With Ontario’s municipal elections approaching on Oct. 26, eligible Niagara Falls residents are encouraged to register to vote and make their voices heard in determining the city’s future. The Brock Press has previously published an article outlining everything you need to know before you vote.
Eight candidates are running for mayor: April Jeffs, Brandon Simon, David McLeod, Gary Gaziani, David Clow, Natasha Bergman, Pat Chicocchio and Graham Speck. The Brock Press (TBP) contacted all eight candidates and received responses from six of them: Jeffs, Simon, McLeod, Gaziani, Clow and Bergman. Chicocchio and Speck have not responded to TBP’s interview requests as of writing.
Although the candidates share concerns about affordability, homelessness, economic development and government accountability, their proposed solutions reveal considerably different ideas about municipal leadership and the priorities Welland should pursue over the next four years.
For Jeffs, who previously served two terms as mayor of Wainfleet and works at Brock University, her campaign is centred on the belief that “Welland deserves better.”
She told TBP that Welland’s downtown has significant untapped potential but continues to struggle with homelessness, addiction, public safety concerns and barriers to business development.
Jeffs believes that addressing these challenges requires stronger cooperation between municipal government, community organizations, healthcare providers and businesses.
One of her first priorities, if elected, would be establishing a task force within approximately three months of taking office. The task force would bring together community service organizations, Niagara Health, Niagara Regional Police and other stakeholders to develop a coordinated approach to homelessness and addiction.
She also wants to improve downtown public spaces, reduce barriers for local businesses and encourage commercial and residential investment.
Jeffs sees opportunities to involve students in revitalizing the downtown. She discussed the potential for closer partnerships with Brock University and Niagara College, particularly through their healthcare programs and Welland Hospital’s proximity to the city centre.
By encouraging residential development and student housing, Jeffs believes the municipality could attract more young people downtown, supporting local restaurants, businesses and cultural events.
She highlighted the Bridge 13 music festival, which she said attracted approximately 10,000 attendees, as an example of activity Welland could build upon.
McLeod, who has served on Welland city council for 16 years, emphasized his experience in municipal government and business management as reasons for seeking the mayor’s office. With incumbent Mayor Frank Campion not seeking another term, McLeod argued that Welland requires experienced leadership to manage its growth, infrastructure demands and changing service needs.
A Brock University business graduate, McLeod told TBP that his approach begins by identifying the results the municipality should achieve and then determining the most efficient way to deliver them. He emphasized that municipal spending should be evaluated according to the effectiveness of services rather than focusing exclusively on reducing expenditures.
Gaziani, meanwhile, presented a campaign focused on collaboration, communication and improving municipal services. His vision of “building a better Welland together” involves strengthening relationships between residents, businesses, elected officials and municipal employees.
Gaziani argued that improvements are possible across nearly every area of municipal government, from public communication to the maintenance of streets and parks.
He emphasized that meaningful change requires cooperation between different groups rather than relying on a single elected official.
Simon offered a more critical assessment of Welland’s political environment, presenting his campaign as an independent alternative to what he considers an entrenched municipal political establishment.
Drawing on his experience in youth intervention and financial technology, Simon argued that his business background could be applied to municipal budgeting and economic development.
He expressed particular concern about political parties, campaign donations and organized political networks influencing municipal elections, arguing that these factors make it increasingly difficult for independent candidates to compete.
Simon said his campaign was intended to demonstrate that an independent candidate could present a detailed economic platform without relying on political party affiliations or campaign donations.
Clow similarly emphasized dissatisfaction with the existing political system. He argued that Welland should prioritize public safety, financial accountability and reducing pressures on residents rather than continuing the policies of previous municipal administrations.
“I am not a career politician with seven hats. I will do one job: make Welland ordinary again,” Clow wrote.
Bergman offered a different motivation for entering municipal politics, explaining that her campaign is rooted in the belief that every resident should have access to housing, healthcare and food.
She told TBP that she wants to challenge the status quo and push back against the tendency for different levels of government to defer responsibility for addressing social and economic challenges.
