2026 London Municipal Election: Schelley Bisson – Councilor Ward 13

Name: Schelley Bisson

What position are you running for? Councilor Ward 13

What do you see as the principal opportunities and obstacles facing London’s economy over the next Council term? What should the City do to support business growth, job creation, entrepreneurship and investment, and how should it work with employers, Western University, Fanshawe College and others to attract and retain the talent London needs?

London does not have an ideas problem. We have a follow-through problem.

Our advantages are substantial: Western, Fanshawe, healthcare and research, manufacturing, technology, skilled trades, entrepreneurs and a growing population. The challenge is turning those assets into businesses that start and stay here, investment that gets built, and careers that keep talented people in London.

City Hall should focus on barriers it can control. I support an independent Applicant Experience Audit of development, permitting and municipal business processes to identify unnecessary delays, duplication, unclear responsibility and avoidable costs. We should also learn why businesses close, relocate or abandon investments and act when the same municipal barriers keep appearing.

The City should work with employers, Western and Fanshawe to identify workforce gaps and strengthen pathways into local employment, skilled trades and entrepreneurship.

My test: Did the business open? Did the investment get built? Did the job get created? Did the graduate stay?

London now has a new Downtown Plan. Which elements would you prioritize and what results should Londoners expect to see during the next Council term? Please address the downtown business environment, public spaces, housing and office conversions, cultural and civic destinations, safety, transportation and implementation accountability.

I have lived downtown for eleven years. I experience it when I walk out my front door. I have watched businesses struggle, storefronts remain vacant, public disorder become normalized and construction disrupt access.

The Downtown Plan now needs disciplined implementation. First, stabilize the core: safer and cleaner public spaces, better conditions for businesses, coordinated construction and access, and accountability for chronically vacant and stalled properties. Then rebuild activity through adaptive reuse, appropriate office-to-residential conversions, occupied storefronts, and cultural and civic destinations that bring people downtown and keep them there.

I would push for a public Downtown Plan scorecard showing major commitments, funding, responsibility, timelines, status and results.

Arts, entertainment, restaurants, festivals and heritage can help drive recovery, but culture cannot carry an unsafe block.

Four years from now, the test is whether more people choose to live, work, visit, invest and spend time downtown.

London faces an urgent health and homelessness crisis. Residents, employees and businesses also have concerns about violence, property crime, public disorder and confidence in public spaces. These conditions require related but distinct responses. What actions would you support in each area, and what responsibilities should fall to the City, police, the health system, other orders of government and community partners?

Compassion and public safety are not competing values. London must be capable of both.

Homelessness, addiction and mental illness cannot be solved through policing alone. But violence, theft, open drug use and serious public disorder cannot simply be treated as health issues. The City is responsible for areas including shelter, housing and public-space management; police for lawful enforcement and public safety; and the Province and health system for treatment, detoxification and mental-health capacity.

On August 24, I submitted a governance and accountability request to the London Police Services Board asking what results our enforcement, discretion and referral approaches are producing, and how unmet needs are identified when policing reaches the limits of its role.

My longer-term proposal is Living Futures: crisis → treatment → recovery → housing → skills/training → employment → greater independence. I also support seriously examining a coordinated campus model against distributed services for cost, accessibility and results.

The objective is not better management of permanent crisis. It is helping people get out of crisis while making the community safer.

What changes would you support to increase housing supply and affordability and create neighbourhoods with access to employment, services, transportation and public amenities?

London does not simply need more housing approvals. We need homes that actually get built, at different price points, in neighbourhoods where people can realistically live.

I support faster, more predictable approvals, appropriate infill and density, housing along major corridors and transit, adaptive reuse, and office-to-residential conversions where they make sense. But approved units on paper are not homes.

When projects stall, Council should understand why: financing, infrastructure, market conditions, municipal delay, fees or another barrier, and act where the municipality has authority. The same applies to chronically vacant properties: enforce standards while removing legitimate barriers to productive reuse.

