

They experience the cumulative traffic created by every completed, under-construction and approved project using the same roads and intersections.

A development that appears manageable on its own may have a very different impact when combined with thousands of additional units already approved nearby.

Before approving further major development, Richmond Hill and York Region should clearly identify:

• The total number of completed, under-construction and approved units in the surrounding area;
• The cumulative traffic expected from all those developments;
• Which roads and intersections will require improvements;
• Whether sufficient transit capacity will be available;
• When the required infrastructure will be completed; and
• Who will pay for its construction and long-term maintenance.

Widening a road or changing a traffic signal after congestion becomes severe addresses the symptom. Responsible planning requires examining why so many additional trips are being created and whether the supporting network can accommodate them before development proceeds.

More housing does not automatically mean affordable housing.

Increasing housing supply is an important part of improving affordability over time. However, approving more units does not automatically make those units affordable or suitable for the people who need them.

For 2026-2027, Richmond Hill’s official affordable-ownership threshold is $488,900.

Affordability also involves more than the initial purchase price. Residents must carry mortgage payments, property taxes, utilities, insurance, maintenance and, in condominiums, monthly fees.

A smaller condominium may have a lower purchase price than a detached home but may still remain beyond the reach of many first-time buyers. It may also not provide enough space for a growing family.

Richmond Hill needs a broader range of housing choices, including rental housing, affordable ownership, family-sized condominiums, townhouses, multiplexes, low-rise and mid-rise housing, housing for seniors and appropriately located high-rise development.

A balanced community needs both rental and ownership opportunities. Ownership allows residents to build equity and establish long-term roots in the community, while rental housing provides flexibility and an essential option for many households.

A housing strategy should not be measured only by how many units are approved. It should also ask:

• How many homes will be affordable to local households?
• How many will offer a realistic path to ownership?
• How many will be suitable for families?
• How many will remain affordable over the long term?
• Are different housing types being provided?
• Are we building balanced communities or simply maximizing the number of units on individual sites?

Growth-related costs do not disappear.

Development charges are intended to help pay for growth-related infrastructure such as roads, parks, facilities, water and wastewater systems.

However, there is a difficult balance.

Higher development charges can increase the cost of building new homes and may affect affordability. Reducing or waiving development charges may help a project proceed, but the cost of the required infrastructure does not disappear.

If growth-related revenue is reduced, the remaining cost may eventually fall on existing property taxpayers, water and wastewater customers, government funding, municipal debt or infrastructure that is delayed.

York Region has reported approximately $4.9 billion in financial impacts over the next decade, including approximately $1.4 billion in projected reductions to development-charge collections and billions more in growth-related infrastructure pressures.

That makes transparent financial planning essential.

Any incentive or reduction intended to create affordable housing should produce a measurable and enforceable affordability benefit. Taxpayers should know what they are contributing and what they will receive in return.

Every new asset creates a future obligation.

Development is often discussed in terms of construction and immediate economic activity. Municipalities must also consider the long-term cost.

New roads must be repaired and resurfaced. Parks must be maintained. Community facilities require staffing, utilities, cleaning and eventual replacement. Water and wastewater systems must be operated and renewed.

As a CPA with more than 30 years of experience in finance and oversight, I believe development should be evaluated over its entire life, not only at the moment it is approved.

Council should understand both sides of the financial equation:

• The property taxes, development charges and other revenue a project may generate; and
• The infrastructure, operating, maintenance and replacement costs it creates.

A project can produce new revenue while still creating long-term obligations greater than originally anticipated.

Finding the right balance.

Overbuilding is not determined by height alone. It occurs when the scale or pace of development exceeds the infrastructure, services and financial capacity available to support it.

Underbuilding also carries consequences. Too little housing can reduce choice, worsen affordability and make it harder for young people, families and seniors to remain in the community.

Richmond Hill therefore needs balance.

Appropriate high-rise development can make sense near major transit and urban centres. Townhouses, multiplexes and lower-rise development can add more choices within existing communities. Other neighbourhoods may require more gradual change.

Responsible development is not about stopping growth. It is about ensuring growth occurs in the proper locations, at a manageable pace, with a suitable mix of housing and infrastructure that is funded before residents experience the consequences.

Before approving major development, Council should be able to answer: Is the infrastructure available? What will it cost? Who will pay? What will the cumulative traffic impact be? Will the homes be affordable and suitable? What long-term obligations will taxpayers inherit?

Growth should improve Richmond Hill, not simply make it larger.

Canada–U.S. trade negotiations have ended without an agreement. The United States has imposed a 50% tariff on approximately $20 billion of selected Canadian exports, and Canada has announced that it will respond with dollar-for-dollar tariffs on selected American products beginning September 8.

It is important to be accurate. This is not a 50% tariff on everything Canada exports, and it does not mean Richmond Hill’s costs or property taxes will suddenly increase by 50%.

However, the potential ripple effects should concern residents.

Tariffs can increase the cost of raw materials, equipment and imported components. They can also disrupt supply chains and make future prices less predictable.

For Richmond Hill, this could affect construction materials, municipal vehicles and equipment, electronics, building systems, replacement parts and major infrastructure contracts.

The City’s own budget documents have already warned that tariffs are expected to increase construction costs and the cost of municipal capital investments. If the current trade dispute continues or expands, that pressure could become more significant.

Local businesses may also be affected. Some could face higher supply costs, reduced export opportunities or weaker consumer demand. When businesses struggle, the impact can reach employees, families and the broader local economy.

These financial pressures do not exist in isolation.

Richmond Hill’s Financial Master Plan forecasts City property-tax-rate increases averaging approximately 6% annually between 2027 and 2035 before accounting for assessment growth.

York Region has also reported approximately $4.9 billion in financial impacts over the next decade involving growth-related infrastructure, reduced development-charge revenue, transit, wastewater and community housing.

Because both the City and York Region receive a portion of our property taxes, financial pressure at either level can eventually reach Richmond Hill residents.

As a CPA with more than 30 years of experience in finance and oversight, I do not see these as unrelated headlines. Financial pressures accumulate.

