Candidate scorecard
Every confirmed candidate across the Capital Regional District is graded here on the nine policy areas the coalition evaluates. So is the coalition. It was graded using the coalition's own method: we wrote the questions, and we marked the answers.
Livable CRD
Graded across the nine areas it grades everyone else on. Everything under each grade is quoted or sourced, so you can check it.
Nobody who assigns a grade is named
Not one grader is identified anywhere on the site, in any of the nine categories. The scale defines an A as strong alignment with coalition standards, which makes the coalition the ruler as well as the thing being measured.
Elections BC records an authorized principal official, because a registered sponsor must name one. That is a filing requirement, not a disclosure of who marks governance.
Source: livablecrd.ca methodology page; Elections BC sponsor register.
The housing lobby writes the housing questions and marks the housing answers
"Each policy area's questions were written by the coalition organization working on that area, and, where a question carries a grade, that same organization grades the answers to it."
That organization is Homes for Living. Its last election filing recorded 59 donors, of whom 4 were named and 55 anonymous. A housing grade issued under those conditions reports what Homes for Living wants, which was already public.
Sources: livablecrd.ca questionnaire page; 2022 Elections BC disclosure statement as analysed by CRD Watch, August 24, 2025. The donor figures are theirs and we attribute them.
Explicitly non-partisan, in a coalition of campaigns
Homes for Living and Greater Victoria Acting Together both run their own efforts to change council decisions, and the site points visitors toward Dogwood's voting pledge. Partner organizations have already had to answer press questions about whether the scorecard is partisan.
Our view: sincerity and alignment are different things. A group can have the first and still supply the second, and it is alignment that ends up in the grade.
Sources: livablecrd.ca about and partner pages; Victoria Buzz, August 2026.
Written by people who know the subject, about a file councils barely control
Better Transit YYJ, Better Island Transit and Walk On Victoria know this subject, and the coalition grew out of a transportation survey run last election. Bus service is largely a regional and provincial file, so the grade mostly measures agreement with an advocacy position rather than anything a councillor decides.
A serious problem, graded at the wrong level of government
Family Doctors for Saanich is a serious group with a real problem. Almost none of it is a municipal council decision. Grading city candidates on it mostly grades how warmly they discuss somebody else's jurisdiction.
Measures enthusiasm rather than the levers a council actually holds
Our view: the urban forest is the climate file a Victoria council genuinely controls, and canopy growth here slowed by more than half between the 2013 to 2019 period and the 2019 to 2023 period. That is a measurable municipal outcome, and it is not what is being graded.
Canopy figures from Terra Remote Sensing.
Genuinely municipal, marked by the group asking for the funding
Worth asking about, and marked down only for the problem shared across every category on this page.
This is the category where the format works
Curb letdowns and crossings get decided at council. The questions can be answered. A voter learns something. Credit where it is earned, and evidence that the other eight categories could have been built the same way.
Concrete, municipal, and answerable
Same reasoning. We disagree with plenty of positions in this area, and that is not what a transparency grade is for.
Final grade
Incomplete. Nobody here is accused of dishonesty. The problem is that a voter needs two things to use this scorecard, the names of the graders and the source of the money, and both are withheld. The material that would make it worth something, four years of votes by nine incumbents, has been ruled out in writing.
Name the graders. Publish what came in under $99. Grade the incumbents on their votes. Do that and there is nothing left to say here.