Housing must connect with infrastructure, transit, employment, parks and everyday services. Affordability is more than the price of a unit; it includes the cost of living in and getting around a neighbourhood.

London should track approvals, starts, completions, approval times and recurring barriers. The result that matters is people actually finding homes.

London’s cultural facilities, venues and public spaces are essential to the life of the city, and several face age, capacity or funding pressures. What cultural infrastructure should be prioritised during the next Council term, and how should the City decide where to invest?

I would prioritize cultural infrastructure that people will actually use and that London can afford to sustain.

Before committing major public dollars to a new building or expansion, Council should ask: What demonstrated need does this solve? Who will use it? What will it cost to operate and maintain? Is it accessible? Could an existing facility or public space do the job better?

That includes assets we already have. Harris Park can bring thousands of people downtown for music, festivals and community events. We should examine how existing facilities, parks and public spaces can be improved and used more effectively before assuming every need requires a new building.

Priority should go to investments that enable year-round activity, improve accessibility, strengthen events and create spillover for surrounding businesses. Adaptive reuse should also be considered for underused buildings.

I want cultural places that remain active and valuable, not buildings we struggle to sustain afterward.

London’s economic success depends on reliable local, regional, national and international connections. How would you improve local transit and service to major employment areas and shift workers, intercity bus and air links, and passenger rail? What should businesses and employees be able to expect in terms of frequency, reliability and access?

London’s transportation system should be judged by whether people can reliably get where they need to go, when they need to get there—not by how many routes exist on a map.

Locally, I would prioritize reliability, frequency, accessibility and better connections to major employment areas, particularly for shift workers outside traditional commuting hours. Employers should help identify service gaps that prevent people from reaching available jobs. As London grows, housing, employment and transit should be planned together.

Our economy also depends on connections beyond London. Council does not control passenger rail, intercity bus routes or airline decisions, but it should persistently advocate and partner with senior governments, neighbouring municipalities and transportation providers for better connections.

Transportation is economic infrastructure. If workers cannot reliably reach jobs, employers cannot access workers, or London is poorly connected to other markets, there is an economic cost.

What changes would you make to municipal approvals, regulation, procurement and customer service to make it easier to invest, build and operate a business in London?

City Hall should protect legitimate public interests without making it unnecessarily difficult to invest, build or operate a business.

I would establish clear service standards for approvals, realistic timelines and one accountable contact for complex files. Applicants should know what is required, who is responsible and what happens when a municipal deadline is missed.

I support an independent Applicant Experience Audit to identify recurring delays, duplication and unclear requirements from the perspective of people actually using the system, followed by specific corrective action.

Procurement should remain fair and competitive while being easier for smaller local businesses to understand and navigate. We should identify unnecessary complexity that prevents qualified London firms from competing.

The larger change is cultural. Businesses should encounter a City that protects the rules while helping people comply with them.

My standard is simple: don’t just tell someone what they cannot do. Tell them what they need to do to get it done properly.

London City Council approved the 2025–2035 ReconciliAction Plan in May 2025, committing the City to 155 actions over ten years. What should the next Council do to translate these commitments into a clear, properly resourced implementation plan developed with Indigenous partners? How would you advance reconciliation through economic development, procurement, planning, cultural investment and municipal services?

A ten-year plan with 155 actions requires disciplined follow-through. The next Council should work with Indigenous partners to identify priorities, required resources, responsibility and realistic timelines—not decide those things for them.

I would support a clear implementation schedule developed with Indigenous partners and regular public reporting on what has been completed, what remains outstanding and where barriers exist.

Economic reconciliation should include fair access for Indigenous businesses to municipal procurement opportunities, stronger pathways into employment and economic development, appropriate Indigenous participation in planning, and support for cultural initiatives with clear community value. Municipal services should also be assessed for whether Indigenous residents can access and use them effectively.