“I want people to have homes, health and food,” Bergman said. “I’m tired of our government saying it isn’t their job. Now it’s mine.”
Bergman repeatedly emphasized that her priorities are centred on what she described as “roofs over heads” and “food in bellies,” arguing that governments must first ensure residents have the necessities to survive before expecting them to thrive.
Despite their different motivations for running, municipal spending and affordability emerged as common concerns across the interviews.
Jeffs expressed concern about the financial pressures facing homeowners and argued that Welland needs to examine how its existing revenue is allocated.
She proposed conducting a line-by-line value-for-money audit within her first 90 days in office to identify inefficiencies and opportunities to limit future property tax increases. Jeffs clarified that her objective was not necessarily to cut essential services but to determine whether municipal resources could be allocated more effectively.
She drew on her experience as mayor of Wainfleet, explaining that the municipality’s relatively small residential tax base required careful budgeting despite its extensive road network and infrastructure responsibilities.
Jeffs also argued that Welland’s historical loss of industrial employers has shifted a greater portion of the municipal tax burden onto residential property owners.
As a result, she advocated for expanding the city’s commercial and light-industrial tax base, reducing barriers for businesses and collaborating with regional economic development organizations and post-secondary institutions to attract investment.
McLeod approached municipal efficiency through an emphasis on performance and service delivery.
Rather than identifying immediate cuts to specific departments, he proposed working with municipal directors to establish measurable objectives and determine whether existing services could be delivered more effectively.
He pointed to previous municipal service reviews that produced recommendations for improving government operations, suggesting that departmental leadership should have an opportunity to identify efficiencies before more extensive changes are considered.
McLeod argued that improvements in municipal finances should not come at the expense of infrastructure maintenance or service quality.
Gaziani similarly supported reviewing municipal spending but was reluctant to identify specific reductions without first consulting City Hall staff.
He argued that responsible financial decisions require understanding existing commitments and working with municipal employees to determine where improvements are possible.
Clow advocated for a more extensive review of municipal finances, proposing a freeze on the municipal portion of property taxes until a forensic audit of municipal expenditures is completed and made public.
He also called for greater scrutiny of municipal contracts, arguing that residents should be able to see where their money is going before facing additional tax increases.
Simon proposed redirecting municipal resources away from what he described as unnecessary subsidies for new developments and toward existing neighbourhoods, local businesses and public services.
He argued that new development can impose substantial infrastructure costs on taxpayers, particularly when municipalities must extend roads, water and sewer systems to support expanding residential areas.
Instead, Simon proposed focusing more heavily on revitalizing established neighbourhoods and increasing economic activity within the existing city.
Bergman similarly advocated for examining how municipal revenue is being spent, proposing a line-by-line budget review within her first 100 days in office.
She argued that residents are paying more in taxes while seeing reductions in municipal services and that the city should evaluate whether its current expenditures are producing adequate results.
Bergman also questioned reductions to development charges, arguing that new construction should contribute sufficiently to the infrastructure it requires.
“Growth should pay for growth,” she said, emphasizing that existing taxpayers should not be expected to absorb the costs associated with new developments.
Although her campaign involves proposals for expanded social services, Bergman maintained that responsibility for major income-support programs should not fall primarily on Welland property taxpayers.
Instead, she advocated for greater financial involvement from the provincial and federal governments.
For students, affordability extends beyond property taxes to the availability of rental housing, food and other necessities.
McLeod argued that Welland needs what he described as a “housing ladder” with different types of accommodation available to residents depending on their income and circumstances.
Rather than relying primarily on single-family homes, he advocated for a broader selection of housing, ranging from individual rooms in shared residences to larger rental units and homeownership opportunities.
McLeod emphasized the difficulty of creating deeply affordable housing, explaining that construction costs, financing and operating expenses can make it challenging for developers and non-profit organizations to offer units at substantially reduced rents.
He supported working with organizations that develop affordable housing and transfer ownership or operation to non-profit housing providers.
Simon outlined a more specific student housing proposal aimed at revitalizing downtown Welland.