A higher construction bid here, a more expensive equipment purchase there, reduced development-charge revenue and slower economic activity can eventually become additional pressure on property taxes, user fees and household expenses.

We do not yet know the full financial impact of these new tariffs, and we should not pretend that we do. However, waiting until higher costs appear in future budgets would not be responsible financial planning.

Richmond Hill should begin preparing now by:

• Identifying tariff exposure in major contracts and capital projects;
• Reviewing the timing and necessity of planned expenditures;
• Exploring competitive Canadian and alternative suppliers where practical;
• Protecting financial reserves against genuine unexpected costs;
• Reporting tariff-related budget pressures clearly to residents; and
• Helping local businesses connect with available support programs.

Reducing the impact does not mean abandoning necessary infrastructure or cutting essential services. It means making careful choices, distinguishing between needs and wants, and completing the right projects in the right order at a pace residents can afford.

Richmond Hill cannot control international trade negotiations. It can control how responsibly it prepares for their consequences.

Residents are already managing higher household expenses and the prospect of significant future property-tax pressure. Every reasonable step should be taken to prevent additional costs from simply being passed on to their pocketbooks.

Good financial oversight means recognizing risks early and reducing their impact before they become unavoidable.

Fireworks are an enjoyable part of Victoria Day and Canada Day celebrations for many Richmond Hill families. But for some dogs, cats and other animals, the sudden flashes and explosions can be terrifying.

Residents recently asked me an interesting question: could the City provide a safe and quiet place for pets that have a particularly difficult time during fireworks?

What they were describing might be called a temporary quiet refuge for pets somewhere animals could be cared for while fireworks are taking place.

The Challenge Is Larger Than One Public Display

Scheduled community displays allow pet owners to know approximately when and where the noise will occur. Private fireworks are more difficult to anticipate because they may be discharged throughout different neighbourhoods and at different times.

Richmond Hill’s current fireworks rules permit consumer fireworks on Victoria Day and Canada Day, as well as the day immediately before and after each holiday. They must be used on private property with the owner’s permission and must not create a nuisance or pose a risk to people or property.

This means the disturbance may not be limited to one scheduled display. For some households, fireworks can be heard over several evenings.

Animals do not understand that the noise is part of a celebration or that it will eventually stop. Frightened pets may shake, hide, bark, attempt to escape or become extremely anxious. That can also make these evenings stressful for their owners.

Could a Quiet Refuge Work?

The residents’ suggestion deserves consideration, but there are practical questions that would need to be answered.

Would the City need to operate such a service itself, or could it partner with existing kennels, veterinarians or animal-welfare organizations? How many residents would use it? How would dogs, cats and smaller animals be safely separated? What staffing, vaccination, insurance and liability requirements would apply? What would it cost, and who should pay?

A communal location may also not be suitable for every animal. Some pets may be more comfortable remaining in their own familiar home than being transported to an unfamiliar place with other frightened animals. Any proposal should therefore be developed with advice from veterinarians and animal-care professionals.

Instead of constructing a new taxpayer-funded facility, Richmond Hill could begin by exploring whether an existing animal-care provider would be interested in a partnership or small pilot program during future fireworks celebrations.

Other Ways the City Could Help

A quiet refuge is only one possibility. The City could also consider:

• providing clear advance notice of scheduled municipal fireworks;
• reminding residents when and where private fireworks are permitted;
• encouraging people to limit fireworks to reasonable hours and be considerate of neighbours and pets;
• improving enforcement when fireworks are discharged illegally or create an unreasonable disturbance;
• sharing practical animal-safety information before Victoria Day and Canada Day; and
• examining quieter fireworks or alternative forms of celebration for future events.

Pet owners can also prepare by keeping animals indoors, closing windows and doors, providing a comfortable place to hide, playing music or white noise, walking dogs before dark and ensuring identification and microchip information are current. Properly fitted, noise-reducing earmuffs designed specifically for dogs may help some animals, but they should be introduced gradually and well before fireworks begin. They may reduce the noise, but they will not necessarily eliminate anxiety caused by the flashes and vibrations. Owners of animals with severe anxiety should speak with their veterinarian in advance.

Celebration and Consideration Can Coexist

This is not a proposal to eliminate community celebrations. Fireworks are a tradition enjoyed by many residents and families.

However, enjoying a celebration and considering its effect on animals do not have to be opposing positions. A thoughtful City should be willing to listen, examine practical options and determine whether something reasonable can be done.

I am not suggesting that Richmond Hill immediately spend money on a new facility. I am suggesting that the residents’ question deserves a proper answer. Could a partnership, pilot project or another practical approach provide some relief without placing an unreasonable burden on taxpayers?

Does your pet struggle during fireworks? Would you use a temporary quiet refuge, or is there another approach Richmond Hill should consider? I would like to hear from you. Please share your experience through my contact page.

Over the weekend, a resident asked me where Richmond Hill would find the money to build several projects being requested by different groups. My response was straightforward: when finances are under pressure, the City must be prudent. A worthwhile proposal does not automatically become affordable simply because people support it.

Every project can sound reasonable when considered on its own. The more difficult responsibility is comparing it with everything else the City must fund and determining whether residents can reasonably afford it.

Municipal projects are funded through sources such as property taxes, user fees, development charges, government grants and reserve funds. None of these represents free money. Ultimately, the cost is carried by taxpayers, service users or money previously set aside for future needs.

Residents sometimes hear that the City has “found the money” for a project. This raises a fair question: If money was found, what lost its funding?

In municipal finance, money is rarely simply found. It is usually reallocated from another purpose. Reallocation may be appropriate, but residents deserve to know where the money came from, what it was originally intended to fund and what may now be delayed, reduced or paid for later.

When funding is reallocated, residents should be told where it came from, what it was originally intended to support and what trade-offs were made.

Reserve funds serve an important purpose. They help pay for emergencies, future obligations and the repair or replacement of roads, watermains, community centres and other public infrastructure. Using reserves for their intended purpose is responsible. However, reserves are not unlimited. Once money is withdrawn, it is no longer available for the next urgent repair or unexpected expense.

Using reserve funds repeatedly to support ongoing expenses is particularly concerning. It may postpone the financial impact, but it does not eliminate it. Eventually, the City must replenish the reserve, reduce another service, increase property taxes, raise user fees or borrow money.

