BACKGROUND
THE PROBLEM WITH CANDIDATE'S BELIEFS
A root problem is lack of understanding of what feeds and fosters humans. Most candidates, whether leaning toward Marxism or Mercantilism, do not trust humans and have a mechanistic mindset. So control is their goal, and they are arrogant enough to think it is their right and that they can predict and determine the future. Their methods are manipulation and exploitation.

Marxism's teaching that humans are uncreative and untrustworthy is the root of environmental activism.
But few people will deliberately spoil their own property in serious ways - indeed you can see gardens and trees around you planted and nurtured by humans, and outside of cities you can see replanted forests growing well (private forest landowners ahead of government). You have clean water and your waste is disposed of in sanitary ways. Problems that do occur are often "tragedy of the commons" - when everyone is responsible no one takes responsibility.
The antidote to that is private property, tort law to address those who err against specific others, and policing of any remaining public property.
Environmental activists use the logical fallacies of "appeal to nature", and the broader "naturalistic fallacy", both vague and loaded with unstated presumptions(which is a con artist's method).

(Persons of neo-Marxist beliefs typically vote against policing, despite their claim to want to help the poor who need defending most as they have fewer resources to recover from crimes against them.)
I say humans are inherently good and productive, that integrity is life-reinforcing, but individuals do err thus defense and justice systems are required to protect against initiation of force.

Property Rights:
Humans must produce to survive. We do so by using our mind.
Earned property is the result of taking action determined by using our mind rationally.
To deny property rights is to deny use of our essential tool for living - our mind, because it stops action.
(Marxism of course teaches fixed-pie economics and drive-to-the-bottom ethics, thus concludes that anyone who has property must have taken it from someone else. And as collectivism it does not recognize any right of individuals to their own lives.)
A problem at the municipal level is NIMBYs, who make falacous claims to control others' property at no cost to themselves. Another is CAVEs, who are against virtually anything people want to do.

Conflict of interest
An element of confusion is morality - politicians will claim honesty in matters such as avoiding conflict of interest, but push their own pet projects at taxpayer's expense, and practice partial confiscation of property to advance their personal ideology. (By restrictions such as retaining decrepid old buildings that burden future generations, payments for "amenities", micro-managing development without good results, pandering to NIMBYs (who just want to control others' property at no cost to themselves), and misguided environmental actions such as Saanich's oppressive EDPA bylaw.) Umm - is promoting own do-gooder projects by force, such as the "art" on the Craigflower bridge a few metres from where Reena Virk was murdered by a vicious bully known to police and school authorities who did not stop her, a conflict of interest?

Spending:
There's a constant clamour to spend other people's money for something.
Officials must have the values and thinking skills to essentialize and priorities, and ability to explain to people that taxpayers cannot and should not fund their pet desires.
Duplication of functions between levels of goverment is a big problem. For example, the Capital Regional District both have environmental and traffic safety bureaucrats.

What we saw in the last Saanich election (2014):
Only a few candidates had half a clue.

Among things many candidates vaguely claimed they were for are the usual "community", low taxes/good finances (but they end up overspending anyway), consultation (but deciding to do what they wanted anyway), "environment" (but do they include humans?), and "vision" (a meaningless buzzword, Kurmudgeon Keith equates that to dreams and fantasies, prefering "principles" and goals) - but at least they omitted the traditional "motherhood and apple pie". A shallow bunch.

"Change" was a notable theme among challengers in the 2014 municipal election - perhaps it always is, but change is not necessarily good. (Saanich and Victoria embraced it for mayor but not for most of council, however the results have been very disappointing, one claimed reformer is anything but.)

In 2017 the popular buzzword seemed to be "accountability", a good principle but too broadly used.
Reducing taxes seemed popular, but I must know what the candidate's spending priorities are and how the candidate plans to actually achieve that under the pressures and confusion of council and lobbying by staff.

Saanich council ignores the obvious bloat in the planning department, exemplified by verbosity and gratuitousness in reports, and by time spent fantasizing about what could be done around the area of Upchuck Mall and Saanich HQ. (In a report that covered concerns about trafic safety on Blanshard street the author suggested automotive showrooms to distract drivers. That shows an out of control mentality with no interest in taxpayers.)
If one points such things out, one gets smeared by managers and councillors, as happened when I exposed sloppiness, omissions, and fundamental errors in the parks department's documents about Cuthbert Holmes Park. (See http://www.moralindividualism.con/cuthbh01.pdf.)

HOW TO START
Begin by identifying individuals with good potential.
Discuss their beliefs with them.
Help qualifying ones organize and publicize.
Vote for the best.

Voters, it's up to you to take positive action for your life, instead of abdicating.