He suggested encouraging property owners to convert existing homes into student room rentals, particularly properties valued at approximately $300,000 to $400,000.
Under his proposed model, landlords could receive property tax incentives in exchange for offering students rents approximately 30 per cent below prevailing rates.
Simon argued that this arrangement could provide students with lower-cost accommodations while making it financially attractive for property owners to renovate and rent existing homes.
He also suggested that increasing the student population downtown would support local restaurants, shops and other businesses.
The financial feasibility of such incentives and their potential effects on municipal revenue requires further assessment.
Jeffs also expressed interest in encouraging more students to live downtown, although her approach focused on attracting residential development and strengthening partnerships with educational institutions.
She argued that bringing more young people into the downtown area could help create a more active and economically sustainable community.
Bergman proposed a different approach, arguing that Welland needs to prioritize deeply affordable housing rather than relying on units designated as affordable simply because they are priced below the prevailing market rate.
She questioned whether housing offered at approximately 20 per cent below market rent is accessible to low-income residents, particularly those receiving Ontario Works or Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.
Bergman advocated for increasing rent-geared-to-income housing and Niagara Regional Housing units, arguing that long waiting lists demonstrate the need for a substantial expansion of non-market housing.
She also proposed a housing-first approach, where individuals experiencing homelessness are provided with stable accommodation alongside access to mental health, addiction and other support services.
As an example of possible municipal policy, Bergman discussed inclusionary housing approaches used in Burnaby, British Columbia, where development policies can require certain forms of rental housing as part of increased residential density.
Bergman said she had contacted a Burnaby councillor to better understand the municipality’s approach.
She acknowledged that British Columbia’s legislation differs from Ontario’s and that the model could not simply be adopted, but rather she argued that Welland should explore similar policies to ensure new development includes housing affordable to lower-income households.
Bergman suggested that increasing permanent affordable housing could also indirectly benefit students by reducing competition for individual room rentals among students, workers and low-income residents.
For her, housing and food insecurity are closely connected. When households spend most of their income on shelter, little remains for groceries, transportation and other necessities.
She also proposed advocating for a guaranteed basic income, distinguishing it from a universal basic income.
While universal basic income would provide payments to everyone regardless of financial circumstances, Bergman described guaranteed basic income as a targeted program that would supplement the incomes of people earning below an established minimum threshold.
She argued that such a program could improve housing stability, reduce reliance on emergency services and provide residents with greater financial security.
When questioned about how it would be funded, Bergman emphasized that Welland residents should not be expected to finance the program through municipal property taxes.
Instead, she proposed advocating for federal and provincial funding, potentially through the consolidation of existing income supports, reduced demand for crisis services, tax-system adjustments and increased economic activity.
Bergman acknowledged that such a program would require significant investment and cooperation between different levels of government.
She pointed to Ontario’s former basic income pilot as an example of previous government interest in the concept and suggested that municipalities could work together to renew discussions about implementing income guarantees.
The question of affordability also led to one of the most significant issues facing Welland: the interconnected crises of homelessness, addiction and mental health.
Jeffs identified these issues as among her most immediate priorities.
She argued that the city’s response needs stronger coordination between municipal officials, healthcare providers, police and community organizations.
She also emphasized the need for transitional supportive housing, which could help individuals move from homelessness toward stable accommodation while receiving appropriate medical and social support.
Jeffs believes the province must play a larger role in funding these services because municipal governments have limited financial and legislative authority to address the crisis independently.
McLeod also recognized the relationship between homelessness, addiction, mental health and affordability.
He argued that the circumstances leading individuals into homelessness vary significantly and cannot be addressed through a single intervention.
Instead, McLeod advocated for individualized approaches that consider people’s housing needs, financial situations and access to mental health or addiction services.
He emphasized working with service providers to identify meaningful outcomes rather than assuming that one program will work for everyone.
Gaziani similarly stressed collaboration and direct engagement with those affected.
He told TBP that he had visited organizations working with people experiencing homelessness and addiction to better understand the challenges they face.
Gaziani argued that municipal leaders should bring service organizations, residents, government representatives and individuals with lived experience together to develop solutions.