Families understand this type of decision. When household finances are limited, they protect the essentials first. They pay the mortgage, buy groceries, keep the lights on and repair what cannot safely be ignored.

A family may want to renovate the basement, improve the landscaping or undertake another project that could benefit the home in the future. But if the roof is leaking, the furnace needs replacement and household expenses are already difficult to manage, the family must decide what is urgent and what can wait.

The proposed improvement may still be a good idea. That does not mean the family can afford to undertake it today.

Municipal finances are more complicated, but the principle is similar. The question is not simply whether a project has value. The questions are whether it is the right priority, whether this is the right time and whether it can be funded without placing an unreasonable burden on residents.

A project does not become unworthy simply because only part of the population will use it. Libraries, sports facilities, trails, cultural spaces and specialized programs can benefit the community even though every resident may not use each one personally.

However, Council must still consider the total construction cost, the number of expected users, the broader community benefit and whether less expensive alternatives are available. Residents should also know what it will cost to operate, maintain and eventually replace the facility.

A government grant may help pay to construct a facility without covering the cost of operating it for the next 30 or 40 years. A reserve fund may cover the initial construction cost, but staffing, utilities, insurance, cleaning, security and future repairs usually become continuing expenses.

That is how a one-time project can become a permanent property-tax or user-fee obligation.

Financial restraint does not mean Richmond Hill should stop improving the city. It means doing things in the right order. Public safety, essential services, infrastructure repair and legal obligations must come first. Other worthwhile projects may need to be phased, redesigned, supported through partnerships or postponed until the City is in a stronger financial position.

Before approving a new financial commitment, Council should answer several basic questions: Is it necessary? Is it urgent? Is it affordable? What will it cost over its entire life and what may need to be delayed in order to pay for it?

Good ideas will always outnumber the dollars available. Responsible municipal government means protecting essential services, maintaining adequate reserves and proceeding at a pace residents can afford.

At approximately 6 p.m. on July 28, crews were already working on Bayview Avenue north of Elgin Mills Road. When I left for work the following morning, the section had been treated, the equipment was gone and all lanes were open.

York Region advises that this work is part of a road-preservation project on Bayview Avenue between Major Mackenzie Drive and Stouffville Road.

The treatment is called microsurfacing. It is a cost-effective method used to address minor surface defects and extend the life of a road. York Region notes that the surface may initially feel rougher and sound noisier, but it should become quieter as the stones settle.

Road maintenance is necessary, but how the work is scheduled and carried out matters. Performing the work overnight reduces daytime congestion, maintains access to homes and businesses, and limits disruption for residents.

We have all experienced road projects that appear to continue for weeks or months with little visible progress. That was not what I observed on Bayview Avenue. The crews arrived, completed the section efficiently and reopened all lanes before the morning commute.

This is the kind of practical and efficient delivery residents appreciate. Credit should be given to York Region, the contractor and the crews who worked through the night to get it done.

Good government is not only about identifying problems. It is also about recognizing when public work is carried out well.

A well-managed Business Improvement Area can strengthen a commercial district by attracting visitors, organizing destination events, improving streetscapes and introducing customers to local restaurants and stores. Richmond Hill’s published BIA budgets, however, raise reasonable questions about how much of its spending directly promotes downtown businesses and how the results are measured.

The Village of Richmond Hill BIA is funded through a special property-tax levy paid by commercial property owners within the BIA and collected by the City on its behalf. It is not funded through the general municipal property-tax levy paid by Richmond Hill residents.

It has also been stated publicly that grants and sponsorships help fund BIA programs. However, those outside contributions are not separately identified in the published budget tables. Clear reporting should show the full cost of each program, grants and sponsorships received, the net amount paid through the BIA levy, and how any unspent money is used.

The published tables also identify proposed transfers from the BIA reserve fund but do not disclose the reserve’s opening or closing balance. When annual expenditures are lower than budgeted, it is unclear from these tables how much of the unspent money is added to reserves, how much is carried forward, and how much remains available in subsequent years. Complete reporting should show the opening balance, annual additions and withdrawals, and the closing reserve balance.

The concern is not based on a single year.

In 2023, the BIA reported total expenditures of $104,654. Of that amount:

• $19,551 was spent on marketing – approximately 19% of total expenditures
• $1,757 was spent on local and major events – less than 2%
• $73,550 was spent on employee salaries and office rent and utilities – approximately 70%

In 2024, the BIA reported total expenditures of $103,297. Of that amount:

• $15,626 was spent on marketing – approximately 15% of total expenditures
• Only $115 was spent on local and major events, although $5,000 had been budgeted
• $74,063 was spent on employee salaries and office rent and utilities – approximately 72%

The 2025 figures reported as of August 1 show $12,450 spent on marketing and $2,100 on events. Because these are partial-year figures, the final 2025 results may be different.

For 2026, the BIA proposes a total budget of $168,275, funded through a $100,000 BIA tax levy and a $68,275 transfer from its reserve fund. Proposed expenditures include:

• $58,450 for employee salaries
• $16,520 for office rent, phone and internet
• $10,700 for professional services
• $54,600 for marketing
• $17,500 for streetscaping
• $1,750 for events with local groups
• No funding for a major event hosted by the BIA

Administration, employees and office space are necessary. Marketing also includes activities beyond public events. However, these figures raise a reasonable question: Is enough of the BIA’s budget reaching activities that directly attract customers and support downtown businesses?

Spending money under a category called “marketing” does not, by itself, demonstrate success. Commercial property owners paying the levy deserve to know:

• How many people BIA programs bring into the downtown core
• How many local businesses participate
• Whether businesses experience increased customer traffic and sales
• Whether event visitors return afterward
• Why previous marketing and event budgets were substantially underspent
• What measurable results were produced by the money that was spent

Successful BIAs in Toronto and other municipalities have helped make their commercial districts destinations through street festivals, coordinated promotions, streetscape improvements and strong local identities.

The question is not whether Richmond Hill should have a BIA. The question is whether its resources are being used effectively and whether the results are being measured and publicly reported.

