Dear editor:

Mr. Hummel appears to be legally correct in part of what he says (“Letter: Deliberate actions of council led to lawsuits,” Oct. 9). This is based strictly on technical court findings. But as he also says, the real issue is not the amount of taxpayers’ money that he has received from NOTL, but the causes.

So what is the real issue? According to Mr. Hummel, it does not appear to be a legal one.

He prefers not to mention anywhere that he and his friend, Mr. Marrota, as developers, are only interested in maximizing their own bottom line. In other words, how much money he can make for himself, regardless of where it comes from and at what cost it may be to others.

On the other hand, in my opinion and experience, the majority of taxpaying residents of NOTL want only to see a respect for the existing character of NOTL and the careful preservation, where possible, of the heritage and history that exists in NOTL for current and future generations.

This is the real and fundamental issue.

It was for this reason that the previous council enacted the interim control bylaw, soon after election, in order to evaluate and understand what appeared to them and to many residents of NOTL at the time to be out-of-control development. To my knowledge, very few opposed such action on the grounds of legality.

Since that time, many developers have applied for amendments to the building code to suit their own proposals. However, the appeals made by some developers of council decisions have resulted in high legal fees caused by them and at taxpayers’ expense.

What Mr. Hummel seems to be saying is that the NOTL council should agree to the amendments that are requested by them, or be prepared to defend against expensive lawsuits.

Derek Collins
NOTL