He also emphasized pursuing regional, provincial and federal funding rather than relying entirely on municipal resources.
Simon proposed replacing the existing overnight shelter model with a 24-hour “work-to-live” community intended for Welland residents who have experienced homelessness and are prepared to participate in employment and housing support programs.
He described a pilot project involving renovated municipal properties or residential homes accommodating small groups of participants.
Residents would receive assistance from social workers or other support staff, establish mailing addresses and build rental and employment histories.
Simon also proposed involving local employers who could provide work opportunities and transportation.
He argued that this model could help participants build savings, establish credit and transition toward independent housing.
At the same time, Simon criticized existing emergency shelter and harm-reduction services, arguing that the financial responsibility for addressing homelessness should fall more heavily on provincial and federal governments.
He also proposed relocating certain services away from downtown Welland, expressing concern about public safety and the costs associated with repeated emergency responses.
Simon’s comments included claims that people experiencing homelessness were being transported into Welland from other municipalities and that emergency services were incurring substantial costs as a result. While this sentiment is shared by other residents of Niagara Region online, no strong empirical evidence was found to support this argument.
Clow similarly opposed continuing the current low-barrier shelter model.
He criticized the Ontario Road shelter, citing a reported construction cost of $2.84 million, annual operating expenses of approximately $1 million and a city land lease of $2 million.
Clow said he would not renew that lease and would oppose establishing additional low-barrier shelter facilities on city-owned land.
He argued that municipal policy should prioritize housing and treatment over the continued distribution of harm-reduction supplies.
Clow also called for the publication of shelter outcomes so residents could assess whether publicly funded programs are producing meaningful improvements.
Bergman advocated for maintaining a housing-first approach while expanding access to mental health and addiction treatment.
She argued that people experiencing homelessness or substance use challenges should not be blamed for broader failures in housing and social service systems.
According to Bergman, the demand for treatment currently exceeds the capacity of available services, leaving people who actively seek help facing waiting periods.
She advocated for increasing residential addiction treatment capacity, withdrawal management services and psychiatric beds through partnerships with Niagara Health and other provincial healthcare organizations.
Bergman also proposed creating a local task force that would bring together service providers, volunteers, municipal representatives, police, residents and people who use the services themselves.
Rather than allowing individual organizations to operate separately, she argued that coordinating their efforts around shared goals could improve service delivery and reduce duplication.
For shorter-term solutions, Bergman proposed identifying unused municipal land and buildings that could potentially be repurposed for housing and support services.
She emphasized that these initiatives should have measurable outcomes so residents can assess whether public resources are improving conditions.
Bergman also highlighted existing Niagara Region assistance programs that can help eligible low-income residents address housing instability, unpaid utility bills or the possibility of eviction.
She suggested that increasing awareness of these supports could provide more immediate assistance while longer-term housing programs are developed.
Although the candidates agreed that homelessness and addiction require attention, their approaches differ in important ways. Jeffs, McLeod, Gaziani and Bergman emphasized cooperation, housing and support services, while Simon and Clow advocated for significant changes to existing shelter operations and the conditions attached to public assistance.
Another major concern for students living in Welland is Niagara Region Transit (NRT), which has faced criticism over service frequency, route availability and the difficulty of travelling between municipalities.
For many Brock University and Niagara College students, commuting involves lengthy transfers and significant waiting periods, particularly when travelling from communities outside St. Catharines.
Jeffs acknowledged that transit accessibility remains a challenge, particularly for students living outside areas directly served by major routes.
She described hearing concerns from residents who rent rooms to Niagara College students, including difficulties caused by inconvenient routes and limited connections.
Jeffs argued that NRT should pay greater attention to the needs of students and workers through more direct routes and reliable service between educational institutions and residential areas.
She also emphasized that improving transit would require advocacy at the regional and provincial levels, potentially including additional funding.
McLeod recognized the importance of accessible public transportation but cautioned against promising service expansion without first understanding the costs.
He advocated for reviewing existing routes and ridership patterns to determine whether service could be improved through more efficient scheduling or reallocating resources.