The standard should not be whether City Hall can say an action was checked off. It should be whether commitments are properly resourced, partnerships are respected and Indigenous partners recognize the progress as meaningful.

If London makes commitments, Council has a responsibility to show what was delivered.

London’s growth depends on roads, transit, water and wastewater systems, emergency services and community facilities. How would you determine which investments proceed first, pay for growth fairly and maintain competitive property taxes?

Infrastructure decisions should start with necessity, not politics.

I would prioritize projects based on public safety, condition of existing assets, growth pressure, economic importance, cost of delay and whether the investment unlocks housing, employment or essential services.

Growth should pay a fair share of the infrastructure it requires, while Council must also understand the consequences of excessive charges that ultimately increase the cost of housing and investment.

Before approving a major project, Council should know the full lifecycle cost—not only construction, but operation, maintenance, repair and eventual replacement. Deferring necessary maintenance can make one budget look cheaper while creating a much larger bill later.

Competitive property taxes require discipline about timing, scope and priorities, not simply cutting services.

For major investments I want Council asking: What problem are we solving? What does this enable? What is the long-term cost? What happens if we delay? Is there a better way to achieve the result?

London City Council approved the Climate Emergency Action Plan in 2022. The Plan calls for a 55 per cent reduction in community-wide greenhouse-gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2030. Which elements of the Plan would you prioritise, accelerate or change during the next Council term? How would you ensure that climate action strengthens resilience, affordability and economic competitiveness for residents and businesses?

Climate policy should improve how London functions, not become a competition to announce the biggest target.

I would prioritize measures with multiple benefits: energy efficiency that lowers long-term costs, flood protection and stormwater infrastructure that protect property, a stronger tree canopy that reduces heat, practical transit improvements, and land-use decisions that reduce unnecessary infrastructure and transportation costs.

Major climate spending should face an affordability and effectiveness test: expected emissions reduction, full cost, impact on residents and businesses, and whether another approach can achieve more for the investment. London should pursue provincial, federal and private funding where it can accelerate worthwhile projects without simply transferring costs to local taxpayers.

Council should report what major measures cost, what they achieved and whether they performed as expected.

The strongest climate action should produce tangible benefits: lower costs, less flood damage, cooler neighbourhoods, reliable transportation and resilient infrastructure—not simply better reporting of targets.

How should Council respond when strong-mayor powers are exercised, and how would you use your role as a councilor to provide effective scrutiny and accountability?

Strong-mayor powers make independent scrutiny by councillors more important, not less.

I would support a mayoral decision when the evidence, cost and public interest justify it, and challenge it when they do not. A councillor’s job is neither automatic opposition nor automatic agreement. It is to examine the decision, ask difficult questions and be accountable for the vote.

Accountability must extend beyond Council meetings. If elected, I will publish monthly plain-language Ward 13 reports explaining major decisions, how I voted and why, what I raised at Council, what moved forward, what stalled and what happens next.

Residents should not have to wait four years to determine whether their councillor did what he said he would do.

My standard is simple: show the work, show the decision and show the result.

What role should arts, culture and the creative industries play in London’s economic and community development? How should the City support cultural organisations, artists, venues, festivals and creative businesses while ensuring that municipal investment produces lasting public value?

Arts and culture are part of economic development, downtown recovery and what makes talented people want to live, work and stay in London.

The City should make it easier for artists, festivals, venues and creative businesses to put good ideas into action through accessible public spaces, reasonable permitting, fewer unnecessary barriers for smaller organizers and partnerships that help successful activity grow.

Public investment should have a clear public purpose, but that does not mean every cultural investment must make a profit. Value can include attendance, tourism, downtown foot traffic, youth participation, accessibility, neighbourhood activity and opportunities for local artists and businesses.

Restaurants, music, theatre, festivals, sports, heritage and public events can create after-hours activity and support surrounding businesses. But culture cannot carry an unsafe block; cultural investment must be matched by safe, clean and usable public spaces.

The goal is creativity that produces both community value and economic activity.