Back in the late 1960s, the phrase “Go, lemmings, go” was coined to reflect a new generation’s belief that most people would unthinkingly accept the majority opinion and tailor their actions to conform accordingly — even when the inevitable result of doing so would lead to harm.

It implied that the need to belong was so pervasive, individuals would suspend their critical, analytical and even ethical judgment with respect to harmful group actions.

Hence the lemming reference — an animal that was then, and still is today, popularly believed to commit mass suicide during their migration by following the “herd” even as it runs off of cliffs.

What is truly ironic?

While lemmings mass-migrate, they don’t commit mass suicide.

Fact: when Disney was filming “White Wilderness” in 1958, they believed some dramatic footage was in order for the lemming segment to be truly impactful.

So, a “mass suicide” was staged by the simple expedient of dumping out cages of lemmings over the edge of a cliff while employing strategic camera angles to capture this “unreasoning” suicidal behaviour.

Not only was lemming “mass suicide” a total fiction (documented in a 1983 CBC investigation), but all facts to the contrary were completely ignored.

Even more telling, over seven decades later, the vast majority of folks still believe that lemmings commit mass suicide.

It just goes to show how a really good fabrication, told by a very convincing narrator, supported by a clever (albeit misleading) presentation and underwritten by the power of a large organization, can convince many people that fiction is actually fact.

Here in Niagara-on-the-Lake, apparently aided and abetted by several of our elected “representatives,” this narrative has been successfully played out again and again over the term of the current council.

To be clear, the “harm” pursuant to these overtures is directly and unequivocally linked to the existent infrastructure, historical matrix, the designated heritage district and the residential character/liveability of Old Town.

Currently, there is a giant hole in the ground between Gage and Centre streets on King Street, awaiting the foundations for a new hotel. Beginning with the rezoning of the property in 2024, concession after concession has been made to allow the continuance of work on the development.

And, despite seriously flawed engineering studies, notable, potentially disastrous infrastructure, storm and groundwater management concerns, significant over-reach on work being conducted without permits and the flouting of stop-work orders, amongst other issues, town council and staff continue to facilitate the project in the face of serious opposition by experts and the majority of Old Town residents.

Most recently, we witnessed our lord mayor actively — and successfully — lobbying members of the regional council to provide an unprecedented gift to the developer in excess of $900,000 out of regional development charges.

All this predicated on the highly dubious claim that the finished hotel will eventually qualify as a five-star facility — something a couple of the supportive councillors suggested we “needed” to “help fill” one of the town’s “economic gaps.”

Well, it appears a few folks have drank the Kool-Aid.

With site plan approval currently pending staff approval and the power of the mayor’s office behind it, it appears the proposed 19-metre-tall monster will rise to completely alter the residential face of King Street and hollow out the shouldering neighbourhoods.

And, speaking of monsters that will detrimentally alter streetscapes (in this case, the heart of the heritage district) … in a special meeting held on Nov. 18, town council voted 6-3 to approve the zoning bylaw amendment and official plan amendment required for the Shaw Festival to forward their proposed redevelopment of the Royal George.

This decision was a direct response to a letter penned by Mr. Tim Jennings and directed to the members of council.

In this letter, he suggests, the Shaw has invested “over $4 million in design, assessments and engineering,” of which “$1.4 million of that has been spent since July in revisions to the building envelope and systems requested by the town, council, and its committees.”

He continues that any further “material change” will necessitate a “full redesign,” which he claims the Shaw cannot afford.

And finishes with a polite threat: “The most likely outcome of council rejecting the current proposal would be the abandonment of the project by the Shaw and the likely sale of the conjoined property by the board.”

What he fails to mention is that the $1.4 million spent since July was invested in “tweaks” — none of which materially addressed or altered the primary issues with the original design.

Had this organization been truly open, consultative and responsive to the concerns of the town residents, that $1.4 million would have been invested in a fundamentally altered exterior design – for example, presenting as a “village” (or cluster) of buildings with multiple roof surfaces and orientations contextually compatible in scale and form to merge with the shouldering/adjacent properties.

In short, respectful of the heritage district and the neighbours.

Instead, the Shaw’s executive body made a decision to put lipstick and makeup on a pig — at a very sizable cost — apparently believing they could sell it.

And they did. Pour the council another round of Kool-Aid.

Brian Marshall is a NOTL realtor, author and expert consultant on architectural design, restoration and heritage.