McLeod argued that transit decisions should consider both accessibility and financial sustainability.
Gaziani similarly supported reviewing NRT’s operations and bringing municipal and regional stakeholders together to identify service gaps.
He argued that a regional transit system should serve residents throughout Niagara rather than operating primarily around individual municipalities.
Gaziani suggested that routes and schedules should be evaluated according to their usefulness for students, workers and other transit-dependent residents.
Simon proposed a public-private partnership model for regional transportation, drawing comparisons with arrangements used in other Ontario municipalities.
He criticized what he characterized as insufficient investment in transit infrastructure and argued that decisions about new routes should consider future housing and economic development rather than relying exclusively on existing ridership.
According to Simon, municipalities may hesitate to establish bus routes in developing areas because current demand is low, even though the absence of service can discourage people from moving there.
He advocated for improving direct connections between downtown Welland, Niagara College and other major destinations, arguing that reliable transit could encourage student housing investment and economic development.
Clow also identified transit reliability as an important student concern.
He proposed advocating at the regional level for more frequent service along routes heavily used by students, alongside stronger connections between Welland, Thorold, St. Catharines and Niagara Falls.
Clow argued that transit decisions should be supported by publicly available ridership information, with reliability and safety taking priority.
Bergman expressed particular frustration with the accessibility of the regional transportation system.
She described situations in which residents travelling between Welland and St. Catharines face journeys lasting approximately two hours, making transit impractical for certain employment and educational opportunities.
Bergman also raised concerns about service schedules that do not accommodate early morning workers, including people employed in construction, landscaping and greenhouse operations. She argued that unreliable transit can prevent residents without access to personal vehicles from accepting employment, attending school or accessing healthcare.
Bergman proposed a review of NRT’s operations, including third-party contracts, and suggested that the region should examine whether its current structure is providing adequate value to passengers and taxpayers.
She also expressed openness to reconsidering aspects of the regional transit consolidation if evidence demonstrated that alternative arrangements could provide more effective service.
For Bergman, transit should be evaluated not only according to operating costs but also by whether residents can realistically use it to meet their everyday needs.
Despite their different proposals, all six candidates recognized that accessible transportation has consequences for education, employment and economic opportunity across Niagara.
Beyond transit, the future structure of Niagara’s municipal government emerged as another significant issue.
With the provincial government pursuing changes to Niagara Region’s political representation and discussions surrounding municipal amalgamation continuing, the candidates were asked about their opinions on amalgamating Niagara Region municipalities.
Jeffs expressed skepticism toward full municipal amalgamation.
Drawing on her experience in Wainfleet, she argued that Niagara’s municipalities have distinct identities and needs that may not be adequately served through a consolidated government.
She questioned whether amalgamation would necessarily produce the financial savings suggested by its supporters.
Instead, Jeffs advocated for examining opportunities to share services and establish a clearer division of responsibilities between local municipalities and Niagara Region.
She suggested that regional government should focus on essential regional services, while municipalities could potentially assume greater responsibility for certain local matters.
McLeod approached the issue cautiously, arguing that any restructuring should be evaluated according to its demonstrated benefits.
He emphasized the importance of understanding the financial, administrative and service consequences before committing to a particular model.
Rather than endorsing amalgamation without sufficient evidence, McLeod advocated for assessing whether changes would improve outcomes for residents.
Gaziani opposed eliminating Welland’s identity through amalgamation but expressed openness to examining whether reducing the number of elected positions or streamlining government operations could improve efficiency.
He argued that municipalities should cooperate more closely without necessarily surrendering their individual identities.
Simon was strongly critical of reducing elected representation.
He argued that amalgamation and smaller councils could make municipal elections increasingly difficult for independent candidates and concentrate political power among fewer officials.
Simon also expressed concern about the influence of provincial and federal political parties in municipal campaigns, alleging that organized political networks and financial support provide advantages to certain candidates.
Simon maintained that municipal politics should remain independent from partisan organizations and that reducing the number of representatives could weaken democratic accountability.
Clow opposed amalgamation outright.
