2026 London Municipal Election: Tammy Abi-Khalil – Councilor Ward 9

Name: Tammy Abi-Khalil

What position are you running for? Councilor Ward 9

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’s greatest opportunities are its growing population, strong health and education institutions, skilled workforce, strategic location, and diverse base of entrepreneurs and employers. Its obstacles include rising costs, slow and uncertain approvals, infrastructure that has not kept pace with growth, public-safety concerns, and difficulty connecting people to jobs.

The City should establish clear service standards for business applications, assign a single contact to major investments, maintain employment lands, and publish timelines and outcomes. Small businesses deserve the same attention as major investors. I would bring employers, Western, Fanshawe, newcomer organizations, and workforce agencies together around practical training, co-op placements, apprenticeships, and pathways into local jobs. Our goal should be simple: help businesses start, grow, and remain in London while giving graduates and skilled workers compelling reasons to build their lives here.

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 do not believe Council should approve more discretionary downtown spending until it deals properly with the problems already harming residents, businesses, and people in crisis. Safety, cleanliness, open drug use, recurring disorder, vacant storefronts, and encampments cannot be treated as side issues while taxpayers are asked to fund another project. People will not live, work, shop, or invest downtown if they do not feel safe.

Before any new proposal moves forward, residents deserve a complete and searchable public accounting of downtown spending: how much was approved and actually spent, where the money went, who received it, what was promised, what results were achieved, and what ongoing costs remain. Council should compare the benefits with the financial and community costs, disclose who benefits, identify what did not work, and explain what less costly or more effective alternatives were considered.

I support housing and a strong downtown, including sensible conversions of suitable vacant buildings, but there should be no blank cheques and no spending simply because it has always been done. Council needs a public scorecard tracking safety, vacancies, housing created, business openings and closures, foot traffic, program outcomes, project costs, and completion dates. We must fix the conditions that are driving people and businesses away, learn from failed approaches, and invest only when there is a clear plan, measurable public benefit, and accountability for results.

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?

The status quo is failing both people in crisis and the wider community. I oppose open drug use, unobserved safer-supply distribution, and treating encampments as an acceptable long-term response. These approaches manage the immediate problem without creating a real path out of addiction, homelessness, and repeated crisis.

Housing is essential, but a key alone cannot provide detoxification, mental-health care, addiction treatment, trauma support, life skills, employment assistance, or the sustained follow-up many people need. We must understand and address the reasons each person became homeless rather than apply the same short-term solution to everyone.

Council should speak with one voice and press the provincial and federal governments to fund treatment beds, recovery programs, mental-health care, supportive housing, and justice reforms within their responsibilities. Locally, we need coordinated outreach, safe public spaces, consistent enforcement when conduct threatens others, transparent outcomes, and services focused on recovery. Real compassion helps people rebuild their lives; it does not leave them trapped in the same cycle.

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

London is growing and needs more housing, but growth must be planned properly and protect the character of our established neighbourhoods. New development should fit its surroundings and respect reasonable scale, trees, heritage, privacy, and quality of life. Roads, water, wastewater, schools, parks, emergency services, transit, and access to jobs must be planned with growth, not added afterward. Residents deserve meaningful input early in the process.

There is too much bureaucracy in City approvals. I would require clear rules, one accountable point of contact, coordinated reviews, firm timelines, digital applications, and pre-approved designs where appropriate. Duplicate studies and unnecessary delays raise housing costs without improving outcomes. Applications that follow the rules should move quickly; proposals that do not fit their context should be revised, not rubber-stamped.

I support ownership, rental, supportive, and attainable housing, including sensible additional units and conversions of suitable underused buildings. Good growth adds needed homes while strengthening the neighbourhoods’ people already value.

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?

The next Council should begin with a public, city-wide assessment of cultural buildings, venues, libraries, museums, performance spaces, and public gathering places. Decisions should consider safety, physical condition, accessibility, utilization, operating cost, geographic need, economic impact, and the ability to attract partners and outside funding.

My priority would be maintaining and improving assets that residents already use before committing taxpayers to a costly new landmark without a sustainable operating plan. Urgent accessibility, safety, and state-of-good-repair work should come first. Investments that support year-round programming, shared use, local artists, festivals, tourism, and downtown activity should receive serious consideration.

Every major proposal should publish its full capital cost, future operating subsidy, expected attendance, community benefit, funding partners, and alternatives. The City should invite cultural organizations and users into the planning process, but Council must make the final decision openly and ensure that promised public value is actually delivered.

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?

Businesses, employees, seniors, and families need safe, reliable transportation matched to how people actually travel. My plan proposes a flexible neighbourhood transit model using smaller shared vehicles in underserved or lower-demand areas to connect residents with hubs, higher-frequency routes, and rapid transit. Larger buses should be concentrated on busy corridors where their capacity is needed. The system must consider the whole trip, including getting people home from the hub, and test optional door-to-door service for those who need it.

I would begin with the proposed on-demand service in southwest London and test vehicle sizes, booking methods, service boundaries, operating hours, fares, transfers, and pickup models. The pilot should measure cost, wait times, travel times, reliability, passenger experience, fuel use, and vehicle wear. Where evidence supports it, smaller vehicles could replace lower-demand conventional service instead of adding another permanent cost. Existing transit dollars should be used more intelligently.