Local businesses paying the levy deserve more than a list of activities. They deserve clear evidence that their collective investment is bringing customers through their doors.

A resident recently spoke with me about garbage, discarded materials and poorly maintained properties in one of Richmond Hill’s older neighbourhoods. His concern was not about expecting every lawn to be perfect. It was about properties where continuing neglect affects the appearance, safety and enjoyment of the surrounding community.

Property standards matter. Residents invest considerable time and money in maintaining their homes. Accumulated garbage, abandoned materials, unsafe structures and persistent neglect can attract pests, create hazards and affect the value of neighbouring properties.

This is particularly important in Richmond Hill’s older neighbourhoods. Older should never mean forgotten. These communities deserve the same level of attention, maintenance and municipal service as newer developments.

At the same time, enforcement must be reasonable and fair. A temporarily untidy yard is not the same as prolonged neglect. Some residents may be dealing with age, illness, disability or financial hardship. Where appropriate, the City should first provide clear information, reasonable time to comply and connections to available assistance.

However, serious or repeated violations cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. The City should review:

• How quickly property-standards complaints are investigated
• Whether residents receive meaningful updates after reporting a problem
• How repeat violations are tracked and followed up
• Whether enforcement is consistent across all Richmond Hill neighbourhoods
• How property owners and landlords are held accountable when rental uses create ongoing problems
• Whether residents receive enough information about the proper disposal of bulky items and household waste

The objective should not be to punish residents over minor imperfections or make every property look identical. It should be to protect public safety, neighbourhood appearance, quality of life and the investments residents have made in their homes.

Good property standards require both personal responsibility and effective municipal enforcement. When residents take pride in their properties and the City responds consistently to genuine problems, the entire community benefits.

Our older neighbourhoods are an important part of Richmond Hill. They should be respected, protected and never left behind.

Richmond Hill and southern York Region are becoming significant locations for data centres. Existing, under-construction and proposed facilities could eventually consume approximately 22 million litres of water every day, the equivalent consumption of about 100,000 residents. Industry estimates also suggest they could require more than 500 megawatts of electrical capacity over the next decade.

Ward 1 Councillor Carol Davidson deserves credit for asking York Region to assess whether our infrastructure planning has fully accounted for their combined demands.

This question is especially important because York Region already faces approximately $4.9 billion in financial pressures over the next decade. These pressures include growth-related infrastructure, reduced development-charge revenue, transit, wastewater infrastructure, and community housing.

Data centres did not create this financial pressure. However, before additional facilities are approved, residents deserve to know what infrastructure they will require, who will pay for it, and what Richmond Hill will receive in return.

How much property-tax revenue will these facilities generate for Richmond Hill and York Region? How many permanent local jobs will they create after construction is completed? Will the developers pay the full cost of any necessary water and wastewater expansion? What measures will be required to reduce water consumption and recycle water?

Approximately half of a typical Richmond Hill property-tax bill goes to York Region. Residents should not be expected to subsidize infrastructure expansions primarily benefiting highly resource-intensive private developments.

Data centres can bring investment and strengthen Richmond Hill’s commercial tax base. But economic development should be measured by its net benefit, not simply by the size or cost of a project.

The issue is not whether infrastructure is needed. Growth requires infrastructure. The real question is whether that growth is being planned and funded responsibly.

Before further major approvals proceed, Richmond Hill and York Region should publish a clear accounting of:

• Expected water and wastewater demand
• Required infrastructure upgrades and who will pay for them
• Municipal and regional property-tax revenue
• Development charges and other financial contributions
• Permanent local employment
• Water recycling and conservation requirements

Richmond Hill should welcome responsible investment, but residents deserve to know that the benefits will exceed the long-term public costs.

After traffic and road safety, snow removal is probably the second most common concern I hear while speaking with residents across Ward 2. One topic comes up repeatedly every winter: the windrow left at the end of driveways after roads are plowed.

Richmond Hill has established service standards for clearing roads, sidewalks, and residential windrows following a snowfall. I appreciate the hard work of our snow removal crews, who often work long hours under difficult weather conditions to keep our community moving.

But perhaps we should ask a different question.

Are we measuring success by meeting a service standard, or by helping residents regain access to their community as quickly and effectively as possible?

Many seniors have told me they were unable to leave their homes because they first had to wait for the road to be plowed, and then wait again for the windrow at the end of their driveway to be cleared. For some, that meant delaying medical appointments, postponing grocery shopping, or simply remaining home longer than they wanted.

At the same time, I have also heard another perspective.

Many working residents tell me they simply cannot wait. By the time the City’s windrow equipment arrives, they have already shoveled the end of their driveway themselves because they needed to get to work, take their children to school, or attend an appointment.

This raises an important public policy question.

If many residents have already cleared their own windrow before the City arrives, is the current program being delivered at the right time to achieve its intended purpose?

That doesn’t mean the program lacks value. For many seniors, residents with disabilities, and others who are physically unable to clear heavy snow, windrow clearing remains an important service that helps them maintain their independence.

The question, therefore, is not whether the service should exist. The question is whether it can be delivered more effectively.

Could road plows and windrow clearing equipment operate more closely together? Could routes be optimized to reduce waiting times? Could neighbourhoods with a higher concentration of seniors or residents with mobility challenges receive priority following major snowfalls?

These are questions worth exploring before concluding that the only answer is to spend more money.

I also don’t believe Richmond Hill should simply accept a service standard because neighbouring municipalities have adopted similar ones. Good municipal government should continuously ask whether existing services still meet the needs of today’s residents.

Perhaps success should not be measured by whether we met a published service standard, but by whether residents can safely leave their homes to get to work, attend medical appointments, buy groceries, and maintain their independence as soon as reasonably possible.

Good public policy isn’t simply about adding services or cutting services. It’s about regularly reviewing whether a service is achieving its intended purpose, providing good value for taxpayers, and meeting the needs of the people it was designed to serve.

While speaking with residents on Canada Day, an interesting idea came up during one of our conversations: could our community festivals do more to support local businesses?

Richmond Hill hosts many successful community events throughout the year. Festivals such as Taste of Asia, Ribfest, Canada Day celebrations, and other cultural and community events bring thousands of residents together and help build a strong sense of community.

