Dear editor:

As I read recent editions of The Lake Report, I’ve noticed a strong and consistent theme in the letters regarding the old hospital site at 176 Wellington St.

Many residents are advocating for the property to remain a community space, with several suggesting that council invite creative proposals through a formal request for proposals process.

There is, however, an important aspect of this discussion that has not been clearly addressed, and overlooking it may come at a real cost to both current and future residents.

It appears that council may be jumping too quickly to decisions about what to build and how to use the space, before clearly defining what the community truly wants this place to become.

This is puzzling. Council took a valuable and commendable step by commissioning research, which showed overwhelming support for maintaining this site for community use. That research captured something essential: the collective aspiration of the town.

In my experience — both in the corporate world and in working for a decade with leadership teams building strategy — the most successful outcomes begin with a clear and compelling vision.

Before plans are drawn or solutions are designed, there is a period of imagining: exploring possibilities, identifying what truly matters and asking what kind of legacy a decision might create.

With that in mind, I would have expected the next step to involve council engaging more deeply with the research and a vision for the property. What could this space become for the community? What needs could it meet, not just today, but for decades to come?

And, I would expect council to actively engage with organizations that have already proposed meaningful and inspiring uses for the property.

Instead, the next step communicated to the public was the hiring of an architectural firm to begin sketching potential uses for the site.

More recently, the move toward developing more concrete plans for a parking lot suggests a direction that does not reflect the community’s clearly expressed desire for meaningful community use.

Without a clearly articulated vision to guide these decisions, this risks putting form ahead of purpose — like asking a builder to begin construction before the blueprint has been agreed upon.

Perhaps there are elements of the process that have not been fully shared with the public. If so, greater transparency around the guiding vision would be welcome.

Because from the outside, it is difficult to reconcile the community’s expressed hopes with outcomes that appear (at least in early concepts) to fall short of that potential.

This site represents a rare opportunity. It is not just about land use — it is about identity, legacy and what we choose to prioritize as a community.

My hope is that council will pause, return to the core question of what this place should mean for the community and take the time to articulate a bold and inspiring vision that truly reflects the aspirations of the people it represents.

From there, the practical decisions can follow with clarity and purpose.

Jennifer Reimer
NOTL