“Bigger government does not fix the problems we already have,” he wrote.
He argued that Welland should maintain control over its municipal council and budget while continuing to coordinate regional services where appropriate.
Bergman similarly opposed municipal amalgamation, emphasizing that Welland should retain its identity and decision-making authority.
However, she also stressed the importance of cooperation between Niagara’s municipalities, arguing that protecting local representation does not prevent governments from working together on shared concerns.
Bergman maintained that her first responsibility as mayor would be representing Welland residents, but that regional decision-making should also consider the broader interests of Niagara.
The candidates’ positions reflect a central question surrounding the future of regional government: whether reducing administrative duplication would improve services or whether greater consolidation could weaken residents’ ability to influence decisions affecting their communities.
Government accountability was another prominent theme, with each candidate discussing ways to improve communication between City Hall and residents.
Jeffs proposed creating a more welcoming and responsive municipal government.
She argued that accountability begins with establishing a culture of cooperation and encouraging residents, businesses and community organizations to participate in decision-making.
Jeffs also expressed interest in strengthening Welland’s existing relationship with Brock University — including research partnerships — while encouraging more young people to engage with local politics.
McLeod emphasized the importance of clearly communicating municipal priorities and measuring progress.
He suggested that City Hall should identify its most pressing challenges, establish expected service levels and publicly explain how officials intend to meet those expectations.
By evaluating outcomes and communicating them to residents, McLeod argued that the municipality could strengthen trust and reduce uncertainty.
Gaziani’s approach centred on direct communication with municipal employees, residents and organizations.
He advocated for bringing together people involved in different aspects of city operations and encouraging cooperation between departments and community stakeholders.
In his view, better communication would help identify problems more quickly and create a stronger sense of shared responsibility for the city’s future.
Simon proposed using technology to give residents a more direct role in municipal decision-making.
His platform included a “MyWelland” application through which residents could communicate priorities and provide direction to elected councillors.
He also advocated for a more open City Hall, including opportunities for residents to question councillors directly during public meetings.
Simon argued that existing municipal structures give elected officials too much freedom to make decisions without sufficient ongoing input from residents.
Clow proposed publishing municipal contracts, spending outcomes and recorded council votes online.
He also advocated for town hall meetings before the municipal budget is finalized, allowing residents to comment on spending priorities before decisions are made.
His proposal for a forensic audit formed part of this wider focus on financial transparency.
Bergman similarly identified accessibility and public communication as central priorities.
She proposed limiting closed-door council meetings to circumstances where confidentiality is legally required, while making council agendas, meeting minutes and decisions more readily available in plain language.
Bergman argued that residents often learn about municipal decisions too late to meaningfully participate in the process.
She proposed communicating proposed decisions earlier so residents have sufficient time to become informed, organize and provide input.
She also advocated for quarterly town hall meetings and periodic public surveys, potentially distributed through the city’s website, newsletters and other communication channels.
Bergman emphasized that residents should be able to choose how they receive municipal information rather than being expected to rely exclusively on online platforms.
For Bergman, transparency requires more than publishing documents; it also means ensuring that people can understand and respond to government decisions before those decisions are finalized.
In addition to the issues immediately affecting residents, the candidates discussed Welland’s infrastructure and long-term economic future.
McLeod emphasized that Welland faces two distinct infrastructure responsibilities: expanding capacity to accommodate new development and maintaining existing roads, water systems and other municipal assets.
He argued that prioritizing either responsibility at the expense of the other would create long-term problems.
McLeod also raised concerns about infrastructure renewal needs, suggesting that Welland faces a substantial funding gap that will require careful planning and provincial assistance.
Healthcare was another important priority for McLeod.
He emphasized the importance of maintaining access to services at Welland Hospital while the region develops and updates its healthcare infrastructure. He argued that provincial and regional advocacy would be essential to securing the resources needed for healthcare and infrastructure improvements.
Jeffs emphasized economic diversification and the need to attract investment that could strengthen Welland’s commercial and industrial tax base.