Many of these events are held at Richmond Green, which offers excellent space, parking, and facilities for large gatherings. It is an excellent venue for events that attract large crowds.

There are practical reasons why many events are held in parks. Parks offer large open spaces, parking, easier traffic management, and fewer disruptions to nearby residents and businesses. Organizing a street festival requires additional planning, road closures, transit coordination, emergency access, and close cooperation with local businesses.

That additional planning may be worthwhile if it helps support local businesses, encourages residents and visitors to explore different parts of Richmond Hill, and creates vibrant business districts that continue to benefit long after the festival ends. The goal is not to replace successful park events, but to consider whether some future festivals could bring additional benefits to the community.

With those considerations in mind, several residents suggested that Richmond Hill could explore hosting selected festivals as street festivals or in commercial areas where local businesses could benefit from increased foot traffic.

When visitors attend a street festival, they often discover restaurants, cafés, bakeries, specialty shops, and local businesses they may not have visited before. Many stay for lunch or dinner, enjoy dessert, or return another day after discovering a new favourite place.

Supporting local businesses does not always require new spending. Sometimes it simply means planning community events in ways that encourage residents and visitors to experience more of what Richmond Hill has to offer.

I am not suggesting that every festival should move from Richmond Green. It remains an excellent location for many large events.

Perhaps the better question is whether Richmond Hill should consider a mix of park festivals and street festivals, allowing different neighbourhoods and business districts to share in the economic and community benefits.

Community festivals should bring people together. Whenever possible, they should also support local businesses, strengthen our business districts, and showcase everything Richmond Hill has to offer. Thoughtful planning can accomplish both.

Imagine a neighbourhood food festival, a summer street festival in Downtown Richmond Hill, or cultural celebrations held in different parts of our city. These events could bring people together while encouraging residents to discover local restaurants, cafés, and small businesses throughout our community.

York Region is facing nearly $5 billion in financial pressures over the next decade. That should concern every Richmond Hill taxpayer.

Approximately half of a typical Richmond Hill property tax bill is allocated to York Region. While the City and School Boards also form part of the overall tax bill, significant regional financial pressures are not distant or abstract. They can affect local taxpayers, future budgets, infrastructure planning, service delivery, and long-term affordability.

According to York Region, the Region is facing approximately $4.9 billion in financial impacts over the next 10 years, including growth-related infrastructure pressures, reduced development charge revenues, transit needs, wastewater infrastructure, and community housing requirements.

This is exactly why taxpayers need clear oversight, responsible budgeting, and honest communication from every level of local government.

The issue is not whether infrastructure is needed. Growth requires infrastructure. The real question is whether growth is being planned and funded responsibly, and whether taxpayers are being protected from decisions that create long-term financial pressure.

Richmond Hill residents are already facing concerns about future property tax increases. Because property taxes are influenced by decisions at the Regional, City, and School Board levels, residents deserve a clear understanding of how growing financial pressures at each level may affect affordability.

Before taxpayers are asked to pay more, government must show stronger discipline, clearer priorities, and better accountability.

As a CPA with more than 30 years of experience in finance and oversight, I believe residents deserve straightforward answers:

• How will these regional pressures affect future property taxes?
• Which projects are essential, and which can be delayed or reconsidered?
• How will York Region protect taxpayers while maintaining core services?
• What impact will this have on Richmond Hill residents over the next decade?

Good governance means asking these questions early, not after the financial pressure becomes unavoidable.

Richmond Hill taxpayers deserve transparency, discipline, and responsible decisions at both the City and Regional level.

A recent collision in Ward 2 serves as an important reminder that road safety is not an abstract issue. It affects residents every day.

A woman and child were recently taken to hospital following a collision near Bayview Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive, an area familiar to many Ward 2 residents.

My thoughts are with those involved, and I wish them a full recovery.

Whenever incidents like this occur, they remind us why residents continue to raise concerns about speeding, traffic congestion, pedestrian safety, school-area safety, and the growing number of e-bikes and motorized devices using local streets and sidewalks.

Road safety is not about headlines or politics. It is about ensuring that children can walk safely to school, seniors can cross the street with confidence, and families can move around their neighbourhoods safely.

Richmond Hill needs a practical and responsive approach to road safety. When residents identify concerns, the City should review problem areas quickly and consider appropriate solutions, including improved signage, traffic calming measures, protected crossings, school-zone improvements, pavement markings, education, and enforcement where necessary.

At the same time, solutions must be carefully designed. Safety improvements should enhance neighbourhoods, not create unnecessary barriers, parking problems, or access challenges for residents.

A safe city should not become an unfriendly city.

Residents deserve action, follow-through, and practical solutions that improve safety while respecting the character and livability of our neighbourhoods.

Yesterday’s police incident near Bayview Avenue and Elgin Mills Road understandably raised concerns among many Richmond Hill residents.

As someone who lives only a short distance from where the incident occurred, I understand why residents felt unsettled seeing a significant police response in the middle of the day near local businesses and neighbourhood homes.

York Regional Police later confirmed that officers responded to reports of a suspect with a firearm and that the individual was taken into custody safely without injuries reported.

While the situation ended without physical harm, incidents like this still affect how residents feel about safety in their communities.

This concern is not isolated to one event.

In recent years, Richmond Hill residents have witnessed violent incidents, shootings, tragic attacks, and ongoing discussions around neighbourhood safety and quality of life in different parts of the city.

Residents have also repeatedly raised concerns about disorder, trespassing, public disturbances, and whether enough is being done to address issues before they escalate.

These concerns should not be dismissed.

At the same time, public safety discussions must remain responsible and balanced. Fearmongering and division do not strengthen communities, and vulnerable people should not be unfairly stigmatized or targeted.

Richmond Hill is a compassionate community, and we should continue supporting prevention programs, youth outreach, mental health services, and community partnerships that help people before situations worsen.

But compassion and accountability must go together.

Residents deserve leadership that listens seriously when concerns are repeatedly raised by local families, seniors, and business owners.

Public safety is not about political slogans. It is about ensuring residents feel protected, heard, and respected in their everyday lives.