London should also coordinate local service with intercity buses, VIA Rail, and the airport, improve access to employment areas and shift work, and keep roads and key intersections aligned with growth. We should test, measure, publish the results, and adjust the model based on what residents actually need.

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 make it easier to invest and comply with the rules, not make applicants chase departments for answers. I would support published service standards, a single accountable case manager, concurrent departmental reviews, clearer checklists, early identification of problems, digital status tracking, and automatic escalation when an application misses its timeline. Rules should be necessary, understandable, and applied consistently.

Procurement should be open to qualified local and smaller firms, with proportionate insurance and experience requirements, prompt payment, plain-language opportunities, and transparent evaluation criteria. Contracts, bid results, amendments, conflicts of interest, costs, and performance should be available through a searchable public portal, subject only to legitimate legal and privacy limits.

Customer service should be measured through response times, resolution rates, applicant feedback, and published results. Modern service does not mean lowering safety or quality standards. It means providing timely decisions, accountable staff ownership, and a clear path from question to resolution.

I would also support regularly reviewing municipal regulations to remove requirements that are outdated, duplicative or no longer producing a clear public benefit.

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?

Reconciliation must be built through respectful partnership, practical action, and honest accountability. The next Council should work directly with local First Nations and Indigenous organizations to prioritize the 155 actions, identify responsibilities, establish realistic timelines and budgets, and publish measurable progress. The City should not treat the number of completed activities as more important than whether services and relationships genuinely improve.

Economic development should include Indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs in outreach, investment, training, and procurement opportunities. Procurement rules should reduce unnecessary barriers while maintaining fair competition and value for taxpayers. Planning and cultural investment should involve Indigenous partners early, respect heritage and local knowledge, and avoid consultation that occurs only after decisions are effectively made. Municipal staff serving Indigenous residents should receive relevant, practical training.

I would expect annual public reporting on costs, outcomes, delays, and next steps, developed with Indigenous partners and written clearly enough for all Londoners to understand.

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 priorities should protect public safety and core services. Water, wastewater, roads, bridges, emergency services, and community facilities must come before less urgent projects. Maintaining what the City owns is less expensive than allowing it to fail.

Residents deserve a searchable online portal showing, for each City budget, reserve, project, and development-charge fund, amounts collected or approved, spent, committed, and unused. It should identify where the money went, who received it, the promised result, and timeline. For development charges, it should show growth projects funded, remaining balances, legal restrictions, and planned use.

Unused money should not quietly fund more spending. Council should explain why funds remain, the obligations, alternatives considered, and how much can legally reduce future taxes, lower debt, or return value to taxpayers. Surplus not needed for a defined obligation should go back into people’s pockets. Major projects must disclose lifecycle costs, timelines, risks, and overruns before proceeding.

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?

I would review the Climate Emergency Action Plan line by line rather than automatically continuing every commitment. My priorities would be practical measures that protect Londoners and produce measurable local benefits: flood protection, resilient water and wastewater systems, tree canopy, emergency preparedness, energy efficiency in municipal buildings, and transportation choices that reduce congestion and household costs.

I would change or reject measures that impose unaffordable costs, shift burdens onto families or businesses, duplicate senior-government programs, or pursue symbolic targets without demonstrated results. Every initiative should disclose its full cost, expected emission reduction, effect on taxes and affordability, impact on businesses, and available alternatives. Progress should be reported publicly using consistent data.

Climate policy should strengthen infrastructure, reduce waste and energy costs, and improve resilience. It should not become a blank cheque or a reason to bypass local priorities, public consent, or rigorous cost-benefit analysis.

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

I do not support special powers that concentrate authority in the mayor’s office. A great leader includes all members of Council, listens to residents across the city, encourages debate, and builds consensus. The mayor should lead Council, not govern around it or the public.

Each councillor is elected to represent a community and must have a meaningful role in budgets, services, and major policies. Residents deserve early public information showing who made a decision, the supporting evidence, its cost, and how each councillor voted.

As a councillor, I would use questions, motions, budget amendments, committee work, and recorded votes to represent residents and demand accountability. I will support proposals that benefit Londoners and challenge decisions that are rushed, unaffordable, unsupported, or contrary to the public interest. We are elected to serve the people, and no office should be above scrutiny.

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, culture, festivals, music, and creative businesses contribute to employment, tourism, community identity, and quality of life. However, people cannot fully enjoy these opportunities when the surrounding streets and public spaces feel unsafe, unclean, or affected by ongoing disorder. Cleaning up the city and addressing the serious problems residents and businesses face must be part of making cultural investments successful.

The benefits should also reach every community, not be concentrated only in the downtown core. Residents across London should have access to local events, arts programming, libraries, community spaces, and opportunities for young people and families close to home. City support should be available fairly to smaller and emerging organizations as well as established institutions.

Funding decisions must be transparent and based on public access, responsible management, local participation, partnerships, and measurable community or economic benefit. I would also reduce unnecessary barriers for events and creative businesses and make municipal spaces easier to use. Public investment should create safe, welcoming experiences and lasting value throughout London.