Growth is not the enemy. Infrastructure has to keep pace with it.

The Blue Mountains is going to continue growing. That can bring new housing, businesses, investment and opportunities. But every major growth decision also creates questions about water, wastewater, roads, stormwater, parks and the long-term cost of maintaining municipal infrastructure.

Those questions need to be answered as part of planning for growth, not years afterward.

A development should work on the site where it is being proposed.

I am not opposed to density, apartments or new development simply because they represent change. Nor do I think every development should automatically be approved because we need more housing.

The question is whether a particular proposal makes sense in a particular location. Servicing capacity, transportation, parking, surrounding land uses and infrastructure all matter.

Growth should help pay for growth.

Existing residents should not unnecessarily carry costs created by new development. I support using the development-financing tools available to municipalities responsibly while recognizing that those costs ultimately affect the feasibility and price of new construction.

The goal should be a fair balance: accommodate responsible growth without shifting an unreasonable share of its infrastructure costs onto existing taxpayers.

Housing is a municipal responsibility. That doesn’t mean the Town needs to be the developer.

Municipal government cannot control interest rates, construction costs or the broader housing market. It does, however, make important decisions about zoning, servicing, approvals, density and what kinds of housing can be built where.

That gives the Town an important role in housing.

I believe our focus should be on understanding what housing the community actually needs and creating the conditions for appropriate housing to be built, rather than assuming another major municipally led housing project is automatically the answer.

We need more housing choices, not one definition of housing.

Different stages of life require different homes. Young people entering the housing market, families, workers looking to live closer to their jobs, and older residents hoping to downsize do not necessarily need the same thing.

Planning policy should make room for an appropriate range of housing types and should avoid unnecessary barriers to forms of housing that make sense for our communities and infrastructure.

Tourism is an asset to The Blue Mountains. Our goal should not simply be more visitors.

Tourism is one of the foundations of our local economy. It supports businesses, jobs, restaurants, recreation and many of the amenities residents enjoy. I support a strong tourism economy and want The Blue Mountains to remain a welcoming destination.

But visitor counts alone are a poor measure of success.

I am more interested in attracting longer stays, year-round activity, greater spending at local businesses and tourism that creates enough economic value to justify the pressures it places on infrastructure and public spaces.

Tourism-generated revenue should help strengthen the year-round community.

There is an important distinction between asking property taxpayers to subsidize tourism and strategically reinvesting revenues generated by the visitor economy.

Where possible, I want those investments producing benefits that visitors and residents can share: better public spaces, parks, waterfront access, wayfinding, amenities and infrastructure.

Tourism works best when the year-round community is healthy too.

Our economy should not depend on tourism alone.

Tourism will remain enormously important, but there is room to broaden our commercial and employment base.

I work with businesses and manufacturers across Ontario, and municipalities compete for investment. Clear processes, appropriate employment lands, adequate infrastructure and a municipality that is straightforward to work with all matter.

Essential services come first. “Non-core” does not mean unnecessary.

Water, wastewater, roads and emergency services are fundamental municipal responsibilities. Particularly when finances are constrained, protecting essential infrastructure and services has to be a priority.

But I do not support reducing municipal government to those functions alone.

Parks, trails, recreation, libraries and community spaces contribute to why people choose to live here. They still need to be evaluated for cost and public value, but calling something “non-core” does not automatically make it wasteful.

Financial pressure requires prioritization, not panic.

A difficult financial period does not mean every project should continue as planned. Nor does it mean everything beyond basic services should immediately be cancelled.

Council needs to distinguish between what is essential, what remains valuable, what can reasonably be deferred and what no longer justifies further investment.

Money already spent is not, by itself, a reason to spend more. The question should always be whether the next dollar is justified.

The number of bylaws is less important than whether they make sense.

I don’t think reducing regulation simply for the sake of having fewer rules is good government.

A regulation should address a real problem, be reasonably effective at addressing it, and impose a burden on residents and businesses that is proportionate to the benefit it provides.

If a regulation cannot meet that test, I am open to changing or eliminating it.

Bylaw enforcement should focus on compliance and be respectful and practical.

Most residents and businesses want to follow reasonable rules. Wherever appropriate, the goal of enforcement should be achieving compliance rather than punishment for its own sake.

Enforcement resources should also reflect the problems we are asking officers to address. If recurring violations predominantly occur at particular times, including evenings, our enforcement model should be designed around when those problems actually happen.