We need practical leadership that focuses on:

• Stronger community engagement
• Better coordination between agencies
• Prevention and early intervention
• Responsible enforcement
• Transparent communication with residents

Richmond Hill can remain both compassionate and safe. We do not have to choose between the two.

As our city continues to grow, public safety and quality of life must remain priorities for every neighbourhood and every resident.

Transparency is not simply about publishing information. It is about presenting information in a way that residents can easily read, understand, and use.

I previously raised concerns that the format of Council expense reports made it difficult for residents to understand the information being presented.

The issue was not whether the information existed. The issue was whether residents could easily understand what they were looking at. Key figures were not clearly presented, and some labels could reasonably be interpreted in different ways.

To illustrate the concern, I reorganized and highlighted key sections myself. The original document and my suggested version are provided below.

I am encouraged to see staff now recommending improvements to constituency reporting and exploring better public reporting tools.

Transparency is not simply about publishing information. It is about ensuring residents can read it, understand it, and use it.

Good governance means providing information that people can actually understand.

At the beginning of this Council term, members signed a pledge to govern with transparency, responsibility, and accountability, and to build public trust.

That commitment matters.

I reviewed By-law 102-22 regarding Council remuneration. The original by-law stated that Council remuneration would increase by 1.70 percent effective January 1, 2022.

Later, on November 22, 2023, under Item 19.3, Council amended that wording so the 1.70 percent increase was effective January 1, 2023, and added a further 2 percent increase effective January 1, 2024.

In simple terms, the amendment did two things: it corrected the effective date of the 1.70 percent increase from January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2023, and it added a further 2 percent increase effective January 1, 2024.

The amendment was carried unanimously in open session, after arising from a closed session item related to labour relations.

Mistakes can happen. I understand that. As an accountant, I’ve learned that it is not enough for something to appear correct. It must be accurate, factual, and clearly explained so residents can understand it.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that staff were wrong in treating the date correction as a technical amendment, or that staff failed in their duties. Staff work within the procedures, reports, and direction before them.

However, Council should hold itself to a higher standard than simply asking what is technically required.

However, the issue is not whether the amendment was approved in open session. It was.

The issue is how the change was communicated to residents.

From reviewing the Council meeting videos, the change was described as a “technical adjustment” to the by-law. However, there was no clear, plain-language explanation that the effective date was being corrected from January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2023.

For residents watching the meeting, this wording would not make it clear what was actually being changed.

On a matter involving Council remuneration, residents should not have to interpret technical language or review documents afterward to understand what changed.

Transparency should mean more than recording a correction. It should mean clearly explaining the correction to residents.

This raises a fair question:

Did Council meet the standard of transparency, responsibility, and accountability that it pledged to uphold?

Residents deserve clear communication, especially when decisions involve public funds and Council compensation. Accountability is not just about following procedure. It is about ensuring residents can clearly see what changed, why it changed, and how decisions are made on their behalf.

Richmond Hill residents deserve a Council that understands its responsibilities, uses its time wisely, and focuses on results it can actually deliver.

Municipal government has an important role in protecting the environment and preparing the community for the future.

Richmond Hill can take practical action by maintaining parks and trees, improving stormwater infrastructure, reducing flood risks, making City facilities more energy-efficient, planning responsibly for growth, and preparing for more extreme weather.

These are areas where local government has responsibility, authority, and the ability to produce measurable results.

However, many broader issues commonly discussed at municipal Council are primarily the responsibility of York Region, the Province, or the federal government.

York Region is responsible for major services such as public transit, regional roads, policing, water and wastewater systems, public health, community housing, and many social services.

The Province and federal government control many broader policies involving energy, emissions standards, transportation regulation, taxation, healthcare, education, criminal law, and national or international commitments.

Richmond Hill Council may sometimes choose to express a position or encourage another level of government to act. That can be appropriate when an issue has a clear impact on local residents.

But Council should be honest about the difference between advocacy and action.

Passing a resolution does not necessarily mean Richmond Hill has the authority to implement it or that the underlying problem has been solved.

Every motion still requires Council time, staff time, agenda preparation, research, administration, and follow-up. Those resources are paid for by residents and should be used carefully.

When taxpayers are being warned about future financial pressures and possible tax increases, City Hall should ensure that its time and resources remain focused on core municipal responsibilities.

That includes roads, local infrastructure, fire services, snow clearing, parks, recreation, planning, by-law enforcement, community safety, responsible budgeting, and reliable public services.

If Richmond Hill has the authority to act, Council should act.

If another level of government is responsible, Council should work with that government and advocate where appropriate, but it should not present a symbolic motion as a substitute for measurable results.

This principle also applies to climate action.

I support practical local measures that improve resilience, protect the environment, reduce long-term costs, and provide clear benefits to residents.

Planting trees, protecting natural areas, improving stormwater systems, preparing for extreme weather, and reducing energy use in municipal buildings are all reasonable areas for City action.

At the same time, City Hall should be cautious about moving into personal lifestyle choices or broader policy areas where the municipality has limited authority and where the benefits to Richmond Hill residents are difficult to measure.

Good intentions matter, but good government also requires priorities, discipline, and accountability.

My approach is simple: focus on what Richmond Hill can control, cooperate with York Region and other governments where necessary, and use Council’s time and taxpayer resources on actions that deliver real local benefits.

Residents deserve results, not just resolutions.

A consultant report warned that Richmond Hill may face property tax increases of 6 to 7 percent annually. That may not sound alarming at first, but when increases are repeated year after year and compounded over time, the burden becomes significant.

After only a few years, families are no longer dealing with a modest adjustment. They are facing a much higher cost of living, a heavier tax bill, and a City Hall that keeps asking for more.

That should concern every homeowner, senior on a fixed income, young family, and small business in Richmond Hill.

When families face rising costs, they do not keep spending as usual. They cut back, focus on essentials, and make careful choices.

City Hall should do the same.

Before raising taxes, the City must show that non-essential spending has been reviewed, priorities are clear, and every dollar is being used responsibly.

