Following the recent media release and coverage of mayoral candidate Tim Cartmell’s announcement regarding a proposed citywide infill moratorium, I want to clarify my position.

This is a moment that underscores what I value about the Better Edmonton team. We are not a party of forced consensus, but a team grounded in shared values and mutual respect. That means I am not expected to agree with every statement made by other members of the team, including Tim. In this case, I do not agree with the entire statement as it was released. If I am elected and this motion returns after October 20, I will continue to approach each issue through the lens of what I hear directly from residents, what I believe serves the long-term interests of our city, and what supports thoughtful, community-connected growth.

I met with my Better Edmonton colleagues, including Tim, prior to the release of the statement. We had the opportunity to speak at length. While we share a commitment to a more accountable and responsive City Council, there are elements of the proposed approach where my perspective differs. In particular, I asked for clarity on the use of the word “moratorium.” Following our conversation, it became clear that the intent was to frame it as a pause, a tool to rebuild trust and find a middle ground, especially in contrast to more extreme proposals such as a repeal of the Zoning Bylaw.

Do I believe trust in the infill process needs to be rebuilt? Yes. There are valid examples where infill has been implemented without strong design or clear consideration for the practical, everyday needs of surrounding communities. That matters, and residents are right to expect better.

While the statement refers to infill broadly, much of the current concern centers on midblock housing. I support the proposed motion to reduce the maximum number of row housing units on midblock lots from eight to six. At the same time, I believe we need a regulatory framework that allows for flexibility. Where lot size permits, there should be a clear and transparent pathway to consider variances that support a higher density cap when appropriate.

It is a modest but tangible change, based on what we have seen on the ground. The scale and form of development in many areas has simply not matched the character or capacity of the streets they are being built on. This adjustment acknowledges this. There is an opportunity for district planning to provide greater clarity and certainty for residents about what is being built and where.

In summary, I remain committed to infill. When done well, it is essential to responsible growth, climate action, housing choice, and neighbourhood renewal. I believe Edmonton needs more thoughtful infill, not less, and better tools to deliver it in a way that works for communities.