Dear editor:

Part three of a long-view perspective, my series of letters, draws our attention to economic development.

There’s only been a modicum of thinking about that since the Disero council — occasional mention of “strategic planning” amid preoccupations with tourism, hotels and housing development. Arguments for a more balanced strategy have occasionally been acknowledged, but mainly ignored.

The case for balance was simply put almost a decade ago. We had a medium-term tax problem — too many houses, not enough businesses to support a growing load.

The math was compelling as agricultural and not-for-profits, important as they are, pay less or no municipal tax. Compounding this was, and still is, the overshare we pay regionally for certain services, particularly policing.

So, despite increased revenues from parking charges and the municipal accommodation tax, concerns continue to grow about the increasing burden on residents and the vulnerability of our town’s reserves given growing demands for infrastructure.

Two of us were mandated to consider this dilemma and report back about what NOTL should be considering strategically to offset this trend.

That process took about a year and involved several meetings, over 50 business and community leaders as well as a look-about at certain other municipalities.

Our report “Strategic Direction: Ensuring Balance in a Thriving Community NOTL — Economic Development Strategy” was published and presented to council in November 2019.

The report is extensive, yet hard to find on the net — I can provide a copy for anyone interested in its detail. It’s still well worth a read.

Essentially, it underscored the need for developing a 21st-century economy keying off our cultural and agricultural strengths, but factoring in other assets, which were well-documented.

A planning clusters-innovation hubs approach was taken that embraced the entire community (each village including Glendale, the Highway 55 corridor, the airport, rural areas), acknowledging the requirement for new businesses and job creation that included a younger, creative generation, who would be instrumental in propelling our economy forward.

The role of local government would be facilitative, the drivers being clusters of institutional and local leaders who had been identified and consulted about a way forward.

Looking back in an attempt to update and summarize, I still believe we need to balance our economic development as a four-part thrust:

Tourism is obvious but, as previously noted, requires moderation. Hopefully we will be adept enough to avoid a citizen backlash as has become commonplace elsewhere;

History, culture and artistic endeavors are evolving, individually, and as a package. More collaboration is forthcoming utilizing the considerable resources at Niagara College and on the net — innovation for local trial as well export for institutions and audiences well beyond Niagara;

Agriculture is also paramount but needs to be leaning more towards 21st-century innovation. Apart from viticulture and food, my impression is we are lagging others, including some close neighbours;

Stimulating a startup economy is also critical for fostering new businesses — outward looking, typically employing younger people. Incubation is commonplace elsewhere, effective and inexpensive to create. Tech, healthcare and education come to mind.

My sense remains that Niagara-on-the-Lake can be thought of and become more of a “creative common” (all four components above are or can be creative).

That’s a brand that many would understand and rally to support. Mapping that out doesn’t call for more consultants — we have plenty of underutilized talent at close reach.

A new council presents an opportunity.

Terry Mactaggart
NOTL