The City says this is about planning for the future. I agree that we must invest in core infrastructure, maintain public assets, and prepare for growth. But fiscal responsibility means making hard choices. It means setting priorities. And it means recognizing that residents are not a limitless source of revenue.

The City’s own Financial Master Plan makes this clear. It states that the current capital forecast is not sustainable at its present scale and that reducing the size of the capital program would be necessary to lower tax increases and reduce the need for debt.

That is the real issue.

A city cannot keep approving more and more commitments without considering what taxpayers can realistically support. Leadership means knowing the difference between what is necessary and what is simply desirable. Government cannot try to do everything at once.

The bigger risk is overextension. A city can be in a strong financial position today and still make choices that create long-term pressure tomorrow. When too many projects and commitments are pursued at the same time without clear priorities, costs rise, discipline weakens, and taxpayers are left carrying the burden.

Richmond Hill must stay focused on what matters most: roads, public safety, infrastructure repair, reliable city services, and smart planning. These are the essentials residents depend on, and these are the priorities City Hall must protect first.

The good news is that Richmond Hill is in a strong financial position today. That strength should be protected. It should not become an excuse to overextend, overpromise, and overtax.

We also need to be honest about who carries the burden. Richmond Hill relies heavily on homeowners for property tax revenue. When spending grows too quickly, it is residents who are expected to absorb the cost. They should not be treated as a limitless source of revenue every budget season.

I do not believe that is acceptable.

My approach is simple. Before asking families for more, City Hall must prove that every dollar is being spent wisely. Before taking on new commitments, Council must show they are necessary. Before expanding the wish list, we must protect the basics.

Fiscal responsibility is not about saying no to progress. It is about saying yes to the right priorities. It is about discipline, restraint, and respect for taxpayers.

Richmond Hill deserves leadership that is focused, responsible, and accountable. We need a City Hall that knows what matters, spends carefully, and never forgets who pays the bills. If elected, I will fight for responsible spending, disciplined priorities, and respect for every taxpayer dollar.

Richmond Hill residents do not expect perfection from City Hall. But they do expect common sense.

Before asking families, seniors, and small businesses to pay more in property taxes, the City should prove it is focused on the basics first. That means safe roads, reliable public services, public safety, and infrastructure kept in good repair.

This should not be controversial. It should be the standard.

When families face rising costs, they do not keep spending as usual. They cut back, focus on essentials, and make careful choices.

City Hall should do the same.

Before raising taxes, the City must show that non-essential spending has been reviewed, priorities are clear, and every dollar is being used responsibly.

The issue is not just whether the City spends money. The issue is whether the City is spending on the right things, in the right order, at the right time.

The current ten-year capital forecast is beyond the City’s financial capacity at its present scale. The pressure comes from the size of the overall capital plan, which goes well beyond current and historical spending levels. That is exactly why Richmond Hill needs a basics-first approach.

When families face rising costs, they make choices. They protect essentials first. They pay the mortgage, buy groceries, keep the lights on, and fix what cannot be ignored. City Hall should think the same way.

Richmond Hill has many responsibilities. The City delivers fire and emergency services, roads, snow clearing, waste management, infrastructure repair and replacement, planning, by-law services, parks, recreation, and more. But when financial pressure grows, leadership means distinguishing between what is necessary right now and what can wait.

That means fixing what residents rely on every day before expanding the wish list.

It means protecting roads and transportation, public safety, infrastructure repair, and dependable local services before moving ahead with projects that may be desirable but are not urgent.

It means being honest that every dollar has a cost and every new commitment eventually lands on the shoulders of taxpayers.

Richmond Hill is in a strong fiscal position today, and that is good news. But a strong position is something to protect, not something to take for granted. Good finances are built with discipline, and discipline starts with priorities.

Responsible government requires sequencing, restraint, and focus. It is not about saying no to progress. It is about making sure progress happens in the right order and at a pace residents can afford.

My view is simple.

Before City Hall asks residents for more, it should show residents that the basics come first.

Before adding new commitments, it should prove that core services are protected.

Before expanding spending, it should demonstrate that every major project has been tested against affordability, necessity, and long-term value.

Residents are not asking for everything at once. They are asking for a City that works, a budget that makes sense, and a Council that knows the difference between priority and excess.

That is the approach I believe Richmond Hill needs. If you believe City Hall should focus on the basics first, protect core services, and spend taxpayer dollars more wisely, I would be honoured to earn your support.

Richmond Hill is a great place to live, but growth should do more than add buildings. It should help create better places for residents, families, and local businesses.

Too many residents feel that Richmond Hill lacks welcoming places to gather, enjoy a walk, meet friends, or spend time together as a community.

People want destinations. They want places to eat, relax, stroll, support local businesses, and enjoy local life. They want areas where people stay a little longer instead of simply driving through.

When residents point to places like Markham Main Street or Newmarket Main Street, they are not saying Richmond Hill should copy another city. They are saying Richmond Hill should create more great places of its own.

That is a fair expectation.

Residents do not just want more development. They want better development.

Too often, development is measured by numbers alone: how many units, how many floors, and how much density. But residents experience growth through traffic, streetscapes, local businesses, public spaces, and whether there are places nearby that feel worth visiting.

That is why responsible planning must be about more than approving buildings. It must be about building community.

Richmond Hill should support walkable destinations, street-level activity, local restaurants, public gathering spaces, and attractive areas that bring people together.

That does not happen by accident. It happens when Council has a vision and expects development to contribute to community life, not just add more pressure.

Richmond Hill should be a place where you can meet family for dinner, enjoy a coffee, take an evening walk, support a local business, and feel proud of the community around you.

We should not settle for growth that only adds density.

We should push for growth that creates better places.

That means supporting local business, encouraging welcoming public spaces, and planning neighbourhoods that are not only functional, but vibrant, walkable, and connected.

Richmond Hill does not need to become another city. It needs to become the best version of itself.

If you believe Richmond Hill should grow in a way that creates better places, stronger local business, and a more vibrant community, I would be honoured to earn your support.

Residents deserve to feel safe in their own neighbourhood.

That should never be up for debate.

Richmond Hill is a caring community. We believe young people facing crisis, addiction, homelessness, or instability need help and support. Compassion matters. But compassion and public safety must go together. One should never come at the expense of the other.

