Dear editor,
Your writer from St. Davids, Mr. Peter Rusin, still doesn’t seem to get it (“Hotel plan for Rand makes sense for property,” The Lake Report, June 11).
By way of correction, clarification and, at the same time, pointing out the obvious mistakes, I would like to make the following comments:
1: The continuing misuse of the phrase NIMBY becomes clear when it is used by a person who is a considerable distance from the site and is probably unaffected by any decisions that are made.
2: The past severance of the property, regardless of the reasoning behind this or the point of view at the time, is not a relevant issue to the current dispute. Property severance has never been an issue in this ongoing conflict.
3: Public access to the Niagara River is also not in any way a relevant issue to the current dispute, nor is a potential future council member (being referred to by your writer).
The present owner is an experienced developer. He knowingly purchased this iconic property as it exists with its many heritage, entry and other limitations an has every right to development, subject of course to existing zoning and building bylaws.
Nobody, as far as I know, is objecting or disagreeing with this. He does not, however, have the automatic or given right to amendments of the bylaws just to suit his development plans.
In my repeated opinion, SORE (an organization that can claim that many supporters are situated a considerable distance from the site, and are hardly NIMBYs) is not against development and is simply trying hard to get a proposal by the developer that recognizes and protects the heritage assets at the site and gives future consideration to the surrounding residents and area.
So far this has not been the case, as the Ontario Land Tribunal has determined in its report.
For your writer to make the comment that people are not allowed occupancy at the remaining Rand property is both incorrect and false, as are those that refer to hypocrisy and again to NIMBYism.
To my knowledge, the latest application is a completely new proposal by the developer for the Rand Estate and does not even consider the property severance that has occured in the past.
Derek Collins
NOTL
