Stop voting for the polite management of Sarnia’s decline

In Nathan’s latest column, Oct. 26 is not a personality test. It is a ledger: housing, police money, strong-mayor power, and who Sarnia is actually for.

Sarnia has a habit of treating municipal elections like a polite popularity contest. We look for who sounds tired of City Hall, who promises to “get tough,” or who has lingered around long enough to feel inevitable. That is how you get another four-year term of the exact same fights with a fresh poster.

Oct. 26 is not a personality test. It is a ledger. It is a choice about who gets to survive in this city, whose comfort we prioritize, and whether we are willing to build something real or just keep managing our own decline. Stop voting for vague rhetoric. Vote strictly for the people willing to name a number, a vote they already took, a building, and the exact things they are willing to defund to make this city livable.

Staff and politicians will applaud Sarnia for posting 654 housing starts in 2025. That market-rate number means nothing to a working family drowning in rent. The material facts are stark:

• Rents are up 38 to 42 per cent since 2020.

• Lambton lost a net 190 affordable rentals between 2016 and 2021.

• Lambton’s own plan calls for 1,096 affordable and specialized homes over 10 years, including 412 rent-geared-to-income units that actually touch the wait list.

• Roughly 1,000 households sit on the community housing wait list. Ninety per cent of that list lives in Sarnia, and the housing vote happens at county council.

• About 70 people report sleeping outside in any given month. Indigenous residents make up about 5 per cent of the local population, but 23 per cent of those experiencing homelessness.

Change is terrifying, and I have empathy for homeowners who fear losing the quiet neighbourhood they worked for. But I refuse to validate a polite political machine that weaponizes that fear into NIMBY paralysis. Homelessness here is a manufactured economic reality, not a policing problem with a housing subplot. If a candidate will not commit to overriding a neighbourhood veto when a non-market, supportive housing project hits the planning table, their promises on housing are worthless.

The Sarnia Police Service operating budget is the city’s largest political fact. When Derek Davis became chief in 2022, the operating budget sat at $27.36 million. The board’s figure for 2027 is now roughly $41 million—a $14-million annual jump.

• The board approved a used 2013 Terradyne Gurkha armoured vehicle for $20,000. Upfitting, branding, storage, and ongoing maintenance were conveniently left out of the public report. That is not public safety; it is a spectacle designed to manufacture fear.

• Financing for a new headquarters in the $91-million range was parked in the 2026 budget, not killed. The service is leasing off-site locations while internal reports outline a $4.4-million repair path for the Christina Street facility. Candidates sitting on the police board—or who previously did—must be held accountable for how they voted and whether they stand behind a massive new build, a distributed model, or the repair path.

• The police continuously push a "revolving door" narrative that blames the courts for catch-and-release. In reality, we are asking police to manage social crises that require rooted community care, creating a self-sustaining cycle that demands ever-increasing carceral funding.

Under Strong Mayor powers, the mayor is no longer just one of nine votes. They propose the budget, can veto council, and can push some provincial-priority bylaws with one-third support. Council can only claw a veto back with two-thirds—which they already had to do when they voted 6–3 to override the mayoral veto on the BACE sports campus.

Electing someone who simply wants to "manage decline" with these expanded powers will lock Sarnia into a decade of gridlock.

• BACE: The Curran family donated the 27 acres, but council still faces live capital and operating risks. The key issue isn't just the sod-turning; it’s whether guaranteed, low-barrier public access is written into the contract or if taxpayers end up subsidizing a private club with a city invoice.

• The Waterfront: The 2022 Downtown Waterfront Master Plan outlines a $55-million vision in 2021 dollars. A plan sitting in a binder is not a waterfront. Ferry Dock Hill is the live piece on the table—candidates need to name what they will fund first.

• Empty Storefronts: Vacancies on Christina and Front are an ownership and grant-design problem, not a slogan problem. Paint on a dead block does not create a street.

• Bluewater Power: Sarnia owns about 86 per cent. In 2025 the company sent more than $3.3 million back to the city. A 2000 shareholders' agreement keeps politicians off the operating board. Candidates need to state whether they want increased public reporting from a utility the public already owns.

School boards are on the ballot, and Queen’s Park is tightening its grip. Bill 33 passed in November 2025, paving the way for provincial supervisors across Ontario boards.

Separate from that governance squeeze, the Lambton Kent District School Board is staring down a $3.5-million funding shortfall and 250 fewer students because enrolment-driven provincial funding is falling. Custodial staff have already been laid off, special education assessments and EAs remain backed up, and schools like Northern Collegiate and Alexander Mackenzie sit on renewal lists while $74 million goes to a new build in Forest.

At St. Clair Catholic, the board sold the former Georges P. Vanier school for $1.6 million while other Sarnia Catholic schools run over capacity. The board’s strategic plan highlights "faith, excellence and inclusion." That language is cheap on paper. Deciding who actually belongs in a publicly funded classroom takes real political backbone. Trustee candidates must state what they will do to protect marginalized students when the loudest voices in the room demand their exclusion.

Oct. 26 comes down to a simple question: does Sarnia want another four years of polite, hierarchical management of its own decline, or will we elect people willing to say, in public, what they will fund, what they will stop funding, and who this city is actually for?