In recent months, many residents have raised serious concerns about safety around the youth centre area. They have spoken about used needles, drug activity, trespassing, petty crime, loitering, and a growing sense that the surrounding neighbourhood is being asked to accept conditions that should never become normal.

These concerns should not be dismissed.

They should not be minimized.

And they should not be brushed aside as the price of helping vulnerable people.

A caring city does not choose between compassion and safety.

It delivers both.

Residents have every right to expect clean parks, safe sidewalks, secure homes, and peace of mind in the communities where they live. Families should not have to worry about what their children might find on the ground. Seniors should not feel uneasy walking in their own neighbourhood. Homeowners and nearby residents should not feel like their concerns are being ignored.

At the same time, young people in need deserve support that is structured, responsible, and managed in a way that protects both clients and the surrounding community.

This is why Richmond Hill needs answers.

What safety measures are currently in place around the facility and surrounding area?

What coordination exists between service providers, York Regional Police, City staff, and local residents?

What reporting process should residents use when they encounter used needles, trespassing, suspicious activity, or disorder?

What improvements can be made right now to address the impact on the neighbourhood?

And how will the public know whether the situation is getting better?

These are reasonable questions.

They are not attacks.

They are the kinds of questions responsible leadership should be asking.

Too often, residents feel they are left with frustration but no information. They are told to be patient, told to be understanding, or told that someone else is responsible. But leadership means stepping in, demanding clarity, and making sure community concerns are taken seriously.

My position is simple.

Supporting vulnerable youth matters.

So does protecting neighbourhood safety.

The people living near this area should not be made to feel invisible. Their concerns are real. Their quality of life matters. And their right to safety matters.

We need more transparency, better communication, and clear accountability from all parties involved.

We need practical action, not vague assurances.

Given the ongoing concerns raised by nearby residents, the City should review whether the current location, operating model, safety measures, and neighbourhood supports are working as intended.

This does not mean turning our backs on vulnerable youth. It means making sure support services are delivered responsibly, with proper safeguards for both the people using the service and the surrounding community.

If the current arrangement is creating repeated safety concerns for residents, then City Hall has a responsibility to ask whether changes are needed.

That means stronger coordination, faster response to neighbourhood concerns, clear cleanup protocols, public communication, and measurable steps to improve safety and confidence in the area.

A good community is one that shows compassion.

A strong community is one that shows compassion and responsibility at the same time.

Richmond Hill residents should not be forced to choose between compassion and safety. They deserve both. That is exactly what I believe City Hall should fight for, and if you believe in a safer, more compassionate, and more accountable Richmond Hill, I would be honoured to earn your support.

Richmond Hill should take a serious look at whether its current two-step council meeting process is still the best use of time and resources.

Committee of the Whole is supposed to be where the main discussion, debate, and review take place before matters move to Council for formal approval. That structure may have a purpose. But if most of the substantive discussion is already happening at Committee of the Whole, and the Council meetings that follow are often very short and largely procedural, then it is fair to ask whether the current process is creating duplication without enough added value.

Many Council meetings wrap up in about an hour, but that total includes procedural items such as the anthem, announcements, agenda approval, statutory declarations, and other formalities. As a result, the time spent on actual Council debate is often far less than an hour, sometimes only 20 to 30 minutes. When that is the case, residents are entitled to ask whether the staff preparation, administrative support, and public resources required for a separate formal meeting are being used efficiently.

If the substantive discussion has already taken place at Committee of the Whole, then a follow-up Council meeting devoted mostly to confirmation and procedure may not be the best use of City Hall’s time or taxpayer resources.

Every additional meeting creates work. A separate Council meeting requires its own agenda package, minutes, Clerk’s Office coordination, technical support, recording and administrative follow-up, even when the meeting itself is very short. Not all of that work is necessarily duplicated, because Council must still perform certain formal and procedural functions. However, when recommendations have already been thoroughly debated at Committee of the Whole and are subsequently approved by Council with little or no further discussion, the City should ask whether the benefit justifies maintaining a second set of administrative steps.

A short meeting is not automatically an unnecessary meeting. It may demonstrate that the work was completed effectively at the earlier stage. But that is precisely why Richmond Hill should examine whether the same transparency, public participation and accountability could be maintained through one streamlined Council process.

Good governance is not about how many meetings are held. It is about whether decisions are made carefully, transparently, and efficiently.

Families and businesses are expected to value time, avoid duplication, and use resources wisely. City Hall should do the same. When a process results in one meeting for the real discussion and another meeting that is often much shorter and focused largely on procedure, it is reasonable to review whether the structure still makes sense in practice.

This is not an argument against accountability or public debate. Those are essential. Residents deserve open discussion and careful decision-making. But they also deserve a system that respects staff time, respects taxpayer resources, and avoids unnecessary layers wherever possible.

If Richmond Hill can maintain transparency and accountability while streamlining its two-step Council meeting process, then that option should be on the table.

Government should not be more complicated than it needs to be. It should be effective, understandable, and respectful of the people who pay for it.

Richmond Hill should always be open to reviewing its processes and asking a simple question: does this structure still serve residents well, or is it time to consider a more efficient approach?

This same principle should apply more broadly. Council should focus its time on matters where the City has real authority and where decisions can produce real results for residents.

This does not mean Council should ignore serious issues such as hate, discrimination, or public safety. Those issues matter deeply. But Council should be careful to focus on actions within municipal authority, while urging the appropriate federal, provincial, regional, and policing bodies to take action.

When motions are primarily symbolic or directed at matters outside municipal jurisdiction, they may still be well-intentioned, but they consume staff time, agenda time, research, and follow-up. That is not free. If City Hall wants residents to accept higher costs, it should first show that it is reducing unnecessary process, avoiding duplication, and focusing on work that directly serves Richmond Hill.

A councillor’s role is not just to attend meetings and approve motions. It is also to think critically about how City Hall operates, identify where processes are outdated or duplicative, and look for ways to use staff time and taxpayer resources more wisely. I believe it is time for change, and if elected, I would propose eliminating Committee of the Whole to create a more efficient, accountable, and cost-effective Council process.