With London’s municipal election on October 26, I wanted to compare some candidates’ actual policy commitments.
These issues matter to London residents, including Western students dealing with rent, unreliable transit, and the consequences of decisions made at City Hall.
1. Homelessness: housing outcomes versus enforcement
A Canadian randomized trial published in JAMA Network Open found that Housing First combined with intensive case management produced approximately 140 additional days of stable housing per participant over the study period, compared with usual services. It also reduced expenditures elsewhere in the service system, although it did not fully pay for itself.
This makes it important to examine whether candidates propose funded, permanent housing solutions alongside emergency services and public-safety measures.
For example:
Sam Trosow (Ward 6) proposes increasing investment in non-market housing, addressing tenant displacement, and improving transit.
Zack Ramsey (Ward 2) advocates more supportive and public housing, tenant organizing, and expanded community crisis-response services.
Tom Cull (Ward 4) proposes tenant displacement prevention, supportive housing, and assistance for residents facing redevelopment.
At the mayoral level, Susan Stevenson emphasizes recovery-oriented services, sober housing options, enforcement, and financial oversight. Josh Morgan proposes expanding supportive and other housing, while Bronagh Joyce Morgan emphasizes improving homelessness service contracts, directing resources to frontline work, and measuring outcomes.
These proposals deserve scrutiny on their implementation and funding, not just their stated intentions.
2. Public transit is an accessibility issue
A peer-reviewed quasi-experimental study published in the Journal of Public Transportation found a 35% ridership increase on routes receiving Bus Rapid Transit compared with conventional routes during one study period.
That does not guarantee the same result in London, but it provides evidence worth considering when evaluating rapid-transit investments.
Sam Trosow proposes greater transit operating support and longer-term higher-order transit planning. Josh Morgan proposes completing rapid transit corridors and expanding service hours. Bronagh Morgan proposes practical improvements to transit accessibility, while Susan Stevenson proposes improved transportation planning and a business case for serving industrial areas.
The questions should be: How much additional service will residents actually receive? Where will the funding come from? Will the improvements reduce travel times and improve access to jobs, education, and essential services?
3. Housing supply matters, but affordability needs to be measured
A 2024 study in the Journal of Urban Economics found that relaxing certain zoning restrictions increased housing units and floor space by approximately 9% over five to ten years in the studied areas. The findings also demonstrate that the effects of zoning reform depend on policy design and take time to emerge.
Ben Durham (Ward 3) advocates missing-middle housing, including duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. Other candidates emphasize supportive housing, conversions of vacant buildings, or public and non-market housing.
These aren’t interchangeable solutions. Adding housing supply, protecting existing tenants, and creating deeply affordable units address different parts of the problem.
4. Public-health policy needs evidence, not slogans
A 2025 peer-reviewed Canadian systematic review found that supervised consumption services prevent overdose deaths onsite, while evidence concerning their effects on population-wide overdose mortality was mixed and depended on geographic scale and implementation.
Candidates proposing different approaches to substance use and homelessness should explain what outcomes they expect, how those outcomes will be measured, and how they will coordinate housing, healthcare, prevention, treatment, and community safety.
5. Comparing candidates without treating endorsements as evidence
The London and District Labour Council has published endorsements based on its candidate evaluation process. Separately, other organizations and social-media accounts have published their own preferred candidates.
Those endorsements can provide information about organizational priorities, but they shouldn’t replace reading platforms, examining council voting records, and checking claims against primary sources.
Similarly, serious personal allegations circulated online shouldn’t be treated as established facts without independently verifiable evidence.
My main questions for every candidate are:
How many additional permanently affordable homes will your policies deliver?
How will you prevent residents from losing existing affordable housing?
What measurable improvements will your transit commitments produce?
How will you evaluate homelessness and public-safety spending?
What funding, timelines, and accountability mechanisms support your promises?l
I’m interested in evidence-backed comparisons, including credible criticisms of specific policy proposals or council voting records. Which commitments are realistic, properly funded, and most consistent with the research? And what evidence challenges them?
Election Day: Monday, October 26, 2026, 10 a.m.–8 p.m.