Dear editor:
Is Niagara-on-the-Lake at the table — or on the menu?
Reading recent articles in The Lake Report about developments being approved because of provincial pressure, I’ve had a growing sense of déjà vu. We are being told, again and again, that housing targets, infrastructure costs and “fairness” between municipalities leave us with little choice. That this is simply the reality of the moment.
We have heard this story before.
In the mid-20th century, many towns and villages around Toronto were given the same message. Regional authorities argued that small, distinctive communities could no longer stand apart from system-wide solutions. Housing was urgent. Infrastructure was expensive. Planning had to be efficient. The result was amalgamation and, over time, homogenization. Those places didn’t disappear — but much of what made them special quietly did.
The parallels to what Niagara-on-the-Lake is facing today are hard to ignore.
It’s important to be clear about what this is not. This is not a “build nothing” argument, nor a reflexive rejection of change.
Labeling concerns about scale, location, and long-term impact as NIMBYism — or worse — misses the point. The real issue is not whether growth happens, but how, where, and at what cost.
There is a meaningful difference between opposing all development and insisting that development respect the very qualities that make a place worth living in.
History suggests that relying on compromise alone is risky. Once growth pressures are framed as inevitable, mitigation replaces protection, exceptions become precedents and erosion happens one approval at a time. Each decision may seem reasonable on its own. The outcome, years later, rarely is.
Niagara-on-the-Lake is not just another municipality. It is a place of national historical importance and a living community whose economy and identity depend on authenticity, not scale.
Once that authenticity is diluted, it cannot be rebuilt with design guidelines or funding programs.
As Mark Carney recently observed in another context, if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu. That insight feels increasingly relevant here.
When decisions are driven by stronger powers and historic towns respond individually, compromise tends to be one-sided.
That is why this moment calls for leadership. We need our council and civic leaders to step up and work with other historic towns and villages facing the same pressures — to make a clear, collective case for why these places matter, why they need different rules and why protecting them is in the public interest.
Niagara-on-the-Lake is worth standing up for. And if we want to be at the table rather than on the menu, now is the time for communities like ours to speak together, clearly and firmly, about what must not be lost.
Bruce Gitelman
NOTL