She argued that the city’s historical loss of industry has increased its reliance on residential property taxes and that expanding employment opportunities would help make Welland more financially sustainable.
Jeffs also highlighted the potential for partnerships with Brock University and Niagara College to support workforce development and attract new businesses. For students, she believes creating meaningful employment opportunities is essential to making Niagara a place where graduates choose to remain.
Gaziani’s priorities focused on improving municipal services, maintaining public spaces and creating an environment where residents and businesses feel supported.
He argued that cleaner parks, improved streets and stronger relationships between businesses and municipal government could contribute to greater public confidence in Welland’s future.
Simon advocated for focusing economic development on existing neighbourhoods and downtown Welland rather than relying heavily on new subdivisions.
He argued that renovating older properties, expanding student housing and improving transportation connections could increase economic activity while reducing the need for costly infrastructure expansion.
He also maintained that reducing certain municipal expenditures could free resources for transit and other priorities.
Clow identified healthcare and development funding among his regional and provincial priorities.
He called for greater support for Welland Hospital and physician recruitment, alongside policies requiring new development to contribute adequately to the infrastructure costs associated with growth.
Clow argued that existing taxpayers should not be expected to absorb expenses that could be covered through development charges.
Bergman’s regional and provincial priorities centred on housing, food security, healthcare and reducing financial insecurity.
She argued that residents’ access to basic necessities should take precedence in discussions about economic development and government spending.
Bergman also advocated for stronger development charges, maintaining that new growth should contribute to the costs of expanding municipal infrastructure.
She expressed interest in identifying underused land and properties that could be repurposed for affordable housing while seeking additional support from higher levels of government.
Beyond housing, Bergman discussed the potential for income assistance and food programs to improve public health and reduce demand on emergency services.
She suggested that providing greater income security could allow residents to maintain stable housing, afford groceries and avoid crises that would otherwise place pressure on healthcare and social service systems.
Bergman recognized that many of her proposals would require provincial or federal cooperation and potentially significant policy changes.
However, she argued that municipal leaders should actively advocate for those changes rather than treating jurisdictional limitations as reasons to abandon them.
She also emphasized that short-term measures, including budget reviews, partnerships between service providers and the use of existing municipal properties, could be pursued while larger programs are developed.
Across the interviews, the candidates offered different perspectives on how Welland should manage growth, address financial pressures and strengthen essential services.
Jeffs is advocating for a coordinated response to homelessness, a review of municipal spending, downtown revitalization and economic development that attracts new investment.
McLeod is emphasizing his council experience, performance-based service delivery, housing diversity and long-term infrastructure planning.
Gaziani is focusing on communication, collaboration and improving municipal services through stronger relationships between City Hall and the broader community.
Simon is proposing changes to municipal spending, student housing incentives, transit operations, homelessness programs and democratic participation, while challenging what he sees as entrenched political influence.
Clow is calling for stricter financial oversight, changes to shelter operations, public disclosure of municipal contracts and greater protection of Welland’s local decision-making authority.
Bergman is advocating for a housing-first approach, deeply affordable housing, expanded addiction and mental health services, guaranteed basic income and greater public involvement in municipal decisions.
Despite these differences, their interviews demonstrate how closely municipal decisions are connected to the lives of students and other young residents.
Housing policies affect whether students can afford accommodation near their campuses. Public transportation determines how easily they can travel between classes, employment and home. Municipal development decisions influence employment opportunities and the affordability of remaining in Niagara after graduation.
Meanwhile, changes to Niagara’s regional government could significantly influence how decisions about healthcare, transit, housing, homelessness and infrastructure are made over the next four years.
With eight candidates seeking the mayor’s office, Welland residents are being presented with different approaches to the challenges facing their community.
Although municipal politics frequently receives less public attention than provincial or federal elections, the issues discussed by the candidates demonstrate the direct influence local government has on everyday life.
With the municipal election scheduled for Oct. 26, eligible Welland voters have an opportunity to determine which priorities will shape the city’s next four years.
For Brock University and Niagara College students, understanding these proposals and participating in the municipal election offers an opportunity to influence the communities in which they live, study and work.